pages: CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-12-01 | 14 | Councilmember Oddie stated there is a zero-sum game in reducing Alameda's housing allocation; inquired how often the allocations are appealed by other cities and the likelihood of any changes to the allocation. Mr. Rentschler responded many communities have appealed their allocation and mixed successes have occurred; stated that he can provide the details to Councilmembers. In response to Councilmember Oddie's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the laws have changed since the last Housing Element; outlined undeveloped land projects; stated staff has provided information and support letters for development of problematic sites; if the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) rejects the support letters, the units must be relocated; the constraints on particular development sites have created delays for years. Councilmember Oddie stated Article 26 prohibits multi-family housing and limits density to 21 units per acre; noted the State can override the prohibitions with a density bonus; stated a multi- family overlay may not comply with the City Charter; requested clarification about what meeting the RHNA allocation would look like under the current provisions. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the State requires cities to show how they will provide for all income levels; cities have a couple options: 1) provide a study to show evidence of affordability for all income groups, 2) find an alternate way to subsidize the affordable housing units, and 3) provide a multi-family option; the City has used option 3 for the last two housing rounds; noted State Law makes the assumption that if a cities' zoning shows multi-family and high-density housing is permitted, the plan will be accepted due to facilitating more affordable housing; should a multi-family housing option not be chosen by the City, the only other options will either not be successful or will be very expensive. Councilmember Oddie stated that he will be interested in seeing the outcome; expressed support for seeing the practical implications of the City's constraints; outlined the lack of success in challenges to the State; stated that he respects the will of the voters; outlined Section 7.5(1) of the Constitution of the State of California; stated just because something is voted on by the people, does not necessarily make it right; the fight for housing equity and justice is not over. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the housing crisis and need for housing will remain if the economy crashes and whether there is no State requirement for a city to provide a 30-unit per acre multi-family housing overlay. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the overlay is one option that could be used at the City's discretion to illustrate accommodation of lower income categories. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired whether the City can exercise Option 2 and fund the affordable housing without being in violation of the City Charter. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the Charter states no multi-family housing and no residential densities over 21 units per acre; noted the State will pass cities allowing multi-family and 30 units per acre. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 December 1, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf |