pages: PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf, 12
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 12 | the most viable argument since the 25% affordable policy back fired slightly against the City and redevelopment dissolved. Board member Henneberry asked if staff discussed the plan with the development community. Mr. Thomas said staff has not had specific discussions about the 30 units per acre plan, but they have had general discussions over the years. They have had many conversations over the last few years since the City adopted the density bonus incentive. Developers have to come in the Planning Department to ask how they can use this in order to make their multifamily development project work. At the end of the day, there are many factors affect a project's financially viable including the configuration, parking requirements, and conditions on the site. He thinks the discussion of the 30 units per acre versus the 40 units per acre is an important discussion, but he doesn't think it is the only piece of the conversation in terms of what it will take to make that development viable. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked Mr. Thomas could bring representatives from the development community to the next Housing Element Workshop on May 14th in order to talk to the Board about developing this type of housing in the economic climate and elimination of redevelopment funds. Also, in terms of how state law trumps local law in order to construct higher density she asked if any of this precludes some or all of these sites from being a mixture of affordable and market-rate. In the past, the Board discussed not placing all of the City's affordable housing units in one area of town. She referred to Chapter 6, page 6, which states that inclusionary units can under some circumstances and if the Board approves be built at a different site. When the Board discussed the development of Grand Marina some years ago, there was strong consensus to not segregate the unit types. Mr. Thomas stated that City policy requires every project to include at least 15% of its total stock for affordable units. The City also has ordinances and policies that do allow developers to apply to move those units offsite. Staff had one of those applications in the last 10 years and that did not go well. However, he wanted to make sure everyone understood that the City created the affordable housing policy. Under the state requirements, all the City has to do is provide 30 units per acre even if they didn't have inclusionary requirements. Board member Zuppan brought up the need to be realistic before reducing parking requirements. As transit service declines, transit-oriented development that were effective today might not be in the future and in some parts of town there is not adequate parking for residents. Also, not every very low and low-income job type allows employees to use public transit because transit might not be running during their commute time. Additionally, she asked Mr. Thomas to present a recap on how the Multifamily Overlay Zoning designation relates to Measure A. Mr. Thomas said Measure A has two primary components: (1) it prohibits multifamily housing throughout the City; and (2) the maximum density is 21 dwelling units to the Approved Meeting Minutes Page 12 of 23 March 12, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |