pages: CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-03-10 | 6 | Stated focus should be on solutions, such as the shuttle and ferries; suggested hiring a full time employee to oversee the TDM; discussed the need for parking at the ferry terminal; stated development helps fund traffic solutions: Karen Bey, Alameda. Stated that he received a notice for a 15% rent increase; Alameda Point Partners wants rental housing for Alameda's workforce; Alameda does not have traffic congestion; running buses through the Tubes would increase capacity; single occupancy vehicles are the problem; a moratorium is not needed; high density housing is needed: Jon Spangler, Alameda. Expressed concern over senior citizens being displaced; stated a transitional living community is needed for seniors, which would not create more traffic; expressed support for the Shoreline Drive cycle track, which should be connected throughout town: Linda Weinstock, Mastick Senior Center Board. Stated there should be a comprehensive shuttle service that serves the whole Island: Tony Kuttner, Greater Alameda Business Association. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated the City Attorney explained a moratorium is not a viable option; the risks outweigh any potential benefits; that he does not have a problem with the density bonus ordinance, which he voted for in 2009 because the ordinance includes provisions that protect the City; his issue is the City has not required complete applications prior to granting a density bonus; that he would like staff to revise the ordinance to include checkpoints for the risk that is presented; a financial report or pro forma evaluating whether a density bonus is needed would provide a scale; if a density bonus project in Alameda were compared to one across the estuary, the values and risks for the developer would be different; the return in Alameda would be much higher than Oakland; the application needs to include evidence why it is necessary to provide concessions for the affordable housing; everything required in the application should be completed prior to granting the bonus; if requirements are met prior to issuing permits instead, the developer is already entitled to certain rights that they do not have at the time of submitting the application; protecting the City is important; that he would like to give direction to Planning staff to reconcile the phase options with some protections; the City Council should also consider limits on housing, as long as the limits are within the Housing Element; 2,245 total units is a number based on realistic capacity, which is far lower; the Del Monte's realistic capacity is 200 units and the project is for 380 units; 200 units were included for the site to reach the 2,245 units required in the housing needs assessment; the City should take another look at the zoning; the zoning should be changed to lower the amount for North Housing, which has 282 empty units; a 2009 agreement with the Navy calls for 435 units, with 90 very low housing unit to address the homeless requirement and 30 units of affordable low income homeownership for a total of 120 units, which is 28% of the project; the units would be done without using the density bonus; there are 1,121 units at the site; with a density bonus, there would be 1,233 units, which is almost all of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) in one location; said analysis would help respect the constraints of being an Island; traffic in Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 March 10, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-03-10.pdf |