Affordable stock is obviously an ongoing concern. One would assume that any existing stock in 1994 will be relatively more affordable than any new housing built between now and 2020, excepting subsidized units in new development.

My blood sugar wouldn’t allow for more thorough reading at the moment, but in the Housing Element Chapter II on implementation,I got to item B, 1, f. which states a goal of rezoning industrial for residential, “where appropriate”. I had hoped to ferret out where “appropriate” is defined and hopefully applied to specific areas such as Collin’s lot, but I had to eat.

When faced with redevelopment of large areas such as FISC, I don’t have a fundamental objection to more residential units, or more of anything, if the impacts are adequately evaluated and presumably mitigated. At FISC and the Point we have an ongoing debate on those issues. But for the North Waterfront in an area such as where the Collins and Fox lots are, I am confused why there was a perceived priority to rezone residential.

In the case of the nursery lot on Blanding near Broadway, a new building was built to house new light manufacturing uses. The Historic Advisory Board has recently heard two cases where buildings on Clement near Broadway are undergoing substantial renovation for commercial use. One is a cabinet and mill work shop and the other is world headquarters for Buested Construction.

I have no idea what the merits of the Collins current suit may be. I do recall that on Collins 1 or maybe 2, the plan seemed to be to build as many Measure A compliant units as possible and make as much money as possible. I specifically recall, then PB member Marie Gilmore telling Collins that while it was clear what Alameda could do for him, it was not at all apparent how Alameda was supposed to benefit. Apologies to Marie if that paraphrase falls short.

I probably don’t know enough of the big picture with regard to what has driven these proposed changes, but I still think it reasonable to continue light industrial uses along that area. Time to re-read the G-plan.

To me, open space is a separate issue from the adjacent zoning. There are existing residences and industrial uses. Having a place to eat lunch while working in an industrial setting all day is a as legitimate as wanting a park near to ones home.

As to the housing issue, I thing McGillis hit the nail on the head, the city’s current zoning, which is suppose to guide planning, is not in compliance with the General Plan’s housing element (what that means for the lawsuit, I have no idea).

Mr. Collins requested that the City rezone his entire property to be in conformance with the City’s General Plan - either to Residential or Mixed Use. The City rezoned only half of the property to R-2 (Residential) leaving the estuary half of it zoned its current designation of M-2.

M-2 General Industrial/Manufacturing differs from M-X which is Mixed Use.

The current M-2 zoning of the site is not in conformance with any element of the City’s General Plan – particularly the Housing Element which shows housing over the entire area.

The City’s refusal to rezone all of his property per the General Plan is one of the points of contention in the lawsuits.

That is how it’s zoned, so what’s wrong with not building housing units, except Collins would make much more money with the latter?