pages: CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf, 4
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 4 | more housing at Alameda Point, which requires 25% affordable housing; stated the rest of Alameda only has a requirement of 15% affordable housing; ADUs do not have to be affordable; urged transit corridors be considered: Margaret Hall, Alameda. Stated it is a myth that R1 through R6 zones are exclusionary; many of the housing within R1 through R6 include rentals with affordable rates; if housing is torn down, displacement will occur; greater density land is more expensive; construction costs are expensive; rent control will leave from old units; expressed concern over gentrification: Paul Foreman, Alameda. Expressed concern over too much density being pushed on R1 through R6; stated established, historic neighborhoods need to be protected; increased density will cause more traffic and transit problems; urged a focused density that does not impact buses and is closer to Alameda Point; outlined State density bonus law related to units on a single lot; urged Council increase density, but not go over the top: Erich Stiger, Alameda. Stated the proposed blanket up zoning of R2 through R6 is unnecessary and overkill; blanket up zoning will encourage demolition and replacement of historic buildings and threaten the exiting stock of relatively low-cost, privately owned rental units by encouraging developers to replace buildings using the State density bonus law; urged Council get the word out to the public about City happenings; discussed distribution of flyers for the meeting: Brenden Sullivan, Alameda. Stated that she would like to live in a community that is welcoming, inclusive and diverse; expressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the draft Housing Element will help meet RHNA obligations; she would like an update on the status and enforceability of Article 26 and State preemption: Kristi Black, Alameda. Expressed concern over the proposed up zoning in residential areas; stated that he is not convinced the up zoning is necessary; expressed support for looking to large underutilized sites such as shopping centers, Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals; discussed alternative zoning locations near the College of Alameda; stated the up zoning is reckless due to difficulty in downzoning; recommended a limited version of the residential proposals be included in the draft Housing Element; discussed State density bonus law height limits: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. Stated the draft Housing Element represents an attempt to meet the RHNA obligation, State law and growth; discussed the commute from the Valley into the Bay Area; stated the City must grow in order to accommodate jobs and the economy: Jes McBride, Alameda. Discussed her experience living in high density locations; stated the traffic has gotten crazy in the City; much of her life is outside of her home; expressed support for housing at Bay Farm not being at a site which had previously been designated for open and recreational space; expressed concern over changes to the view and shore line; urged the City look at vacant spaces for housing at Bay Farm and Harbor Bay: Michelle Russi, Alameda. Stated parcels in job rich areas located near high quality public transportation are eligible for up to 10 units per parcel; all parcels within the single family neighborhoods may be split without any discretionary review or compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; she is part of those that voted to maintain single family homes in Alameda under Article 26; State legislation overrides local zoning restrictions; rezoning needs to be postponed until a vote by the people: Therese Hall, Alameda. Continued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 30, 2021 4 | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |