Alameda

In Compliance
Out of Compliance
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated Area
Unincorporated Area

Overview

Population
77565
Density
7310
Avg. Household Income
$
129917
Experiencing Rent Burden
42
Providing adequate housing options is a key function of local governments. To help residents ensure their local government is meeting this need, we’ve compiled important information about this jurisdiction’s housing efforts below.
Housing Element is In Compliance
This city is currently working on implementing its housing element.
Housing Element is Out of Compliance
This city is currently working on implementing its housing element.
Good Progress
This city is currently on track to meet their RHNA housing targets.
Making Slow Progress
This city is falling behind. It is not on track to meet its housing targets.
Housing Targets
Every 8 years California assesses housing need and assigns each city with a target they must hit. If 
Alameda
 repeats its efforts from the previous cycle 
it will only meet 48% of the identified need.
Current RHNA Target
2022
 
-
 
2030
On Target
Behind
Hit Target
Missed
135
 / 
5353
 units
Very Low Income
Low Income
Median Income
Above Median Income
State Statutes
Organizers fighting for fair housing can use many state laws to ensure that jurisdictions meet their housing targets.
Builder’s Remedy
When a city’s Housing Element is out of compliance, the Builder’s Remedy allows developers to bypass the zoning code and city general plan for qualifying affordable housing projects. If a Builders Remedy project application was submitted prior to 1/1/2025, there are virtually no limits on the size and density of a project proposed. Subsequent to 1/1/2025, in exchange for more certainty in the entitlement process, AB 1893 limits the density for Builders Remedy projects.
Does not apply
Does not apply
Does not apply
SB 423
When cities lack a compliant housing element or are behind on RHNA, this statute streamlines approval of projects that meet a threshold of affordable units.
50% Affordable
50% Affordable
Conditions in 
Alameda County
HE Compliance
How does
 
Alameda
 
compare to its neighboring cities?
This city is currently doing a worse job than its neighbors at meeting housing needs.
Progress
-1
-1
Income
-7
-7
Density
19
19
Join the Fun!
Key parts of
Alameda
’s housing element are currently being worked on. Get involved to hold them accountable for meeting their deadlines.
Alameda County
's Volunteers
26
Current Watchdogs
  
Level III
26/40 Volunteers
Upcoming Opportunities
Add Event
These upcoming events and tasks are great opportunities to make a difference in your community.
Event Name
Date
Type
Stop by Drinks & Agendas
Each Friday at 12:00PST our team gets together via Zoom to monitor local agendas so we can direct watchdogs to key meetings where decisions are being made about housing.
Watchdog Reports
Add Report
Our watchdogs are on the ground observing and taking part in the fight for fair housing. Read their reports below.
Alameda
's Reports
Anonymous
Zac Bowling
  
06
/
22

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

Read More
   
/
 Loss
/
 Pro Housing
   
/
 Win
/
 Pro Housing
   
/
Deferred
/
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
Zac Bowling
  
12
/
21
Alameda City Council - Nov 30, 2021
   
12
/
21
 Loss
20
/
30
 Pro Housing
Alameda City Council - Nov 30, 2021
   
12
/
21
 Win
20
/
30
 Pro Housing
City Council
   
12
/
21
Deferred
20
/
30
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
Zac Bowling
  
11
/
21

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.

Read More
Alameda City Council - Nov 2, 2021
   
11
/
21
 Loss
0
/
0
 Pro Housing
Alameda City Council - Nov 2, 2021
   
11
/
21
 Win
0
/
0
 Pro Housing
City Council
   
11
/
21
Deferred
0
/
0
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
Zac Bowling
  
10
/
21

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. 

Read More
Culver City Planning Commission - Oct 25, 2021
   
10
/
21
 Loss
/
 Pro Housing
Culver City Planning Commission - Oct 25, 2021
   
10
/
21
 Win
/
 Pro Housing
Planning Commission
   
10
/
21
Deferred
/
 Pro Housing
Anonymous
  
02
/
21

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.

Read More
Alameda City Council - Feb 2, 2021
   
02
/
21
 Loss
6
/
7
 Pro Housing
Alameda City Council - Feb 2, 2021
   
02
/
21
 Win
6
/
7
 Pro Housing
City Council
   
02
/
21
Deferred
6
/
7
 Pro Housing