The agenda is simple for the BCNA general membership meeting Tuesday April 10 starting at 6:45 at the High Road on Dawson.
We’ll begin with introductions and a few announcements.
7:00 we will commence a hopefully informative discussion regarding draft 3 of CodeNext and the BCNA’s position on that. I hope to have some information and a brief PowerPoint to start with. The steering committee has made a recommendation for BCNA’s position, which is below. However, this recommendation was not unanimous and all voices are welcome and will be heard before voting on the BCNA’s position. Thanks–Jesse
Here is the BCNA steering committee’s recommendation. It is a moderate position that does not oppose CodeNext in its entirety and supports many aspects of the current draft.
1) BCNA supports putting CodeNext on the ballot before being adopted.
2) BCNA supports delaying the finalization of CodeNext until at least the end of summer, with extended public input and at least one interim rounds of changes, and BCNA demands that the underlying data and analysis be immediately shared by the City with the community.
3) BCNA supports the following aspects of the current draft of CodeNext:
a) BCNA supports the overall reductions in land use restrictions resulting potential increases in housing supply in the current draft, except for the specific problems stated below.
b) BCNA supports reducing unfair treatment of Bouldin and other older SF-3 neighborhoods by treating Bouldin and other such neighborhoods on a more equal basis than current law.
c) BCNA supports the increased freedom for home occupations, but some aspects of this increased freedom threaten to reduce affordability and are inappropriate, as stated below.
4) BCNA opposes the following aspects of the current draft of CodeNext, and requests:
a) The fee-in-lieu loopholes in affordability standards should be closed.
b) One on-site parking space per housing unit should be required.
c) BCNA requests some limits for visitor traffic for home occupations to be maintained, and believes the new accessory uses and signage permitted for residential areas go too far.
d) The permit process changes that reduce public input and remove accountability by elected officials are not acceptable.
e) The single-family attached loophole should be closed, and the treatment proposed for duplexes should be applied to single-family attached housing.
f) The fee-in-lieu loopholes for sidewalk construction should be closed.
Powered by Facebook Comments