pages: CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf, 16
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 16 | uses to the end of page 51 under Commercial Recreation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the prior category language; suggested adding: "the new development supports or enhances the mission of the institution " in the Commercial Recreation category to "support or enhance the recreation facility;" stated there are carve outs for recreation areas; expressed support for coming up with language to limit residential use. The City Attorney stated adding any of the commercial categories creates no concern; if Council wishes to add language stating: "residential uses are not authorized," staff will have to return to Council with conforming zoning changes due to the creation of inconsistencies between the General Plan and underlying zoning. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated an application to completely rebuild the recreation center will be submitted; the application will have 6 tennis courts, rather than 18; the land from the remaining courts will be used for housing; discussed the process for building a new health club; stated neighbors in the area do not support the application and desire land preservation; neighbors would like a community-owned recreation facility; community-owned means the facility is either owned by the City or the Home Owner's Association (HOA); if Council includes language in support of recreation use, an applicant can defend the use of housing as supporting recreation; if the goal is not to have housing on the site, Council must direct staff to provide the zoning change via ordinance. In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated Council may amend the General Plan to provide for a wide range or semi-wide range supporting ancillary commercial uses; a wide of commercial uses is most helpful for Planning staff; Planning staff will return to Council for conforming zoning changes, which would presumably eliminate housing for the site and seek to up zone elsewhere; under State law, staff needs to create housing opportunity neutrality; the neutrality can be achieved elsewhere. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is necessary to add the term "ancillary" and whether the commercial uses are limited or unlimited, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the current commercial zoning is broad. The City Planner stated the zoning for the site is the same zoning that applies to shopping centers, which allow residential; there is not a standalone commercial zoning that allows an athletic club and prohibits residential; staff would likely need to create a new zoning district. Expressed support for the General Plan as-is; stated dedicating so much discussion to one parcel is unfortunate; downzoning could be considered a taking issue causing litigation concerns; the City would also run afoul of SB 330; the equivalent housing loss for the site would have to be created elsewhere; the discussion is not a prudent discussion for a General Plan; expressed concern about Brown Act violations due to un-noticed rezoning discussions: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Expressed support for the General Plan; stated the Plan is impressive and will guide in the years ahead; she applauds the work done on the mobility element; the vision turns today's challenges of safety, affordability and climate crisis into opportunities; urged Council to support the General Plan and take every opportunity to resource efficiently through infrastructure and increasing staff budgets; stated transformative projects are complex and need a doubling down on commitment: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda. Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 30, 2021 16 | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |