Planning Director Andrew Thomas hosted a meeting to discuss housing and the housing element with the community hosted by the local chamber of commerce. Answered questions of the community. Pretty insightful. Covered article 26, the fund raising by the NIMBY group to sue Alameda, constraints on housing, basics of housing element and housing law, why we have to allow housing, the McKay Wellness Center battle and the NIMBYs fighting it at the state, etc. 

​

Recorded the meeting here. YouTube playlist. Worth a watch. 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2ZwdTI-3CWLC660qlyHlxe0aviwhyyOx

NIMBY council member Trish Spencer pulled the item from the consent agenda last week and it wasn't heard so it was heard today. NIMBY council member wants the city consultant to create a scary 3D video visual of the changes to Alameda may look like because of upzoning. Staff said they were planning to make graphics but this consultant does out reach and websites, not graphics and animations. Staff said they could ask a different consultant later.

Item was right after staff presenting the final version of the new general plan before taking to city council. City staff presented an early draft of the housing element to planning board. Spoke in public comment myself thanking staff’s work on this so far and that I think ADU projections are a bit optimistic but missing a detailed site inventory and digging into LoD we won’t know much and that we need to focus on specific neighborhoods for AFFH. Local organized NIMBY group wrote in against upzoning “built out” residential areas. Preservation society spoke after me and were a bit flustered by my call to upzone older and whiter neighborhoods with historical exclusionary zoning and redlining. Refuted me calling the ADU estimates by staff as optimistic and tried to claim they were actually too low. Preservation society also wanted the city staff to do a study the impact of density bonus law and plan for sites using that in the housing element (not realizing they can’t do this). After public comment, planning board commissioners asked questions of staff related to AFFH, SB 9, SB 10, etc. 

HCA representative made it very clear Alameda would be in violation of state law without zoning for multi-family units, SROs, and transitional housing. Sounds like they have more avenues of enforcement.

​

Alameda currently has ~2,000 units able to be built, needs to increase to 5,400. 

​

Mayor Ashcroft and Councilmember White in favor in multifamily units / repealing Article 26. Councilmember Daysog against multifamily units citing limited ingress & egress in the island in case of an emergency and being in favor of "controlled growth". Councilmember Spencer agreed with Daysog, also fearing loss of Victorian houses and being against market-rate housing. 

​

Staff rebutted against ingress/egress in an emergency concerns saying there are no emergency situations where they would want citizens leaving the island, also that adding a bridge wouldn't change traffic. Sounds like staff have had a consistent plan about housing which hasn't been implemented.

​

Concern expressed about navigating state law along Article 26. Decision made to have staff provide a report.