pages: CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf, 15
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-02-02 | 15 | of housing types; analysis must be completed around the RHNA; there is a zoning appropriate to accommodate lower income housing; the statute lays out the approach for jurisdictions to have prescribed densities in urban, suburban and rural areas; the threshold is either met or analysis is provided; an analysis of potential constraints on the property may be completed, which includes regulatory framework, zoning, land use controls, permit procedures, fees and old building codes; HCD will see Measure A as a constraint on the supply and cost of housing and programs will be sought to address and remove restrictions where possible; the affirmative fair housing will also come into play; the recent Housing Crisis Act provides various provisions to suspend certain actions, such as anything which results in lesser intensifications for sites for the next five years. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired the consequences for non-compliance. Mr. McDougall responded cities will not have access to money or points if out of compliance; stated the lack of access is not limited to housing money; the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), which is transportation related, includes a Housing Element component and will not be accessible along with transportation planning grants that include Housing Element components; the City would not have access to the Governor's pro-housing designations which allow cities to gain a competitive advantage in programs, such as infrastructure grants with a Housing Element component; as part of the pro-housing designation, HCD is looking to incorporate the designation into not only housing programs, but transportation programs as well; the statute allow the City to be sued by essentially anybody and includes attorney fees; stated the courts have the authority to take actions, such as suspending permit authority; outlined the City of Pleasanton's permit suspensions; stated there is an additional level of consequence in referring non-compliance to the Attorney General to request penalties and fees of $10,000 to $100,000 per month; courts can allow any action to be taken to obtain compliance. Councilmember Knox White stated a legal analysis has come up a number of times; expressed support for releasing the legal analysis in some form; stated the Council represents the residents of the City and it is important for residents to understand the issues Council is wrestling with, rather than protecting the City against the issues in the future; expressed support for moving forward with said direction; stated the timeline provided by staff is great and right; he questions waiting to have the conversation about the multi-family overlay until the Fall; the City can wait until it hears from HCD; whether or not the City appeals, the presentation shows there would be tremendous difficulty in successfully appealing the RHNA number; he questions whether a Council would be willing to pass a policy which ignores the City Charter in furtherance of fair housing and meeting State mandates; expressed support for looking at the timeline and bring the discussion back in late Spring, rather than waiting another six months to find that the multi-family overlay is going to be accepted and adopted; stated there will be a lot of scrambling if the City waits and try to figure out how to move forward; he is pro-housing; housing is needed and is a moral, human right; for decades, Alameda has fallen down on the commitment to fellow community members and it is time for the City to start; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 2, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-02-02.pdf |