pages: CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf, 14
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2022-01-04 | 14 | Stated the matter is an opportunity to create small, more affordable units with minimum, negative impact; SB 9 spreads the responsibility for providing housing throughout the City; the proposed ordinance presents a custom version of SB 9; ten units is too many; discussed Alameda apartment units causes a loss of trees, stormwater run-off and loss of solar access; development with no public notice or hearing was previously illegal; urged implementing a reasonable ordinance and adopting the original staff recommendation: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda. Urged Council to take the most restrictive, legal approach; expressed concern about going beyond the State's suggestion; stated ten units per parcel with no hearing is neither desirable nor reasonable; cheaper housing will be created; questioned the quality of life being created; stated the stress on infrastructure needs to be contemplated; there could be negative impacts to diverse and working class homeowners due to developer interest; SB 9 will make the City too dense; urged more community input: Tracy Cote, Alameda. Urged Council to refrain from accommodating ten units per parcel in the R1 district, which can open the door to up-zone other neighborhoods; transportation infrastructure is not being considered; Alameda cannot continue to create density at such pace without public notice and off-street parking; urged Council to consider a more modest and sustainable 800 square foot size; stated 1,600 square feet seems too large; urged Council look at recommendations provided by Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) and Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS): Carmen Reid, Alameda. Expressed support for the Planning Board's proposal; stated Council should eliminate the square footage requirements; he is a fan of small units and flexibility for a range of housing options; the matter is for homeowners; a misleading narrative is being spread; discussed the potential percent increase in lots: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Urged Council to adopt the Planning Board's recommendation; stated staff has made a good faith effort to update the City's Zoning Code; discussed minimum lot size requirements in Bay Area cities; stated that he is glad to see City staff and the Planning Board not follow other cities as a template; the Zoning Code adjustments are straight forward; discussed City website resources: Drew Dara-Abrams, Alameda. Expressed support for the ordinance; stated that she lives on a dense parcel; the measure can help facilitate her children being able to live in Alameda; SB 9 has built important provisions which preserve housing security for current tenants; the ordinance helps people not to lose housing security for current tenants as housing is being built: Jennifer Rakowski, Alameda. Urged Council to uphold the Planning Board recommendation, which will allow flexibility and provide opportunity within the R1 district; discussed the variety of housing opportunities; stated more housing solutions are needed throughout Alameda; more density should be supported to help reduce the impacts of climate change: Ruth Abbe, Alameda. Stated that she is against the Planning Board recommendation; the 800 square foot limit should be kept on ADUs; expressed support for the minimum allowed under SB 9; stated SB 9 is forcing the City to allow additional density and will be challenging; expressed support for using caution and enacting only what is required; stated the City can increase amounts at a later date: Devon Westerholm, Alameda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 4, 2022 14 | CityCouncil/2022-01-04.pdf |