Gig Codiga
CASA 2020 City Council Questionnaire
Candidate’s name: Gig Codiga
Candidate’s contact: Gig4Council@gmail.com
FPPC#: 1430096
1. Equity – CARP recognizes that climate impacts are disproportionately distributed across Alameda and not all households have the same ability or resources to respond to and recover from extreme weather events and hazards. What three specific actions you believe will be most important to address these disproportionate impacts?
GEC: 1) Identify / build facilities that can support a refuge location, including warehouse rotation of water and provisions, along with medical care, medical equipment and tents: 2) utilize natural methods as described in the report (marshlands) where possible; 3) design and build new facilities taking into consideration the risk of rising tides and liquefaction inherent to their location.
2. A/26 – CARP calls for the City to consider “Chang[ing] zoning to allow more multifamily use, reduced parking requirements, and increased allowable density while shortening overly lengthy permitting timelines.” page 32. Given the environmental impact of single family housing, do you support the measure proposing to repeal Article 26 and amend the General Plan to repeal the prohibition against building multi-family housing in Alameda and the Citywide density limitation of one housing unit per 2,000 square feet of land?
GEC: With the concern over increased waste, gas emissions from cars (particularly when idling in traffic), reducing density seems like a better solution for Alameda. Given the island of Alameda has natural and structural constraints, and is one of the highest densified cities in the region, I am not in support of increasing density until there are traffic and environmental solutions. Increasing density in Alameda will only add to the challenges stipulated in the report, particularly, if there is a natural disaster.
Though I am in favor of walking, bicycling, and public transportation, however, there will still be a need to accommodate cars (e.g., electric cars) as not everyone can use these alternative modes of transportation to get around, or get to work, or to travel.
As proposed, I will not support the full repeal of Measure A. I supported deleting 26-1 (restriction on multi-dwelling housing) while retaining 26-2 and 26-3. There is a risk that the City Council could override, upon appeal by a developer, earlier rejections of development by the planning department and other agencies. A repeal of Measure A would open up the possibility of significantly higher density housing thoughout Alameda than now allowed (State minimum density is 30 units per acre). We have an effective MF Overlay that seems to provide housing without risking invading neighborhoods. We have built over 3000 Market Rate housing yet fallen short on Affordable Housing (300+/-). Why should we force upon our neighbors multi family units?
Why do we want to be so densified, so crowded that adds to waste production, consumption of our clean power, taxing our police, fire, and social services? Why do we want to mess with all of the reasons people move to Alameda – the diversity of cultures, the cool period housing, an attractive community where people can enjoy parks, the bay and hillside views, people, foodie places, boutiques, our fabulous Alameda Theatre, our quaint business districts like Webster Street, Park Street, South Shore Center, along with our hidden street side businesses, the charming small town feeling in a big metropolitan area, safety, good public schools and private schools, walkability, biking, tree line streets, social and community services, ease of moving about, great public transportation and so much more?
3. Climate Outreach and Education – The success of CARP implementation depends on everyone understanding our climate vulnerabilities, acknowledging their role in reducing climate impacts, supporting adaptation efforts, and forming cooperative resilient neighborhoods. How do you intend to educate all Alamedans, foster collaboration within our community and engender ownership of the solutions by our individual residents and businesses? Alamedans, foster collaboration within our community and engender ownership of the solutions by our individual residents and businesses?
GEC: Awareness though websites, webinars, articles, reaching out to the community; utilize disaster drills in neighborhoods for readiness; along with those concepts suggested in the report. Some neighborhoods have emergency response teams to carry this message. We could use this type of organization by way of volunteers.
4. Funding and Staffing – “CARP requires committed and long-term staff and resources to successfully implement the plan.” page 143. Will you prioritize hiring of staff, including the Sustainability and Resilience Manager, Climate Action Coordinator and Climate Fellow during the next budget cycle? Will you support revenue measures, such as a Facility Bond (to fund adaptation projects) and an increase to the natural gas Utility Users Fee (to fund mitigation measures)?
GEC: The costs are tremendous – ; priorities are competitive – safety, protection, maintenance, etc. A low cost administrative approach could mean that we look into setting aside the high risk sea level rise areas, where logical, as natural preservation areas in expectation of the rise in sea levels. Perhaps that would help reduce the estimated damage yet to be realized due to prohibition of development in these areas? I am supportive, though I have to understand the trade-offs within all of the Budget items for the entire city. Alameda is projecting a negative budget with huge obligations. Trade offs, right sizing, trimming will have to occur to get back to a sound financial ground.
5. Implementation – CARP’s success requires turning plans into actions and a major component of this is fostering partnerships with a wide variety of groups and organizations across town, as well as engaging residents most impacted by the effects of climate change. What efforts should Alameda undertake to provide leadership on regional solutions? How will you build the coalitions and partnerships with both other local governments and Alameda residents and organizations necessary to realize CARP’s vision. What tangible results have come from your past collaborations and partnerships on these issues?
GEC: We should strive to build Net Zero buildings and encourage such actions regionally. We should educate and influence our construction industry to be trained and ready to lead Net Zero development. We need to encourage regional and local cooperation for utilizing and developing natural solutions such development of marshlands. We need to work with organizations such as East Bay Regional Parks, State owned parks, City owned parks.
Honestly, though I may have different approaches and ideas, I believe the CARP report was very extensive and a great guideline.