<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Industrial Land Use: So what just happened?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25</link>
	<description>The Continuing Story of a City</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:06:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: V Smoothe</title>
		<link>http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25#comment-722</link>
		<dc:creator>V Smoothe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:40:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25#comment-722</guid>
		<description>Re: industrial percentages in other cities. I should post this, but I&#039;m going to have to go look it up again first. I spent forever digging up that data when I was originally writing about this &lt;a href=&quot;http://novometro.com/news_details.php?news_id=2577&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;for Novometro&lt;/a&gt; (the staff report provides no sources for its assertions), and then of course didn&#039;t save my notes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re: industrial percentages in other cities. I should post this, but I&#8217;m going to have to go look it up again first. I spent forever digging up that data when I was originally writing about this <a href="http://novometro.com/news_details.php?news_id=2577" rel="nofollow">for Novometro</a> (the staff report provides no sources for its assertions), and then of course didn&#8217;t save my notes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: V Smoothe</title>
		<link>http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25#comment-721</link>
		<dc:creator>V Smoothe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:38:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25#comment-721</guid>
		<description>CK - 

They aren&#039;t the same thing, but they&#039;re related. Legislation has to clear committees before coming to Council (although it is possible to bypass this step sometimes). This is an overarching policy regarding use of industrial land. What CED will be discussing in April is the specific zoning for industrial areas. Right now, the General Plan designates these areas as one of two categories, Business Mix or General Industrial. In addition to the General Plan designations, these areas are governed by existing zoning that does not correspond to the General Plan. So what the proposal in front of CED will do is create new zoning categories that do conform to the General Plan designations and replace the existing zoning in those areas with the new categories.

Re: Tidewater and the specific plan: I can see how one might get that that idea from my post, but I didn&#039;t mean to imply that the ESP is a foil. It isn&#039;t. CED has been talking about the ESP since September, and it was coincidental that both issues ended up at Council on the same day. In fact, the Council only decided (at the suggestion of staff) on March 4 that the Tidewater area zoning change EIR would be a part of the specific plan process. Lumping them together is just a way to save the City money. The Tidewater area in question is only a small portion of the land that will be covered by the specific plan being created for the land along the Estuary. Since the Council has been talking about this since 2005, I don&#039;t really think that what they did qualifies as backdooring or lacking in a public discourse. The public has had a chance to comment on HBX in the Tidewater area four times this year, and many times in previous years. The issue is more that the Council already knows what changes they want for that land, but want a public process to determine what to do with the rest of the Estuary Policy Plan area. The Estuary Policy Plan update probably deserves its own post, which I&#039;ll try to get to next week.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CK &#8211; </p>
<p>They aren&#8217;t the same thing, but they&#8217;re related. Legislation has to clear committees before coming to Council (although it is possible to bypass this step sometimes). This is an overarching policy regarding use of industrial land. What CED will be discussing in April is the specific zoning for industrial areas. Right now, the General Plan designates these areas as one of two categories, Business Mix or General Industrial. In addition to the General Plan designations, these areas are governed by existing zoning that does not correspond to the General Plan. So what the proposal in front of CED will do is create new zoning categories that do conform to the General Plan designations and replace the existing zoning in those areas with the new categories.</p>
<p>Re: Tidewater and the specific plan: I can see how one might get that that idea from my post, but I didn&#8217;t mean to imply that the ESP is a foil. It isn&#8217;t. CED has been talking about the ESP since September, and it was coincidental that both issues ended up at Council on the same day. In fact, the Council only decided (at the suggestion of staff) on March 4 that the Tidewater area zoning change EIR would be a part of the specific plan process. Lumping them together is just a way to save the City money. The Tidewater area in question is only a small portion of the land that will be covered by the specific plan being created for the land along the Estuary. Since the Council has been talking about this since 2005, I don&#8217;t really think that what they did qualifies as backdooring or lacking in a public discourse. The public has had a chance to comment on HBX in the Tidewater area four times this year, and many times in previous years. The issue is more that the Council already knows what changes they want for that land, but want a public process to determine what to do with the rest of the Estuary Policy Plan area. The Estuary Policy Plan update probably deserves its own post, which I&#8217;ll try to get to next week.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CK</title>
		<link>http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25#comment-718</link>
		<dc:creator>CK</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:19:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.abetteroakland.com/industrial-land-use-so-what-just-happened/2008-03-25#comment-718</guid>
		<description>Is this the same Industrial Land Preservation Proposal that is currently stuck in CEDA committee until their next meeting?  Are they allowed to run discussion about it concurrently in city council?  
As long as we&#039;re protecting the artists in West Oakland, I&#039;m all for the plan.  Let&#039;s just get it knocked out of the way so the city can get on to the other parts of reviving the industrial base in Oakland.  Things like, you know, talking to industrial groups and lobbying for their business.  That would seem like an important part too.
And just for fun, what ARE the industrial percentages of other west coast cities without their ports included?

Also, what&#039;s the point of public input for the Estuary Specific Plan if they&#039;ve already decided what they&#039;re doing with one section of the land?  Doesn&#039;t that defeat the whole purpose?  This smacks of a sweatheart deal and cheapens the purpose of the ESP in the first place.  To me, it gives the impression that the ESP is just a foil to get an EIR in for Tidewater.  I certainly hope this isn&#039;t the case, as the ESP would be extremely beneficial to the rest of the specific area.  It will help address things like sections of the sewers that are still made out of wood(so I&#039;ve been told by the city planners office), improve the area&#039;s crumbling infrastructure and extend the bay trail.
  In all fairness, I would support a change in zoning for Tidewater; It&#039;s a perfect candidate for more HBX zoning.  But to backdoor it in like this without public discourse gives me that covered-in-slime feeling.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is this the same Industrial Land Preservation Proposal that is currently stuck in CEDA committee until their next meeting?  Are they allowed to run discussion about it concurrently in city council?<br />
As long as we&#8217;re protecting the artists in West Oakland, I&#8217;m all for the plan.  Let&#8217;s just get it knocked out of the way so the city can get on to the other parts of reviving the industrial base in Oakland.  Things like, you know, talking to industrial groups and lobbying for their business.  That would seem like an important part too.<br />
And just for fun, what ARE the industrial percentages of other west coast cities without their ports included?</p>
<p>Also, what&#8217;s the point of public input for the Estuary Specific Plan if they&#8217;ve already decided what they&#8217;re doing with one section of the land?  Doesn&#8217;t that defeat the whole purpose?  This smacks of a sweatheart deal and cheapens the purpose of the ESP in the first place.  To me, it gives the impression that the ESP is just a foil to get an EIR in for Tidewater.  I certainly hope this isn&#8217;t the case, as the ESP would be extremely beneficial to the rest of the specific area.  It will help address things like sections of the sewers that are still made out of wood(so I&#8217;ve been told by the city planners office), improve the area&#8217;s crumbling infrastructure and extend the bay trail.<br />
  In all fairness, I would support a change in zoning for Tidewater; It&#8217;s a perfect candidate for more HBX zoning.  But to backdoor it in like this without public discourse gives me that covered-in-slime feeling.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

