pages: CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 11 | Council should save neighborhoods; there are options for housing adjacent to Bayport; questioned whether the Main Street ferry terminal site is currently being used; stated the City must offer other spaces for housing; Neptune Park could be looked at; higher densities at Webster Street make sense; he does not have specific recommendations related to past discrimination; he would like to ensure an understanding of a number of State and federal laws, which ensure fair housing; there has been a history of racism; however, there have also been successes; the disparity seen cannot be solely due to racism; expressed support for having a balanced review of past discrimination as well as successes; stated elements of the draft Housing Element are difficult to support; he was the campaign chair for the No on Measure Z campaign; many things included in the draft Housing Element undermine the success of the campaign; the City needs to find another way to meet its RHNA obligation; he respects that fellow Councilmembers come from different perspectives and will fight hard for said perspectives; he has his own perspective of what Alameda needs in order to move ahead in a well-planned manner. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is hearing one of his colleagues desire to remain non-compliant; his question remains about rather than taking a huge risk in provoking two State groups going after non-compliance, that the City ask the Courts whether or not non-compliance is allowed; the proposed outline from Councilmember Daysog is non-compliant; the goal of the process is to have HCD sign-off on the Housing Element; he is looking for a way forward that does not result in trouble; expressed concern about Council paying legal fees and losing control of land use planning; stated if Council moves forward with a Housing Element which conforms to State law, he would like to note concern about not coming anywhere near the needed numbers for Park and Webster Streets; the proposed 900 units for the residential districts areas is not realistic will not be reached; previous housing plans have been too conservative causing the need to look at additional places for more housing; now that Council knows non-compliance yields its own penalties, he would like to make sure there is enough of a buffer in place to meet the RHNA obligation; 1,000 units placed at shopping centers will kill main street businesses; Council should be looking at what needs to be done to place between 1,500 and 2,500 units on Park and Webster Streets; the zoning could take a little pressure off of the residential districts; it makes sense to place units at Park and Webster Streets near existing transportation infrastructure and historic transit streets; it is clear that the City cannot meet the RHNA requirement for affirmatively furthering fair housing and not touch the R1 through R6 districts; he is not willing to actively continue the exclusionary and segregationist policies of the past which have been shown to continue on into the future through land ownership and access to homes; if Council does not take action against the policies, Council is taking action to support the policies. Councilmember Daysog stated there is a way for the City to be fully compliant; expressed support for putting more housing at Park Street; stated that he has confidence staff can figure out ways to meet the affirmative fair housing obligations throughout the City in a reasonable way. Councilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the concerns raised by WABA; stated that she would like to find out the desires of the Park Street and other business districts; the City should look to Harbor Bay Business Park; a significant amount of funding support for Measure Z came from Harbor Bay businesses; it is important to consider opening up the business parks to allow for housing near businesses. Vice Mayor Vella stated Council cannot simply say that staff will find places for housing in a reasonable manner; the matter needs to be articulated; expressed support for knowing how Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 30, 2021 11 | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |