pages: PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2007-08-27 | 4 | In response to an inquiry by Board member Lynch whether the City would look at the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in addition to the Density Bonus/Second Unit Ordinance, Ms. Woodbury replied that was not the plan. President Cook inquired how the City could comply with the Density Bonus Ordinance if Alameda did not have much density due to Measure A. Ms. Woodbury replied that was the conundrum, and that going through the process and reconciling City Ordinances with State law would be challenging. In response to an inquiry by Board member Cunningham whether the definition of "condominium conversion" was converting an existing building into individual ownership with tenancy in common, Ms. Woodbury confirmed that was the definition used by the City. Board member Lynch noted that because the City was not in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, he requested that staff bring it to the City Attorney's office to bring the City into compliance. Ms. Woodbury noted that work had been initiated with the consultant to go through that process. She added that staff must go through the AMC to ensure there were no internal inconsistencies. Board member Lynch noted that he applauded staff's efforts, but was also quite concerned that the City may be over the edge of compliance with the law. President Cook noted that the current subdivision ordinance did not provide for open space dedication, and inquired whether that was just for condo conversions. Ms. Woodbury replied that was for all subdivisions. Ms. Woodbury pointed out that according to the status column, the projects were moving along at the same time, but each additional project slowed everything down. Vice President Kohlstrand noted that this was the same list reviewed with City Council, and she believed it was important to understand what studies were underway. She agreed with Board member Lynch that it was also important to understand what City and staff resources were available to the City, and when the projects were scheduled to be completed. She would also like to know whether anything would be left over; if not, it was not productive for the City. She believed it was difficult to go through the priority exercise with the limited information available. Ms. Woodbury replied that nearly everything on the list was started, and that a staff member was assigned to each item. Sometimes, consultants would be available to augment staff, which was a typical practice. She noted that it was difficult to find enough days to hold the kinds of public meetings that were needed to receive the input from the community. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft believed the City should do what was required to get the legal requirements into compliance. It seemed to her that there were several items that could be merged, which should remove some of the time pressure. She inquired whether the staffing Page 4 of 11 | PlanningBoard/2007-08-27.pdf |