pages: PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf, 9
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
PlanningBoard | 2021-06-14 | 9 | Director Thomas explained state law and how Article 26 conflicted with state law. He then explained how and why the City of Alameda had worked around Article 26 with multi-family (MF) overlays during the last Housing Element Update to comply with state law and what that meant going forward with the RHNA numbers. Board Member Rothenberg asked about Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's recent statement in a newspaper on Article 26 and wanted to know if it was entirely preempted and unenforceable under state law or just preempted in part. Director Thomas said he had not spoken to the Mayor since that article came out and was unable to discuss her thoughts. He reminded the board that they would be taking this resolution to the City Council on July 6th and they would be able to wordsmith it in a way that makes them comfortable. He discussed how this was an evolving issue and that Alameda would need to deal with this issue for the foreseeable future. He did add that the consequences of not having a Housing Element and not getting it certified by the State in the next 18 months were severe. There is no question that Alameda will have to do apply MF overlays in its zoning in order to meet its RHNA. Board Member Cisneros asked if staff still believed that MF overlays were still the right strategy even if it could conflict with the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) provision. Director Thomas said they were affirmatively working to ensure they addressed the inequities that had played out over the years, they have to that as part of the Housing Element. He believed the City needs to address the prohibition on multi-family housing in all the zoning districts and neighborhoods. President Teague asked how Alameda was doing at meeting the existing affordable unit RHNA and wanted to know if someone could today request MF overlay. Director Thomas answered they were behind and it raises an interesting question if they were in compliance with State Law today. President Teague asked if it was necessary to state in the Draft Resolution the part about about Article 26, believing that the resolution would be sufficient even if they omitted the reference to it. Director Thomas said he didn't think it was absolutely necessary, but he wondered if leaving it out of the resolution still made sense given Article 26 is the key issue. President Teague further asked if the resolution was saying the City would designate zoning to permit multi-family housing at densities of at least 30 units as necessary to comply with state law, as they had done in the past. Approved Planning Board Minutes Page 9 of 14 June 14, 2021 | PlanningBoard/2021-06-14.pdf |