3B Public Hearing 2007 0904 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Agenda No. 07-16 August 23, 2007 Page 13 of 19 also has concerns about realigning Alvarado Boulevard. Some of us will recall that we worked with the railroad for more than 10 years to get it realigned as a through street going from southern San Leandro to the northern border as an alternative to Doolittle Drive and East 14th Street. Now, she said, the TaD Strategy wants to interrupt it to give bicyclists - as opposed to cars - a through route. When she brought it up before, she said the response was, "It just looks better." She said she is not happy with the proposed new look of San Leandro Boulevard, either. The width near BART, she continued, was designed to give buses enough room to maneuver without backing up traffic. This whole plan emerged as a "pie-in-sky" best-case scenario of San Leandro's future, and she said that she does not favor a plan that restricts the use of current property owners (e.g., Red Mountain Retail Group) to use their property as it exists. Even though the vision for that property in the future may be ideal, conditions right now make it infeasible, and in the meantime she said she does not see that even if it is legal, that "we have the right to restrict a current property owner from using his property." In addition, Commissioner Collier said that San Leandro needs more affordable housing. She said that she could not afford to buy her own house; $50,000 to $60,000 annually is no longer a "comfortable" wage, and wage increases have not kept pace with housing prices. Whether this situation is addressed as part of the TaD Strategy or as part of each subsequent development she does not know, but something needs to be done. Several in the audience applauded Commissioner Collier's comments. Commissioner Finberg requested clarification on the SP-1 designation. On page 8 of 22 in the Staff Report, it states that "all new development" but on page 5 of 22 that is not clarified. She asked, if Red Mountain were to take the current building and simply remodel it, is that an allowed use? Or must they add a second story to move forward with any development? Secretary Livermore responded that the intent of the SP area would be to require any use of the property to have ground-floor retail with residential above. Another way to look at it, she added, is the Planned Development (PD) District application process, if the lot exceeds 10,000 square feet, allows an option for something other than what the Zoning Code provides. She added that this particular property, as the downtown gateway, was identified as the top priority by the CAC for mixed-use development. It received 19 votes at the last CAC meeting, and the second item on the list (to have a downtown retail plan) received 11 votes. In other words, she suggested that the PD option might not in fact be viable. Ms. Livermore also addressed a few of the other issues that speakers raised. Some of the single-family residential neighborhoods that are in the TaD Strategy area had very high-density zoning in the past. When she arrived in 1991, she remembers perhaps 75 or 85 dwelling units per acre. This did not make a lot of sense because so many of the homes were single-family residences on small lots where such densities were not realistic and some down-zoning resulted. The TOD Strategy now proposes to set new density regulations basically for lots that are at least 20,000 square feet. Those with less than that would be limited to a maximum of 24 dwelling units per acre, and even that would be difficult or impossible on a lot of 5,000 to 7,000 square feet. New development, she explained, is really looked at as infill opportunities on the larger lots. On another point, she stated staff has had a difference of opinion about how to look at the housing policies that have been brought forward by various groups. She said there are some very