pages: PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2009-03-23 | 6 | Staff addressed previously asked questions and concerns regarding the Density Bonus Ordinance. One of the questions was whether the City can place a cap on incentives or concessions. The City can include caps in the Ordinance but by doing so the applicant can still request an exception to those caps. Another item of clarification was the mobile home park section which has been amended to state Mobile Home Parks for Senior Housing. Section 30-17.10b was changed to read that historic properties will be identified by the National Register of Historic Places and the references to Measure A have been changed to read Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter. Staff gave a power point presentation outlining the Density Bonus Ordinance and Negative Declaration. Vice President Ezzy Ashcraft commended staff for providing a thorough report. She questioned if the rights of tenants are preserved in a condominium conversion under the Density Bonus Ordinance. Staff responded that the tenants rights are preserved. Board member Lynch asked what portion the redevelopment area of the City covers. Staff responded that the redevelopment area consists of all of the Alameda Point/Alameda Landing area and from that area all the way across the Northern Waterfront to Bridgeside Shopping Center at Fruitvale Avenue. All of Webster Street and Park Street are also on the map. Board member Cook asked if the City can negotiate with the developer regarding a concession that is on the list. Staff responded that the City can negotiate on concessions but the City will need to prove that the concession is not necessary to make the project feasible. Staff also stated that it is important to craft a list that the City does not want to grant exceptions to. Board member Cook stated that she believes the shorter the list the easier it will be to negotiate the concessions. Staff mentioned that the developer can request a concession that is necessary to make the project feasible and the City would need to prove that the project can work without it. The public hearing was opened. Christopher Buckley of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) referenced a letter sent to the Planning Board which has since been adopted by APPS as a recommendation. The letter stated that the society is concerned with the way the Ordinance is crafted that it may allow too many incentives or concessions that could adversely affect the character of Alameda's neighborhoods. Also stated was that the Ordinance should include caps on the amount of increase and decrease on items like a Page 6 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf |