pages: PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-03-12 | 9 | homebuilders have been precluded from constructing multifamily housing so typically they develop small lot, single-family developments. With the new 30 units to the acre zoning overlay there is no direction that it must be ownership housing or rental housing. Thus, the language provides a whole range of housing types, which the developer can come in and leverage outside financial resources. Board member Knox White explained that one of the conditions for the emergency shelters should be accessibility by public transit. He did not see it in the staff report or the amendments, but Mr. Thomas stated it was there so that gives him hope. He also encouraged the Board and staff to include affordable and workforce housing terms. Especially because workforce housing is usually market rate and that sets the Board towards the goal of providing that type of housing. He referred to Chapter 2, page 6 (attachment 2) and asked if the definition of "family" is included in the definitions section. He found it odd that in the middle of the page the definition of family was in the header. Ms. Gastelum replied that the definition would be included in the section, so staff won't have to call it out. However, the state wants the City to tell them that they are doing it. So, in the future it will not be found there. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft brought up a comment from Board member Knox White about how emergency shelters should be close to public transit. She referred to Chapter 6, page 10 where It states "These vacant sites and under utilized parking lots are close to both services and transit." Board member Knox White replied that the sites chosen by staff suggested they be within proximity to public transit. Yet, just in case the City decides to change where zone M-1 and M-2 are located, then the City retains the idea that the sites must be close to public transit. Board member Knox White referred to Chapter 3 page 18, which talks about one of the goals from the 1990 Housing Element. The goal calls for review of the City's parking standards to facilitate infill development. One of the biggest drivers for both housing costs and hurdles to housing is the onerous parking requirements that we put on it. He suggested that instead of striking out everything that allows for in-lieu fees, they follow through with that and do the review, not necessarily as part of the Housing Element Update, but have the review take place. Furthermore, in Chapter 6 page 10, he suggested removing the parking requirements in the Housing Element that are specifically in the General Plan since the City ordinances already have parking minimums that deal with that already. Also, within Table 6.2, Parking Standards, he suggested that they rely on the City's ordinances that have parking minimums in place and take it out of the Housing Element. He referred to Chapter 5, page 8 and Table 5.4 (List of Sites) and noticed that Ron Good is not identified as a multifamily house. He believes that the bigger issues with the use of the multifamily designation is that the City is trying to meet a certain number based on the availability of land so that the state will certify the Housing Element. Although the City is applying in places that make sense numerically, it does not necessarily have placement close to public transit. For example, the Chevy site will never have a bus that runs near the site unless it will do a big Approved Meeting Minutes Page 9 of 23 March 12, 2012 | PlanningBoard/2012-03-12.pdf |