pages: CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2020-12-01 | 15 | Vice Mayor Knox White stated the City can meet the Housing Element without violating the City Charter; questioned whether the City can effectively spot-zone; stated wide swaths of the Island will need to be zoned in order to use the multi-family overlay of 30 units per acre. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the City needs a Housing Element that HCD approves; the City must work with the business associations to identify businesses that are willing to build housing above establishments; it is to the City's benefit to rezone corridors; noted the City must report to the State annually, which means the City is constantly tracking progress. Vice Mayor Knox White inquired once a multi-family (MF) MF overlay of 30 units is placed, is it a violation of the Charter. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded shopping centers are a great example and are useful in discussing overhead units; outlined units per acre limitations; stated the City has the land to get to 4,900 units; the question is which land is best to use and how dense to build. Vice Mayor Knox White stated there are two issues: 1) the RHNA housing allocation and 2) ways to certify the Housing Element; there is no allocation for the City to challenge at this time; Council has expressed support for the methodology, not necessarily the allocation number; expressed support for making a defensible argument that honors the equity issues; Council should be looking at ways to accommodate 3,200 units should the City build on every possible, available piece of land; in order to honor the Charter, Council must look at being open to considering paths for appealing the allocation numbers and asking for reconsideration; the City has not used the overlay to accommodate a huge number of units; expressed support for using a method which does not rely on the multi-family housing overlay and instead relies on the good-faith arguments to prioritize building affordable housing; expressed support for Council to look into funding affordable housing projects; stated Council should remain open to conversations with the community; he is doubtful that he will be quick to act on any Charter violations which will help meet the RHNA allocation. Councilmember Daysog stated voters were faced with a choice in Measure Z; a yes vote on Measure Z indicated an abandonment of the status quo in regulating residential development of Alameda; a no vote on Measure Z meant keeping the status quo on residential development; voters indicated overwhelmingly for maintaining the status quo; Article 26 is at the heart of Alameda's residential growth control tool; noted there are two work-arounds which allow, in limited circumstances, the types of multi-family housing not allowed by Article 26; stated the workarounds are the density bonus law and the multi-family housing overlay; the City has allowed development in strategic areas and built multi-family housing using the density bonus and multi-family housing overlay laws; Council has supported these housing developments since 2012; Council should continue to fight to keep housing numbers as low as possible, befitting for an Island; the City should build respecting the status quo of Article 26 growth control with a limited, targeted and strategic use of the density bonus and multi-family housing overlay laws; Council should fulfil the will of the voters and work closely with voters to address concerns raised by citizens involved in the No on Measure Z campaign; noted the Housing Element might be put to a vote of the people should concerns not be addressed; outlined areas which should not be subject to MF overlay; stated MF overlay will be looked at in a strategic manner. *** Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 December 1, 2020 | CityCouncil/2020-12-01.pdf |