pages: HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf, 6
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
HistoricalAdvisoryBoard | 2021-12-02 | 6 | Board Member Lau wanted to know if the RHNA also had requirements on the size of the housing or how many rooms and bedrooms a home had. Staff Member Tai answered that the Housing Element would not get that specific but they would look at the analysis and see what type of housing was the most needed. He agreed that they would need to create housing for all types of needs. Board Member Sanchez asked about zoning changes and what was allowed under the R1 changes and SB-9. Staff Member Tai explained the R1 zoning changes under SB-9 and what California State Law would allow. Board Member Sanchez asked other technical questions pertaining to lot size under SB- 9. He also wanted to know more about how SB-9 would impact how the board would make rulings. Staff Member Tai explained SB-9 in detail and gave different examples of what was allowed. He discussed how SB-9 would affect neighborhood character, how everything would come down to design, and when designs would need to come before the historical board. Chair Saxby asked if SB-9 established a minimum lot coverage. Staff Member Tai believed that SB-9 would defer to local jurisdictions to set lot coverage standards. He also discussed what was already allowed under the ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit) Law. He added the importance of setting design standards that would help with the increase in additional units in neighborhoods. Henry Dong, Planner III, also gave information on unit size and setbacks. Board Member Lau wanted to know if there was a limit to the ADUs someone could have. Staff Member Tai answered that staff was putting together a draft that would have four at the maximum. That would be four including ADUs, Jr. ADUs, or units under SB-9. Chair Saxby opened public comment. Betsy Mathieson summarized comments from her November 16, 2021 letter to the City Council that were pertinent to historic buildings. She said she believed that all of the neighborhoods in Alameda needed to accommodate new neighbors, including the ones built in compliance with Article 26. She agreed with a comment made by Planning Board Member Alan Teague that the "reuse of existing buildings is how we would move forward." She thought that approach would be how the City avoids displacing low income residents, HAB Meeting Minutes December 2, 2021 6 | HistoricalAdvisoryBoard/2021-12-02.pdf |