pages: PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf, 3
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-05-12 | 3 | difference between the impact if the use stayed under the current zoning and developed as a business park, versus a residential development. He noted there would be no consequential difference in the cost of services. He believed that the residential use was substantially more valuable on a per square foot basis for the developer, and therefore, the assessed value will be higher. He added that the property taxes to the City would also be higher. He noted that the residential value was enhanced by having higher square footage, which would generate an assessed value of approximately $87 million, versus $52 million of commercial. Taxed at 1%, the $35 million difference would yield an additional $350,000 in revenues. He noted that the higher turnover for residential meant the values would continue to keep pace more than commercial uses. He noted that the residential use would come to market sooner than industrial use. He noted that residents would spend more in the City than employees who come to Alameda to work. Mr. Daniel Reedy, land use attorney for applicant, noted that he had prepared his original remarks to go through the draft resolution in the staff report, and he now understood that has since been changed. He had read the new response to comments on the FEIR, and he understood there would be a hearing on the adequacy of the EIR at this hearing. He noted that while they did not agree with every word in either the DEIR or the response to comments, they did concur with staff's recommendation that the FEIR adequately addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and was reasonably complete. He did not believe there was an issue of continuing to keep going on the EIR in gathering more responses or comments. Regarding the merits of the project, they respectfully differed from staff's analysis of the General Plan policies, and had submitted what they perceived to be the pertinent General Plan policies. He suggested that some of the policies focused upon by Mr. Thomas were aimed at the City commenting on the operations of the airport, as opposed to the City's own business of land use designation. He noted that pages 4 to 6 of their summary also addressed Policy 7.2.j: "New or replacement residential development shall be allowed between the 65 decibel CNEL settlement and the 70 decibel CNEL contour on Bayfarm Island, if the property is subject to a noise easement." Mr. Reedy noted that the City Council acknowledged in the October 9, 2007, settlement agreement that the Village VI proposed to "only a minor amendment of the existing and proposed approvals for the buildout of Harbor Bay Isle permitted under the development agreement." He noted that they did not see it as a major challenge to policies in the General Plan that linked to the development agreement. He noted that draft Finding #2 missed the General Plan's Table 8.1 (Land Use Compatibility Standards for Community Noise Environments), and that residential land use was classified as "conditionally acceptable between the 65 CNEL and 70 CNEL contours." He noted that all that was required was a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements, and noise insulation features must be incorporated into the houses. He noted that those conditions will be met in Village VI. Mr. Reedy noted that the question had been raised whether the Village VI project will impair the City's ability to attract new businesses to the business park. He noted that the parcels ringed by North Loop Road were already developed, with the exception of Peet's Expansion Parcel. He noted that it was significant that in July and August 2005, a majority of the property owners in the business park, those with existing businesses and the Page 3 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf |