pages: CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-05-07 | 2 | cornerstone political discussion; there have been many public workshops and lots of public comment; there is broad support for the idea for pursuing changes to Article 26; Measure A reduces Alameda's ability to produce affordable, sustainable, climate-friendly housing and has impacts on lower-traffic development; the State is requiring the City to build more housing, which is restricted by Article 26; he would like to look at becoming part of the solution, instead of pretending that there is no problem and waiting for the State to take away the Council's right to approve housing; one key issue has been the lack of trust in elected officials to do it; Option 4 has some components that allow Alameda to be more in compliance with State law; he has yet to hear that anybody is looking to develop in all the cherished neighborhoods, but, at the same time, there are problems with economic development on Park Street and Webster Street with properties that seek to be redeveloped but have a hard time meeting the existing code and finding a project that is financially feasible; the subcommittee has broadly different views and brought forth some different options, including: 1) not doing anything, 2) removing Article 26, which would give future Council's flexibility, 3) removing just the multi-family prohibition which would allow multi-family on sites that maintain the right density, and 4) amending Measure A to make it clear that it will meet State law. Councilmember Daysog thanked Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft for appointing the subcommittee; stated his voting history recognizes that he supports Measure A as it is, which has been his position all along; Councilmembers represent their truth as much as possible, but there are different truths; Measure A has served Alameda well; voted in 1973 and 1991 Measure A is a blunt instrument that has kept quality of life in Alameda; there are a series of options, but the options desire to change or remove Measure A; Alameda has, in fact, developed multi-family housing, which Measure A purportedly precludes, as a result of some imaginative approaches employed by staff and City Council in 2010; the Boatworks project Council voted on a few months ago specifically implicated Measure A; the burden of proof of altering or removing Measure A has to come from those who want to change it; the amount of multi-family housing being developed in Alameda seems to be moving along in a fashion that allows the City to meet the State obligations with regard to planning for the number of residential units in general, within the context of Measure A; he still needs to hear why Measure A needs to be changed altogether; one reason was impacts on the socio-economic mix, but since Measure A was put in place in 1973, Alameda continues to be economically and ethnically diverse; most of the communications from all perspectives is to hold off on the conversation tonight; he sees the virtue in the public's desire to hold off on the issue. Stated he supports for the conversation and removal of Measure A; urged the housing supply be increased: Jeff Thomas, Alameda. Stated Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) is open to possible changes to Measure A, but the current ad hoc evaluation is premature; the discussion of Measure A needs to consider the full range of possible development rule changes: Christopher Buckley, AAPS. The following public comments were read into the record: Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 May 7, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-05-07.pdf |