5A Public Hearing 2019 0204 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

2 building that is taller than what was intended for the site. This should have been pointed out in the staff findings and should have been a point against the proposal, not for it. 2. The staff findings attempt to justify a nearly 50% increase in density above what is allowed under the existing ordinance, in part, on the basis that it is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site as Downtown Mixed Use. However, this argument is disingenuous in that it ignores some very important facts from recent history. In 2016, city staff wanted to upzone all P District lots to DA-2 (downtown area 2), which would have allowed for significantly higher density and taller structures. After strong community outrage over this proposal, city staff rescinded it and instead proposed that the P District permit housing at up to 24 units per acre. The reason why the General Plan considers the P District to be Downtown Mixed Use is an artefact of the rescinded proposal. City staff assured us during public meetings not to worry about the General Plan designation, that the General Plan was nonregulatory and that the zoning code was what would control the use of the site. But now we are being presented with a bait-and-switch, where the nonregulatory General Plan is being used to substantively justify a density that was considered and rejected just two years ago. The city had this debate as to what is the appropriate density for this site, and the City Council unanimously approved 24 units per acre. Why is a nearly 50% increase being justified now? 3. The staff findings further attempt to justify the increased density on the basis that the city needs more housing. This is a circular argument that, if taken to its logical conclusion, would mean that density limitations anywhere in the city are merely suggestions. Of course the entire Bay Area needs more housing, but we could have more housing at 1388 Bancroft if Mr. Silva would propose a building that would comply with the zoning regulations approved just 2 years ago. It is not as if 1388 Bancroft is the only location in San Leandro where more housing could be achieved. Higher density is already allowed in the Transit Oriented Development zone, and higher-density structures like Marea Alta are already being built closer to BART. 4. The staff findings attempt to justify woefully inadequate parking on the basis that the project has a managed parking program (i.e. unbundled parking) and accommodates active transportation modes that provide an alternative to driving. This ignores the important fact that San Leandro is a suburb, not a city like San Francisco. In San Francisco, charging residents for a parking spot works because they have no other parking alternative. In San Leandro, charging residents to park onsite will just result in parking on the streets, clogging up further an already congested intersection and burdening our community. Further, the fact that the building accommodates alternate forms of transportation does not mean that residents will not also use cars. Residents may use BART or a bus to commute to work, but this may not be always feasible. I, for example, work at a location on the peninsula for which public transportation is not a realistic option. Moreover, many residents will want a car for weekend and other activities. We are not San Francisco; San Leandro does not have the public transportation network to easily accommodate all the transportation needs of people who do not own a car. Moreover, consider the cost Mr. Silva proposes to charge residents for a 2-bedroom apartment, $4000-$5000 per month, plus extra for the parking spot. At that price, he will be attracting pairs of single professionals to split the cost, meaning that likely each will have one car. With the cost of housing already high in the Bay Area, many of these professionals will want to share the space with significant others. As a result, it is not unreasonable to believe many of these units will house four adults, no two of which are related to each other. A parking ratio of 1.2 is simply not adequate for this space.