pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf, 11
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-14 | 11 | Matt Reid called out a few concerns unique to Alameda and he encouraged the City to appeal the RHNA numbers. He pointed out that infrastructure was different since Alameda was an island and there were limited ways on and off the island. Alameda's earthquake risks were higher than neighboring cities. He called out sea-level rise and emerging groundwater that brought up contaminants to the surface that sea walls do not prevent. He believed that Alameda has exceptional reasons to push back on the RHNA numbers. William Smith encouraged the board to stick with the current wording of the resolution. He then pointed out that there had not been a successful appeal of the RHNA number yet and saw an appeal as a waste of city staff's time and taxpayer money. He added that the RHNA methodology explicitly ruled out consideration of natural hazards since every city had its own share of constraints and hazards. Ruth Abbe discussed the diversity of housing stock in older neighborhoods and how she was in the process of putting in an ADU. She added there were also parcels in her neighborhood that could accommodate another house or more units and they were currently prohibited from doing that. She supported the idea of equitable and diverse housing stock across the island and that it didn't make sense to concentrate all the new development in one area. President Teague closed public comments and asked if there was any area in Alameda that prohibited ADUs. Director Thomas said that ADUs were permitted in all residential and mixed-use districts. President Teague opened the board's discussion and potential action. He reminded the board that they would need a unanimous action to move this forward since they only had four board members present. Board Member Hom referred to two paragraphs in the resolution and said the second part was mainly factual but the first part which explicitly called out Article 26 was the critical one. He saw it as a nebulous distinction they were trying to make. He suggested simplifying the first part and gave a suggestion for revised wording. Board Member Rothenberg said if the intent was to be explicit about Article 26 then she would support the resolution as it was written. She pointed out how the staff said it was prepared to file an appeal but had given enough reasons why it wouldn't be successful. She added if it wasn't going to be successful then they should save proverbial green stamps. President Teague wanted more input from legal staff on a legal argument to support the first part of the resolution. He recommended dropping references to Article 26 in the first paragraph and keep the four bullet items. He was also comfortable adding a 5th bullet item about not recommending Council not appeal the RHNA numbers. He added that Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 11 of 14 June 14, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf |