pages: CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-02-02 | 11 | proposal is made presenting the realistic capacity of "x" amount of units per acre; outlined the anticipated need for Park Street areas; stated staff must demonstrate the realistic capacity to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Paul McDougall, HCD, stated there are a variety of factors in different sites: suitability, any known constraints, zoning, and capacities; there are times when non-residential zones are intended for other uses outside of residential; non-vacant sites need to demonstrate potential for redevelopment; an analysis of market conditions, public transit, regulatory framework and the extent of the existing uses is performed; there are different approaches to potential redevelopment; noted some jurisdictions will call down sites to the most realistic and best opportunities; stated maintaining inventory is a factor throughout the planning period; prudent moves include identifying buffer areas; outlined the no net loss law. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about non-vacant sites. Mr. McDougall stated non-vacant sites are sites which have existing uses; HCD factors the possibility of sites expiring or discontinuing in a planning period; when a site is identified as a non-vacant site, while under 50% of the RHNA, the analysis bar goes up and substantial evidence is needed to demonstrate uses will likely discontinue in a planning period; if existing units are present, replacement factors must be considered for the policy; only new units are to be counted [toward RHNA]. Vice Mayor Vella inquired the process for multi-family related to the Charter. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the first step is to request the work plan, reach out to HCD and ask for advice on how to address the conflict in the Charter to ensure the benefit of advice from both staff and HCD; stated changes have been made at the County and State levels; Council's stance on Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals will define how much multi-family housing is needed and where it will be placed; staff has identified its top five to six multi-family sites and believes 1,000 to 2,000 units can be placed on those sites; there is a public input and planning process question about whether more sites with less units will be more desirable; there are very few vacant sites in Alameda; all possible sites are considered non-vacant; staff has worked closely with property owners in the past. Mr. McDougall stated HCD welcomes the opportunity to provide guidance in order for cities to understand pathways in the statute; HCD will examine the issue and complexities; there are five areas in the statute which are potentially perilous with Measure A. Councilmember Daysog stated the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Alameda Point was for 1,400 units; the Navy has provided an interpretation which allows the City to go beyond the 1,400 units to build more market rate housing; inquired whether the increased unit amount will require another EIR. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 2, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf |