pages: CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf, 30
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 30 | The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the same strategy used two years ago to meet the regional housing need will need to be applied to additional sites; the zoning code will not be new, however, new zoning will be added to sites in Alameda; the zoning can be changed to multi-family overlay as an adjustment to C2, and both are simple to achieve in removing the multi-family prohibition and allowing at least 30 units per acre; Council may amend the zoning or provide a multi-family overlay; the effect and result will be the same. Stated that she supports the staff recommendation; urged Council to prepare a resolution of intent to begin the Housing Element process consistent with the language listed in the staff report; expressed support for the Housing Element process in Alameda over the last two cycles; urged Council continue to submit conforming Housing Elements; she would like Council to do everything required in order to submit a Housing Element consistent with State law including using the multi-family overlay and perform zoning changes where necessary; discussed Article 26 being in conflict with State Housing Element law; urged Council to not appeal the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) designation for Alameda: Sophia DeWitt, Alameda Resident and East Bay Housing Organization (EBHO). Discussed Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements concerning the side inventory; stated some of the areas are high resources; lawyers and past Councilmembers have stated Article 26 is in conflict with State law; he is favor of declaring such conflict in the resolution; California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has not responded to the City's request for comments made by Paul McDougall; it is unique to see such huge MF overlays; questioned the reason not to up-zone underlying zoning and codes instead of having large MF overlays; expressed concern for issues with the resulting wording; discussed the proposed resolution from Councilmember Herrera Spencer; he does not think the proposal will meet AFFH rules; urged Council review a presentation from Paul McDougall; RHNA appeals are often a waste of time and staff resources: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Expressed support for Alameda making a good faith effort to meet the RHNA numbers; stated much work is still needed; urged Council to focus City staff time on the work at hand and not to waste resources on appealing the City's RHNA numbers to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); there is only one way to reduce Alameda's RHNA numbers in forcing the allocation onto other Bay Area cities; the Housing Opportunities Site Draft is fascinating to read; noted R1 zoning is not mentioned in the Opportunity Site list; urged the City to think of ways to allow all zones contribute to different housing sizes over time: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda. Stated the Housing Element for Alameda should be compliant with State law; the Housing Element should be aligned with values, equity and justice in the statement "everybody belongs here;" the City will not know what has been lost in the consequence of redlining due to certain housing types being explicitly disallowed; there have been Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 6, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |