pages: PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2012-06-11 | 2 | Board member Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Motion carried 6-0 8. CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted, approved or adopted by one motion unless a request for removal for discussion or explanation is received from the Planning Board or a member of the public by submitting a speaker slip for that item. NONE 9. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS: 9-A. Draft General Plan Housing Element, Land Use Diagram, accompanying Zoning Ordinance Amendments and Addendum. - A public hearing to consider draft amendments to the General Plan and Alameda Municipal Code to comply with State of California Government Code requirements related to the provision and regulation of housing. Board member Köster recused himself. Andrew Thomas gave a brief presentation of the proposed amendments. Board member Ezzy Ashcraft asked if surplus units can be applied to future requirements. Jennifer Gastelum, PMC consultant, stated that up to 25% of previously built units can be applied to current requirements. Board member Henneberry asked about the consequences for not passing the plan at this meeting. Mr. Thomas replied that if the City Council does not approve the amendments, there will not be a certified Housing Element, which means the General Plan is incomplete. If the General Plan is incomplete then the City is not eligible for state funding, the City can be sued, and potentially all decisions and permit approval authority can be taken away until the General Plan is complete. President Zuppan opened the public comment period. Angela Fawcett, representing Park Webster Home Owners Association, stated that additional housing will affect traffic and wants to know what plans are in place to repave and widen McKay Street. Mr. Thomas acknowledged that the City is aware of the problems with McKay Street, which is actually owned by the State. Barbara Kerr stated she is concerned about the Multi-family district overlay and said that a Page 2 of 10 | PlanningBoard/2012-06-11.pdf |