pages: CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2012-10-02 | 6 | Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing could be raised, to which the Acting City Planner replied in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding affordable housing, the Acting City Planner stated affordable housing requirements were discussed in the staff report and Planning Board meeting; an 11-14 unit project needs to provide two affordable homes; the property owner also owns two adjacent units that are already built; the property owner has two options: dedicate the two lots from the subdivision for affordable housing or dedicate the two existing homes for affordable housing. Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the zoning was discussed. The Acting City Planner responded the site has been zoned R-2-PD for a long time; the Planning Board did not take action on the zoning. Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council could approve the subdivision map and take Condition 9 separately. The City Attorney recommended that the Council address Condition 9 first and then take action on the tentative map. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of taking Condition 9 out of the tentative subdivision map. Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion. Councilmember Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the motion because of the need to preserve future land use possibilities consistent with the General Plan requirement to provide pedestrian and bicycle access; she has no understanding whether future flexibility is being eliminated; there should be a fuller community discussion about the security issues; she does not have enough information to support or oppose the motion. Mayor Gilmore stated if the Council removes Condition 9, a future Council could want the easement to put in a path; the only real difference is that the easement would probably cost money whereas now it is free. The Acting City Planner stated the land would have to be purchased from the property owner in the future, but right now the land would be included in the project. Vice Mayor Bonta stated leaving Condition 9 is not voting for a public right-of-way, rather the option is left open for the future and would require a public hearing before any decision is made to actually have the public right of way; questioned what the costs might be to purchase the land later. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 October 2, 2012 | CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf |