pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf, 10
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-14 | 10 | Director Thomas said that was correct, as it would be basically what the City had done in the 2012 Housing Element but now more expansive. President Teague closed the board's questions and opened public comment. Zac Bowling said it was imperative that Alameda have an honest discussion about the likelihood of development and discussed his work with a housing advocacy group. He discussed how Article 26 violated State Law verbatim and how important it was to move forward. He gave his thoughts on upzoning and how doing MF overlays made sense. He also pointed out how redlining maps line up with affluent neighborhoods and high opportunity neighborhoods and how excluding certain neighborhoods from development would not be equitable. Carmen Reid, of the Alameda Citizen Taskforce (ACT), did not believe Alameda has the correct infrastructure to support more housing development at the densities proposed. She also did not believe that adding more housing would guarantee more affordable housing, and she thought that city staff was pushing an unrealistic agenda. She shared ACT's version of the resolution that she believed had better wording. Katherine Allen was shocked by the amount of protection for Article 26 and found it to be a discriminatory article in the City Charter. She said that she had lived in Alameda for 7 years and was shocked by how little housing development there was in the middle of a housing crisis. She had trouble understanding how not having MF overlays in certain neighborhoods wasn't considered redlining. She also echoed many of Mr. Bowling's comments. Drew Dara-Abrams voiced his support for Alameda to make this good faith effort to make its RHNA numbers. He was curious about reaching supermajority votes with this city council. He also thought the proposed level of densities for Park Street and Webster Street were low compared to many successful Bay Area business districts. He also pointed out that his R1 neighborhood wasn't mentioned and urged the board to give his neighborhood options so they could play their part. Christopher Buckley, from AAPS, thought the staff report was very informative and well written. He offered different wording around Article 26 in the resolution that AAPS had suggested and what their concerns were. He also wanted the General Plan to give more information on Density Bonus Law. Lesa Ross wanted to point out that Harbor Bay was not made up of entirely single-family homes. She was not against multi-family homes, and she was a single mom who was struggling and made sacrifices to be a part of the Harbor Bay Club. She believed it was prejudice to assume that 94502 was full of rich families who didn't want equity. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 10 of 14 June 14, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf |