pages: CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf, 33
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-07-06 | 33 | to be appealed. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a grounds for the appeal is typically provided; requested clarification for the process. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated a stronger appeal provides a recommended number; there is a very low chance of success in the appeal; staff is looking for direction toward [appeal] arguments to make and the particular allocation number desired; staff has a couple days to put together the appeal on behalf of Council. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether an alternative RHNA number around 3,300 exists to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative. Councilmember Knox White stated that he plans to support the appeal; he does not plan to support the resolution as-written; requested a friendly amendment to the motion in listing the following three reasons for the basis of the appeal: 1) 60% of voters recently voted to uphold the adopted Charter provision which prohibits multi-family housing from being built making the RHNA allocation thwarting the will of the Alameda voters, 2) Alameda's uniqueness as an island of the San Francisco Bay is subject to sea-level and emerging groundwater issues, liquefaction and loss of access to the mainland should an earthquake destroy bridges and [access] tube, and 3) the City's transportation and infrastructure constraints; the City is an island with limited ingress, egress and water supply transported by pipelines on the mainland; unlike many East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) within its borders; the reasons mirror the comments received from the community in requests for an appeal. Councilmember Herrera Spencer accepted the friendly amendment; stated she is happy to include the reasons listed; questioned whether the reasons listed include the significant geological seismic issues; the language listed in her resolution is broader and includes more points and reasons; she is happy to provide a number for the allocation. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is ok with the methodology; the City's uniqueness should call for a proposed adjustment. Councilmember Daysog expressed support for items 2 and 3 raised by Councilmember Knox White; stated item 1 is more nuanced in understanding the obligation for multi- family housing; the City has been meeting the obligation through the housing overlay and density bonuses with the context of Measure A. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she will not be supporting the motion to appeal; she appreciates the position from other Councilmembers in upholding the will of the people and voters; there have been a number of subsequent presentations from regional bodies and other groups about addressing the heart of issues raised; support for the appeal is apparent; expressed concern for the lack of success in the appeal process; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 6, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-07-06.pdf |