pages: PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf, 7
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2009-03-23 | 7 | reduction in setbacks or increase in height. Also suggested was that the concessions be limited to only those mandated by the State of California. In regards to the parking requirements it is suggested that the City require established parking and if the applicant wants to ask for a parking concession the burden of proof will be on them to demonstrate it is necessary. A clarification was made to Page 9, Section 30-17.10b which stated the "City's List of Officially Designated Architecturally and Historic Significant Buildings", should read "properties designated a City of Alameda Historical Monument or included in the City of Alameda's Historical Building Study List". Diane Licatenstein of H.O.M.E.S. stated that they feel there is a need for diagrams showing the designs resulting from changing height and setback limits and design. H.O.M.E.S favors anything that allows a mixture of housing types in Alameda. She stated that Alameda has a satisfactory inclusionary housing program although believes that the 25% affordable housing requirement should be Citywide and not just in the redevelopment area. She also stated that the proposal could potentially damage livability by changing the allowed setbacks and specifically mandating usable public space. She urges the City to evaluate the design impacts the Density Bonus Ordinance might pose and review what design guidelines would need to be adopted based on good planning principles to make the ordinance an acceptable regulation for the City of Alameda. The public hearing was closed for Board discussion. Board member Lynch stated for clarification that the Density Bonus Ordinance does not waive the City of Alameda design guidelines. He also stated that the ordinance needs to have a range of incentives and the option to say no to certain ones. President Kohlstrand requested clarification on the parking requirements. Staff responded that if the developer request that the state's parking requirements are used it will not count as a concession and they can request another one. The developer can request that the parking requirements be reduced even further as a concession. Board member Cook asked for clarification on the list of incentives. Staff responded that the list in the State ordinance is to serve as examples of the types of incentives that may be granted. The developer can ask for just about anything aside from monetary compensation. Board member Cook stated that instead of the increased maximum lot coverage she would rather have a waiver to Measure A and have the buildings connected to allow for more open space around the structures. She also questioned allowing the live/work units within multi-family residential districts stating that a large portion of the main island of Alameda is zoned multi-family and this could bring more industrial uses into those neighborhoods. Page 7 of 12 | PlanningBoard/2009-03-23.pdf |