pages: CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2015-12-15 | 8 | 542 Smallman, AAPS. Vice Mayor Matarrese stated adjustment and more detail are needed, which could require Planning Board review; that he would like some return since the City would be granting significant value for the property; the goal should be affordable units; incentive should be written into the ordinance to allow additional concessions if the unit is affordable; requested an analysis of the costs to administer the program be provided when the matter returns to Council; outlined development projects that have monitoring requirement; stated a system for monitoring should already exist; adding the second unit program should not be too costly; family units and market units are different and should be handled differently; a definition of a second unit should be included that addresses second units which are within a building and those which are accessory buildings; there should also be a definition of short term rental; lastly, something should be included about legalizing accessory buildings. Outlined AAPS's letter which proposes three amendments: Christopher Buckley, AAPS. Councilmember Oddie inquired how many lots on Bay Farm would be eligible, to which the Planning Services Manager responded that he does not have the exact number, but roughly around 200. Councilmember Oddie stated the ordinance needs more work; that he sympathizes with Mr. Smallman and Mr. Buckley's comments about affordable housing; both Piedmont and Santa Cruz address affordable housing; the proposed ordinance does not really have any guarantees; homeowners are receiving a large benefit; there should be more teeth and specificity; inquired how many units staff would like to have. The City Planner responded two units in five years is not enough; stated the program already has to be monitored every year; the Council can control and adjust the program at the review each year; the matter could also be revisited by Council in one year, including a review of the data. Councilmember Oddie inquired what if the floodgates are opened and there are 100 applications in two months, to which the City Planner responded Council could provide direction to hold a hearing if 100 applications are received in the first two months. Councilmember Oddie stated the revised ordinance should include that the matter would return to Council if the number of units reaches a specific cap; suggested additional scrutiny be added as suggested by AAPS. The City Planner clarified the AAPS suggestion for discretionary review is already on the books today. Councilmember Oddie stated tandem parking could force tenants to park on the street; further stated consideration should be given to the third suggestion offered by AAPS regarding units inside the main building; the matter warrants additional analysis and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council December 15, 2015 | CityCouncil/2015-12-15.pdf |