pages: PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2008-05-12 | 4 | partnerships that owned the then-vacant parcels in the North Loop area and all the land from North Loop westward to the Ferry Terminal, voted in writing in favor of an amendment to the business park's CC&Rs that allow the deannexation of the project property from the business park to allow the Village VI project to go forward, subject to certain conditions that the project sponsor put in, such as the $500,000 designated for road improvements of Harbor Bay Parkway, a sound wall, a buffer, and noise mitigation easements. He believed that if those property owners were genuinely concerned about the future land use compatibility issues, or that they would not be able to sell that land and develop them commercially in the future, they would not have voted for the amendment to the business park CC&Rs that allowed Village VI to go forward. Mr. Reedy noted that the objective, factual findings would be found in the updated EPS report. He noted that any ridership was important to the Ferry, and that the City Council made the ongoing protection and enhancement of the ferry service an important City policy. He believed there would be a special incentive for the homeowners because their homeowners dues would contain a specific subsidy of the ferry. He noted that was not the case in any other neighborhood in Harbor Bay Isle, or elsewhere on Bayfarm Island. He believed the residents who paid that subsidy would be more inclined to use it; the service and the shuttle service to the ferry would be marketed to them. They listed several housing benefits in their report, such as the $1 million voluntary contribution to the City. He noted that ABAG recently gave its allocation for market-rate housing for the City, with 843 market-rate homes. He noted that this project would help contribute to that number. He noted that it would improve the values of existing nearby homes. He believed it would increase opportunities for home ownership for Alameda residents, including current renters, without having to move out of the City. Mr. Reedy noted that under CEQA, if the Port goes forward with projects that have an adverse impact on the City, the City would protest those projects, even if it had approved a housing project on that site. He noted that the February 21, 2006 letter sent from the President of the Port Commission to Mayor Johnson regarding agreement that the Port entered into with HBIA regarding Village VI read: "Residential is the highest and best use of that parcel, and the process and provision set forth in the agreement would maintain and improve the compatibility of land uses at Harbor Bay Isle with existing and future operation and development at the Oakland Airport." He requested that the Planning Board vote to recommend to the City Council that the City would approve the General Plan Amendment and the rezoning. Board member Lynch pointed out Policy 7.2.j, and requested that Mr. Reedy be specific as it related to the word "shall." He inquired whether Mr. Reedy asserted that there was no discretionary process in which those homes need to be approved. Mr. Reedy replied that he was not making such an assertion, and that it did not mean that they "may" be allowed, but that they are allowable. Board member Lynch inquired whether Mr. Reedy understood that the homes may be built by right; while he could follow the argument, he came to a different conclusion because it had not been clarified. Mr. Reedy replied that the noise compatibility issue would be handled by this policy. Page 4 of 15 | PlanningBoard/2008-05-12.pdf |