{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED NOVEMBER 16, 2021\nREGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 30, 2021-5:00 - P.M.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White,\nVella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note:\nCouncilmember Knox White arrived at 5:12 p.m. The\nmeeting was conducted via Zoom]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(21-773) Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to\nAccommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in\nCompliance with State Law.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation.\n(21-774) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing 5 minutes for the presentation.\nCouncilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor\nEzzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director concluded the Power Point presentation.\nExpressed support for recommendations provided by the Alameda Architectural Preservation\nSociety (AAPS) and Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT); urged Council to consider adding\nmore units along the main transit corridors and seek to preserve architectural elements\nthroughout the City; expressed support for Council refraining from up zoning in the R-2 through\nR-6 neighborhoods and for adopting an emergency ordinance related to Senate Bill (SB) 9:\nCarmen Reid, Alameda.\nStated that she is pleased to see a draft site inventory; urged Council not to consider the\ninventory finalized until the required, companion Fair Housing Analysis is included; stated the\nCity must maintain adequate capacity for its housing throughout the entire planning cycle; if the\nCouncil decides not to put 1,000 units of housing at shopping centers at a future time, other\nlocations within the City must be found to make up the units; expressed support for an\naffordable housing overlay: Sophia DeWitt, East Bay Housing Organizations (EBHO).\nStated that her ideal housing neighborhood has a variety of housing types, including racial,\nethnic and income diversity; expressed support for including neighborhoods built in compliance\nwith Article 26 and for moving forward with the reuse of existing buildings; stated reuse will\navoid displacing low-income residents and increasing the carbon footprint; up zoning will\nprovide incentive for demolition; she looks forward to the balancing act needed to provide more\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 2, "text": "housing and ensure equity, inclusion and anti-displacement: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the included goals, policies and\nprograms are sensible and admirable; she especially appreciates Goal 3; the Housing Element\nis lofty and a lot of work must be done in order to reach the goal; the Housing Element goals will\nput the City on the right path in addressing the housing crisis; expressed support for the\nproposed zoning changes, including increasing density in residential zones R1 to R6; stated the\nchanges are needed to reverse exclusionary and inequitable land use practices and will\nstrengthen the vibrancy and diversity of the City; increased density will support more\nsustainable and walkable lifestyles; urged City staff to look at further increasing density;\nexpressed support for the City following all State laws, including putting forth a compliant\nHousing Element: Elizabeth Kuwada, Alameda.\nEncouraged smart growth, raising Alameda Point housing limits and raising shopping center\nheight limits to accommodate additional housing; expressed opposition to up zoning: Devon\nWesterholm, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the attempt to discuss the housing cap being raised for shopping centers;\nstated the raised cap is key to not over burdening residential areas; the current Housing\nElement density increases avoid Article 26; expressed concern over developers buying\nbuildings for demolition; questioned the message being sent to voters; urged Council consider\nacting on the AAPS proposals: Dolores Kelleher, Alameda.\nStated the draft Housing Element does not adequately reflect the 2010 Webster Street Vision\nPlan, nor does it implement the November multi-family overlay zone proposal; the Vision Plan\ncalls for retaining the existing architectural character of Webster Street south of Lincoln Avenue;\ndiscussed WABA's multi-family overlay proposal height limits; expressed concern about the\nHousing Element not reflecting WABA's housing proposal and for higher density limits\nexceeding the desired three story limit; urged the inclusion of a strategy to integrate the State\ndensity bonus law: Linda Asbury, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).\nStated that she strongly opposes the up zoning of R1 to R6 zones; discussed the initial passing\nof Article 26; stated the proposal will not build affordable units; 373 people have signed a\npetition to oppose the Housing Element; elected officials have an obligation to act according to\nthe will of the electorate; discussed an anticipated Statewide initiative petition for zoning and\nland use to be under local control: Karen Miller, Alameda.\nStated that he is in favor of up zoning R1 to R6 areas; expressed support for an affordable\nhousing overlay; stated cities need compliant Housing Elements; urged Council to support the\nproposals: Jake Price, Housing Action Coalition.\nStated people are scared of change; Alameda has better transit access than most surrounding\ncities; Alameda has invested in transit, which elevates home values; Alameda has a mid-century\nmindset; actions taken have proven to be racially prejudicial and classist; State laws have\npassed for the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): Josh Geyer, Alameda.\nStated that she has not heard an answer to whether the Navy cap can be lifted; expressed\nsupport for the Democratic party; questioned how the City can meet the housing laws;\nexpressed concern about overreaching: Cherie Winkler, Alameda.\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 3, "text": "Expressed support for not removing the Harbor Bay recreation area; stated promoting health\nand well-being is fundamentally important to communities; the recreation area provides many\nresources; mental and physical program access is important after the isolation due to the\npandemic: Jason Gerke, Alameda.\nStated RHNA includes minimum limits set by the State; the minimums only include half of the\namount truly needed; urged Council go above and beyond with zoning changes; stated housing\nis needed near transit; expressed support for less focus on parking and automobile traffic; urged\nCouncil not to make the minimum the goal: Paul Bickmore, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the staff recommendation and draft Housing Element; stated the City has\nto look at considering up zoning R1 to R6 in order to break down historical systems of\nsegregation; years of exclusionary zoning have left a lasting impact and must be corrected; the\nCity must allow for higher density and affordable housing; he is not swayed by the arguments\nfrom organizations seeking to deny housing in Alameda; Article 26 is not enforceable and\nviolates State housing law: Zac Bowling, Alameda.\nStated the Encinal Terminals site is a third of the City's RHNA; urged Council to allow the site to\nmove forward; stated there are practical, legal and moral limits to building all-new housing;\nexpressed support for the proposed sub zoning and for more housing in shopping center\ndistricts; expressed concern about owners of commercial areas not being open to development;\nstated that he would like to see the Park and Webster Street areas expanded for more than the\nestimated 300 units; the areas could use 1,000 units or more and are transit-rich; discussed\ndevelopment in downtown Oakland: Joshua Hawn, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the matter; stated that he is confused by people saying more housing is\nneeded, then not supporting utilizing State density bonus law; the State density bonus law is\none of the strongest tools Alameda has to construct affordable housing; urged Council to ensure\nthe up zoning allows for State density bonus law to apply everywhere: Sidharth Kapur,\nAlameda.\nExpressed support for the Housing Element, increased density and up zoning; stated everyone\nis in this together; urged Council ensure sufficient housing for all persons at all life stages,\nregardless of Article 26: Kathleen Mertz, Alameda.\nStated that she appreciates the presentation and staff report; the materials provided clarity; the\nrecommendation does not work unless all of Alameda participates; the RHNA obligation cannot\nbe met unless everyone does their part; the RHNA obligation will be met as required by law and\nwill provide a safe place to live; urged the public to overcome fears: Savanna Cheer, Alameda.\nStated that she is in favor of low to moderate income housing; outlined concerns about\nAccessory Dwelling Units (ADU): Birgitt Evans, Alameda.\nExpressed support for keeping the Harbor Bay Club zoned as recreation; stated there have\nbeen trade-offs in order to keep the land zoned recreational; expressed support for adding\nresidential to the shopping center at Bay Farm: Charles Johnson, Alameda.\nStated affordability is not being addressed; discussed rent prices for new apartments at\nAlameda Point; stated there is not a lack of housing, there is a lack of income to afford the\navailable housing; affordable housing is built through high-end housing; expressed support for\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 4, "text": "more housing at Alameda Point, which requires 25% affordable housing; stated the rest of\nAlameda only has a requirement of 15% affordable housing; ADUs do not have to be affordable;\nurged transit corridors be considered: Margaret Hall, Alameda.\nStated it is a myth that R1 through R6 zones are exclusionary; many of the housing within R1\nthrough R6 include rentals with affordable rates; if housing is torn down, displacement will\noccur; greater density land is more expensive; construction costs are expensive; rent control will\nleave from old units; expressed concern over gentrification: Paul Foreman, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over too much density being pushed on R1 through R6; stated established,\nhistoric neighborhoods need to be protected; increased density will cause more traffic and\ntransit problems; urged a focused density that does not impact buses and is closer to Alameda\nPoint; outlined State density bonus law related to units on a single lot; urged Council increase\ndensity, but not go over the top: Erich Stiger, Alameda.\nStated the proposed blanket up zoning of R2 through R6 is unnecessary and overkill; blanket up\nzoning will encourage demolition and replacement of historic buildings and threaten the exiting\nstock of relatively low-cost, privately owned rental units by encouraging developers to replace\nbuildings using the State density bonus law; urged Council get the word out to the public about\nCity happenings; discussed distribution of flyers for the meeting: Brenden Sullivan, Alameda.\nStated that she would like to live in a community that is welcoming, inclusive and diverse;\nexpressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the draft Housing Element will help\nmeet RHNA obligations; she would like an update on the status and enforceability of Article 26\nand State preemption: Kristi Black, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over the proposed up zoning in residential areas; stated that he is not\nconvinced the up zoning is necessary; expressed support for looking to large underutilized sites\nsuch as shopping centers, Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals; discussed alternative zoning\nlocations near the College of Alameda; stated the up zoning is reckless due to difficulty in\ndownzoning; recommended a limited version of the residential proposals be included in the draft\nHousing Element; discussed State density bonus law height limits: Christopher Buckley,\nAlameda Architectural Preservation Society.\nStated the draft Housing Element represents an attempt to meet the RHNA obligation, State law\nand growth; discussed the commute from the Valley into the Bay Area; stated the City must\ngrow in order to accommodate jobs and the economy: Jes McBride, Alameda.\nDiscussed her experience living in high density locations; stated the traffic has gotten crazy in\nthe City; much of her life is outside of her home; expressed support for housing at Bay Farm not\nbeing at a site which had previously been designated for open and recreational space;\nexpressed concern over changes to the view and shore line; urged the City look at vacant\nspaces for housing at Bay Farm and Harbor Bay: Michelle Russi, Alameda.\nStated parcels in job rich areas located near high quality public transportation are eligible for up\nto 10 units per parcel; all parcels within the single family neighborhoods may be split without any\ndiscretionary review or compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; she is part of\nthose that voted to maintain single family homes in Alameda under Article 26; State legislation\noverrides local zoning restrictions; rezoning needs to be postponed until a vote by the people:\nTherese Hall, Alameda.\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n4", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 5, "text": "Urged Council to rezone the Harbor Bay Club back to its original intent as a recreational,\ncommercial space; stated there is a reclamation district bond for bay dredging; Harbor Bay Club\nis considered an amenity for the community; urged Council to stand up for the Harbor Bay Club\nand not let developers take precedence over people: Lesa Ross, Alameda.\nStated that he would like Harbor Bay Club to be zoned as recreational; the Harbor Bay Club\nnever paid a reclamation district bond assessment; the bond financed the filling of Harbor Bay\nIsle and has been paid off; allowing a private developer to profit at the expense of assessment\npaid by the public would be inequitable; many people like the Harbor Bay Club as a recreational\nspace: Behrad Aria, Alameda.\nUrged the City to move more aggressively on discussions with the Navy to lift the cap at\nAlameda Point; stated lifting the cap will result in greater capacity for additional housing units in\nan area which can accommodate much more than the current cap allows; there is a need for\nmore affordable housing in the City; the City is straining to meet its infrastructure commitments\nto the community; a large increase in housing units will further exacerbate the problem;\nexpressed opposition over any effort which will rezone areas within the community for high\ndensity housing: Bill Pai, Community of Harbor Bay Isle Board.\nExpressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the plan is sensible and goes a long\nway towards fulfilling the legal and moral obligations to produce housing; the Bay Area produces\nmany jobs; the City must accommodate and do its part to build housing for the people here;\nexpressed concern about the lack of housing production: Doug Letterman, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the housing policies; stated it is important that the policies further fair\nhousing and the right of first refusal for those who have been displaced; it is important that all\nAlameda neighborhoods provide opportunity for affordable housing development to take place;\nexpressed support for at least 60 units per acre of density in all housing, commercial and\nindustrial sites; stated higher density is important to allow flexibility in developing challenging\nsites for projects to be built; expressed support for up zoning residential areas: Lynette Jung\nLee, Alameda.\nStated that she is in favor of most of the proposal; discussed local obesity statistics in relation to\nrecreation access; expressed concern about the development of the Harbor Bay Club; stated\nthe Harbor Bay Club area supports people in open spaces; there is need for open recreation\nspaces; urged the City to consider sites which can support housing, not developers building on\na recreational area: Lily, Alameda.\nStated parks are meant to be played in; expressed support for the staff recommendation and\ndraft Housing Element; urged the City to take an all of the above approach; stated the City\nshould build all and then some; discussed architecture: Kyle Navis, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the draft Housing Element and for comments provided by Speakers\nCheer and Geyer; stated the draft Housing Element is a good first step: Alexia Arocha,\nAlameda.\nStated walkability, density and transit issues will resolve itself; the market will not take care of\nthe housing issue; it is important to affirmatively further fair housing by developing in high\nopportunity areas near schools, transit, shopping and parks: William Smith, Alameda.\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n5", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 6, "text": "Urged Council to vote no on the matter of up zoning; expressed concern about the future of\nAlameda and residential neighborhoods; stated development will be indiscriminate; expressed\nconcern over a future lack of open land: Kevin Frederick, Alameda.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Housing Element changes around the\nWABA district.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the business area corridors are\ntransit-oriented, commercial corridors that would be good for adding housing; one of the\ncriticisms received is staff is not pushing enough; staff will begin to look at more sites and talk\nwith neighbors in the area; staff has questioned how to tailor zoning to get more housing on\nWebster Street without sacrificing or losing some of the historic character; staff believes the goal\nof tailoring zoning can be accomplished; zoning can be carefully tailored to obtain desired\nresults.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Harbor Bay Club zoning.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Harbor Bay Club site is currently\nzoned for mixed use, which allows for commercial and residential; the historic use for the space\nhas been for a health club under a commercial use; the owners have indicated a desire to sell;\nthe potential buyer has indicated an interest in replacing the health club with a new health club\nfacility, plus residential; the development application will go through the normal process.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter of Harbor Bay Club is before the Council, to\nwhich the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated\nHarbor Bay Club is separate from the Housing Element.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the different types of housing at Alameda\nPoint.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Alameda Point has a variety of\nhousing; the area has market rate and affordable housing; there is agreement in the need for\naffordable and subsidized housing; market rate housing pays affordable housing subsidies;\nthere can be no affordable units without market rate housing unless a tax is implemented, which\ngenerally does not happen; the City relies on the private sector to provide affordable housing.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a number of different zones have been referenced; requested\nclarification be provided regarding R1 through R6; expressed support for an update on the\ncurrent status of Article 26 and SB 9; stated that she would like more information on whether\ndevelopers can tear down historic homes.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated residential zones R1 through R6\nincludes roughly 80% of the land area in Alameda; staff is proposing about 20% of the RHNA\nbeing distributed within the R1 through R6 ones; staff can tailor the zoning in concert with the\nhistoric preservation, rent control and anti-displacement ordinances to get housing added; the\ntailoring will not include many of the negative impacts or concerns brought by speakers;\ndiscussed current development applications and financial feasibility for tearing down and\nrebuilding; stated staff can craft zoning in a way which allows for careful infill development while\nmaintaining the character of the residential neighborhoods; SB 9 is a new State law which goes\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n6", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 7, "text": "into effect January 1, 2022; the Planning Board will review staff's initial zoning amendments for\nthe R1 district on December 13th; there are approximately 9,500 R1 parcels in the City; the R1\ndistrict allows an ADU up to 1,200 square feet and a junior ADU; the draft Housing Element\nproposal allows for an additional ADU; Council cannot stop State law and SB 9; SB 9 allows a\nproperty owner to perform a lot split and sale of the alternate unit; staff believes SB 9 will\nincrease the capacity in the R1 zoning districts; staff is expecting a moderate increase in\nproduction and roughly 30 ADU projects per year due to SB 9; many ADUs are not discernable;\nthe City's ability and authority to regulate land is passed down from the State; if the voters of\nAlameda adopt a measure in conflict with State law, the measure is unenforceable; Council\nadopted zoning regulations in 2012 which were in conflict with the City Charter since Article 26\nis in conflict with State law; it is unfortunate that voters kept the conflict in the Charter since it is\nunenforceable; staff cannot maintain General Plan conformance with State law and respect the\nCity Charter; should if City wishes to maintain its land use authority, a Housing Element must be\nadopted; the Housing Element is in conflict with the City Charter.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the City is currently at with the Navy cap at Alameda Point.\nThe City Manager responded around 2011, the City and Navy came to an agreement which\nincluded a no-cost transfer of land to the City of Naval land; stated the no-cost transfer includes\nseveral stipulations, including the Navy having to clean up the land; the Navy cap allows only a\ncertain number of housing units, which are included in the Housing Element; the Navy has had\nto review the agreement to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act\n(NEPA); the agreement and any subsequent amendments would also have to remain in\ncompliance with NEPA; NEPA is required when a federal entity works with a local jurisdiction.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether a penalty exists for non-compliance.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the City would have to pay $50,000 per\nunit once the cap is exceeded; the $50,000 has grown to about $100,000 due to inflation; the\nCity previously worked out an agreement with the Navy that affordable housing units do not\ncount towards the cap; the City is working on an amendment to the agreement with the Navy;\nthe Navy understands that conditions and market changes have occurred.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether staff has been in discussion with the Navy about the\npenalty payment.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated staff will report back to Council for\ndirection by the end of the December; staff will continue to work with the Navy and make sure\nNEPA is followed.\nIn response to Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nstated R1 through R6 districts are the names of the six residential zoning districts; each zone\nhas slightly different development requirements; any homeowners are within one of the R1\nthrough R6 zoning districts.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Article 26 being unenforceable is the result of a court\naction; stated Article 26 has been voted on by the people and is the law of the land until there is\na court order.\nThe City Attorney responded staff's obligation is to defend the City and its voter decisions to the\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n7", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 8, "text": "extent directed by the City Council; stated unless there is a direct appellant decision, it is not\nstaff's place to declare an act of Council or an act of the voters is unlawful; given guidance\nreceived from the State, he recognizes staff's point, that there is some doubt with respect to the\ncontinued viability of Article 26; there is also the perspective that until a court order declares\nCouncil or a voter action unlawful, the Article remains law of the land.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council could include clarification about the\nuse of Harbor Bay Club in the Housing Element.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if Council wants to rezone the\nHarbor Bay Club space to recreation only, a zoning amendment would need to be done; a\nPlanning Board public hearing needs to occur prior to Council approval; the purpose of the\nHousing Element is to identify the sites available for housing, it does not show where the City\nwill not build housing.\nThe City Attorney stated that he agrees with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director\nthat the Housing Element may not be the best way to address the matter; the General Plan item\nup next might be a better place to include direction about the Harbor Bay Club.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to focus on the negativity about\nAlameda's racial history; the City currently has a minority-majority; the White population is\n42.7%; the percentage has decreased over time; other data that does not depict Alameda as\nracist could have been presented; she is Mexican American and has a hard time reading a\ndocument with a negative portrayal; Alameda has done a good job; the report could include data\nshowing the decrease in the White population is attributable to the housing offered; discussed\nthe City of Berkeley and San Francisco's population; stated the City of Alameda has been\nproviding things which result in the diverse community; expressed concern about the language\nused; stated multiple places depict Alameda negatively; she agrees with comments about the\nresidential R1 through R6 areas; the residential areas are very diverse; people rent out rooms in\nbig homes; she is a renter; her home is older; constructing a newer home in its place with a\nhigher rent would cause gentrification; Council needs to be careful about what happens; she is\nnot interested in doing any more within established neighborhoods than what the law currently\nrequires; she would like to look at other sites; inquired where housing can safely be placed\nwithin the City; displayed slides depicting earthquake fault lines; stated it is important to keep\nhigh seismic risk factors in mind when selecting housing sites; displayed an image depicting\ndamage to Alameda from the Loma Prieta earthquake.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded new housing is built to current,\nseismic standards, while old housing is not; when an earthquake happens, the existing housing\nin Alameda built in the 1920s and 1930s is of concern; the original Alameda shoreline for\nAlameda is the most stable are, which is essentially the R1 through R6 districts; many have\nbeen opposed to up zoning of those areas; staff must show where housing is to be built; the\nproposal is to spread housing throughout the entire City to ensure no one area takes all of the\nhousing.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer displayed an image depicting high liquefaction locations;\nnoted high liquefaction areas include landfill spaces.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated landfill areas are more susceptible to\nliquefaction; in order to avoid areas of high liquefaction, more housing would have to be in the\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n8", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 9, "text": "central areas; staff is proposing to spread the housing around.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is concern for tsunami risks.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has raised the issue with the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which responded every city in the Bay Area has\nenvironmental risks and the risk cannot be a reason not to build housing; the concerns are real\nissues; however, none will allow the City to avoid identifying where to build housing.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned with how to evacuate or bring\nsupplies to people and what mitigation can be done; ABAG offered support; expressed support\nfor keeping access to the Estuary in mind; stated South Shore is problematic due to a lack of\nferry access.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff is working on the issues; a\nhazard mitigation plan exists; staff works with the community and surrounding agencies to\nprepare for the event of an emergency; staff should be working on these issues irrespective of a\nHousing Element; the Housing Element does not force the issues of safety and evacuation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated Alameda Point is the better site due to ferry access;\nnoted South Shore does not have boat access; boat access is available along the Estuary as\nwell.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated pieces of the draft Housing Element\nare not yet complete; a full demographic report and a fair housing analysis will be completed;\nif\nprevious land use patterns show discrimination, the City must show ways the patterns are being\ncorrected.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the tone of the Housing Element could be changed;\nexpressed concern over comments showing one side town in a negative way.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m.\n***\nCouncilmember Knox White stated the City has to follow State law; inquired what happens if the\nCity be out of compliance with the State.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded there is a deadline for Council to\nadopt a new Housing Element; stated if Council misses the deadline, the City is considered out\nof compliance; when out of compliance, the City no longer has a valid General Plan or the ability\nto govern land use; the City would be found out of compliance by the California Department of\nHousing and Community Development (HCD) which cuts off all State grants and funding\nsources; funding includes affordable housing and park funds; many grants received by the City\nwould not have been possible without being in compliance with State law; the City would likely\nimmediately be sued; State law is set up to encourage people and interest groups to sue the\nCity; if the City loses the case, the City has to pay attorney fees; State law includes penalty fees\nfor being out of compliance; adoption of the Housing Element would likely be forced via Court\norder; a Housing Element in compliance with State law will be adopted at some point, whether\nthe City willingly adopts it or if it is by court order; the cost will ultimately be borne by the\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n9", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 10, "text": "Alameda taxpayers; staff recommends adopting the draft Housing Element.\nCouncilmember Knox White inquired how the draft Housing Element identifies where the\nimpacts are in order to affirmatively further fair housing and how the City is looking at furthering\nfair housing.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff is aware of affirmatively\nfurthering fair housing; stated HCD produces maps; the maps show areas of less opportunity on\nthe West End; most of the affordable housing is being built on the West End; staff is proposing\nto spread out the housing; there is more land available on the West End; however, a conscious\neffort is being made to show HCD that all new and affordable housing is not being placed on the\nWest End; the R1 through R6 districts play an important role in furthering fair housing by\nproviding the most equitable way of spreading the RHNA through all of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Alameda has a couple large policy guidance choices which\nwill be beneficial for all; one of the choices is how Council will prioritize historic aesthetics over\naffirming fair housing; he is confident that the City can build new housing and also protect a lot\nof the older buildings; the City being out of compliance is about the worst thing; he would like to\nunderstand whether or not there is Council unanimity to having a compliant Housing Element; if\nCouncilmembers do not support a compliant Housing Element, he hopes members will be\nwilling to more affirmatively seek judicial input on whether Article 26 trumps State law; if there\nnot be support for a compliant Housing Element, it would be interesting for Council to give\ndirection to have a Closed Session on how the City might proactively and affirmatively have\njudicial review of the questions in order to avoid harm before certifying the Housing Element; the\nwise choice is to have a certified Housing Element; however, State laws have to be followed.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to have a dialogue to see where Councilmembers\nare; bigger picture questions need to be answered in order for staff to have adequate direction\nto move forward; several presentations have been provided on the topic; the discussion has\nbeen happening for quite some time; Council must acknowledge that the policies in place have\ncreated and contributed to the reason for the State taking action; all communities have had\ndiscussions about local control relative to planning and zoning; there is a housing and\naffordability crisis; the affordability crisis is due to lack of supply; Council must have discussions;\nmany of the spaces not impacted by sea level rise or liquefaction are located in the R1 through\nR6 zones; expressed support for Council doing the right thing in adopting a compliant and\nequitable Housing Element.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated each Councilmember has their own view and perspective;\nNovember 2020 resulted in a resounding defeat of Measure A and residents declared the Article\n26 growth control tool was needed in order to preserve neighborhoods; many things included in\nthe draft Housing Element would undo the resounding defeat of Measure A; if Council adopts\nthe draft Housing Element, growth would occur throughout the Island by up zoning R1 through\nR6 neighborhoods; Council needs to do something for the R1 neighborhoods as soon as\npossible; Council can do better than the proposed draft Housing Element; Council has an\nobligation to do better; questioned how the City will meet its RHNA obligation; stated that he\nprefers an allocation less than 5,000; the opportunities to meet the RHNA goal are at Alameda\nPoint, in the West End or within the business corridors; Alameda Point had previously been\ndesignated as a Planned Development area due to an abundance of resources providing space\nfor housing and transportation; the City should double its effort at Alameda Point; getting the\nNavy to change its current cap will be an uphill battle; by virtue of the vote on Measure Z,\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n10", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 11, "text": "Council should save neighborhoods; there are options for housing adjacent to Bayport;\nquestioned whether the Main Street ferry terminal site is currently being used; stated the City\nmust offer other spaces for housing; Neptune Park could be looked at; higher densities at\nWebster Street make sense; he does not have specific recommendations related to past\ndiscrimination; he would like to ensure an understanding of a number of State and federal laws,\nwhich ensure fair housing; there has been a history of racism; however, there have also been\nsuccesses; the disparity seen cannot be solely due to racism; expressed support for having a\nbalanced review of past discrimination as well as successes; stated elements of the draft\nHousing Element are difficult to support; he was the campaign chair for the No on Measure Z\ncampaign; many things included in the draft Housing Element undermine the success of the\ncampaign; the City needs to find another way to meet its RHNA obligation; he respects that\nfellow Councilmembers come from different perspectives and will fight hard for said\nperspectives; he has his own perspective of what Alameda needs in order to move ahead in a\nwell-planned manner.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he is hearing one of his colleagues desire to remain\nnon-compliant; his question remains about rather than taking a huge risk in provoking two State\ngroups going after non-compliance, that the City ask the Courts whether or not non-compliance\nis allowed; the proposed outline from Councilmember Daysog is non-compliant; the goal of the\nprocess is to have HCD sign-off on the Housing Element; he is looking for a way forward that\ndoes not result in trouble; expressed concern about Council paying legal fees and losing control\nof land use planning; stated if Council moves forward with a Housing Element which conforms\nto State law, he would like to note concern about not coming anywhere near the needed\nnumbers for Park and Webster Streets; the proposed 900 units for the residential districts areas\nis not realistic will not be reached; previous housing plans have been too conservative causing\nthe need to look at additional places for more housing; now that Council knows non-compliance\nyields its own penalties, he would like to make sure there is enough of a buffer in place to meet\nthe RHNA obligation; 1,000 units placed at shopping centers will kill main street businesses;\nCouncil should be looking at what needs to be done to place between 1,500 and 2,500 units on\nPark and Webster Streets; the zoning could take a little pressure off of the residential districts; it\nmakes sense to place units at Park and Webster Streets near existing transportation\ninfrastructure and historic transit streets; it is clear that the City cannot meet the RHNA\nrequirement for affirmatively furthering fair housing and not touch the R1 through R6 districts; he\nis not willing to actively continue the exclusionary and segregationist policies of the past which\nhave been shown to continue on into the future through land ownership and access to homes; if\nCouncil does not take action against the policies, Council is taking action to support the policies.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is a way for the City to be fully compliant; expressed\nsupport for putting more housing at Park Street; stated that he has confidence staff can figure\nout ways to meet the affirmative fair housing obligations throughout the City in a reasonable\nway.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for the concerns raised by WABA; stated\nthat she would like to find out the desires of the Park Street and other business districts; the City\nshould look to Harbor Bay Business Park; a significant amount of funding support for Measure Z\ncame from Harbor Bay businesses; it is important to consider opening up the business parks to\nallow for housing near businesses.\nVice Mayor Vella stated Council cannot simply say that staff will find places for housing in a\nreasonable manner; the matter needs to be articulated; expressed support for knowing how\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n11", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 12, "text": "many units will be found; stated Council needs to equitably address how to spread housing\nthroughout the City; saying the City will find reasonable ways to provide housing is not enough;\nCouncil needs to have the numbers and find places for the units designated on a map; negate\nhousing locations is not enough; outlined Alameda Point historic buildings discussions during\nher time on the Historic Advisory Board; expressed concern about the hypocrisy of housing\narguments; stated concerns related to access points for getting on and off Island do not coincide\nwith placing all housing at Alameda Point; it is difficult to listen to conflicting concerns; policies\nare not the only things which address a racist past; racist deed covenants still exist; historic\nwealth exists due to racist pasts; Council must ensure equity in housing; the notion of the\nmarket taking care of itself is not enough; Council must vote and provide direction to certify the\nHousing Element; she hopes Council's actions can meet its words; the City's current position is\ndue to policies being in place which put restrictions on and prevented multi-family housing and\ngenerational wealth; the City can ensure it has public housing; Council must approve the units\nbeing built; Alameda is not the only city providing housing arguments and pushback; expressed\nsupport for equitable distribution throughout the City; stated transit options throughout the City\ncan be expanded; it is not fair, equitable or practical to place all housing at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to look at housing at the Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed rents paid to the City; stated zoning designations exist to\nsupport various uses; the City will hurt itself if it takes away from business parks, which provide\nrevenue; housing placement should not be a punishment for supporting a ballot measure;\nexpressed concern about the staff report explanation of furthering fair housing requirements;\nstated that she would like to make sure the report cites new housing and lower income or\naffordable housing in areas near schools and parks; expressed concern about references to\nbetter wealth and services being located on the East End of town; stated all housing should not\nbe put on one end of town in order to not over-burden schools, parks and resources; wealth\nshould be spread throughout; decisions made by Council reflect values and the commitment to\nfair housing and addressing the housing crisis; one side of the Island should not point to the\nother side to meet the RHNA obligation; expressed support for housing being disbursed\nthroughout the City and for housing at shopping centers, including Harbor Bay; stated Council is\nnot discussing a tear-down of businesses located at Harbor Bay; examples of housing being\nintegrated into shopping centers can be provided; expressed support for the City being creative\nand open-minded about the combination of residential and retail at Harbor Bay, South Shore,\nMarina Village and Alameda Landing shopping centers; stated the racist past of Alameda did\nexist; the City is moving forward, away from the past; the City still has a long way to go;\nhowever, the challenges are not addressed by pretending non-existence; she understands the\nproposal to have a Court rule on the enforceability of Article 26; however, she is mindful of staff\nbeing stretched thin across a number of different obligations; expressed support for Council\napproval of the Housing Element; stated seeking out a Court determination is not high on her list\nof things to do; many things are needed to meet the housing obligation; other sites and different\nunit amounts can be considered; this is a listening session; the item will return to Council with\nCouncil comments incorporated in the future; Council should remain solution-oriented; there is a\nhousing crisis regardless of how many people are moving in and out of the City; the City has\nbeen under-housed; she looks forward to being part of the solution; inquired whether staff\nrequires additional information from Council.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated the\ncomments provided have been helpful; staff will be publishing the December draft.\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n12", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is trying to come up with solutions; when two\nbusinesses give $60,000 to a campaign and have large parking lots, a ferry and are close to the\nairport, the businesses might be interested in trying to figure out how to put housing in the\nHarbor Bay Business Park.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the December draft will be better than\nthe November draft; staff will continue to work through issues based on feedback provided.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the public can stay up to date on the matter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded via the General Plan update\nwebsite at: https://www.alameda2040.org/; stated staff is posting all Housing Element\ninformation on the website, including upcoming meetings.\nThe City Planner stated there is an upcoming HAB Housing Element workshop on Thursday,\nfollowed by a Planning Board meeting on December 13th, which will include draft zoning\namendments related to SB 9 as well as objective design standards.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Commission on Persons with\nDisabilities will hold a workshop on the Housing Element on December 8th.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like a check-up on the progress for\nraising the Navy cap at Alameda Point.\n(21-775 ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15841, \"Certifying the Final Environmental\nImpact Report, and Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation\nMeasures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the General Plan Amendment to\nUpdate the Alameda General Plan.\" Adopted; and\n(21-775A) Resolution No. 15842, \"Adopting Alameda General Plan 2040.' Adopted.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a PowerPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has spent time with staff making grammatical\nchanges; inquired whether any of the changes have been made.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated the\ndocument is the Planning Board recommended General Plan; staff will create a final, Council-\nadopted version; a Councilmember can move approval of the General Plan with direction to staff\nto go through the document and update all typographical errors; noted some residents\nvolunteered time to go through the document to provide comments and edits; staff will be happy\nto go through another round of edits.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated Council has received correspondence from the Elders of\nLisjan; inquired whether staff can address the matter.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative; stated the letter\nreceived from the Lisjan people includes a series of adjustments and changes; staff has\nreached out to work on a comprehensive update; staff can make changes and additions to\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n13", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 14, "text": "policies with the Lisjan people, which should go through the normal General Plan amendment\nprocess; the process of taking changes through the Planning Board and community for review is\nan educational process; the changes surround sensitivity to the types of issues for staff and\ndecision-making bodies; staff will return with a 2022 General Plan amendment for the Housing\nElement; a Transportation Element appendix amendment is also coming.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the zoning options of the Harbor\nBay Club parcels.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the issue of Harbor Bay Club came\nup in the context of the General Plan; staff and the Planning Board decided that the question for\nzoning at the Harbor Bay Club should be decided in the Housing Element process; it would be\npremature for the General Plan to predict the process; the current designation for the Club,\nwhich is commercial recreation, was kept in the General Plan; the matter is related to the\nGeneral Plan designation, not the zoning for the site; changing the designation is possible, if\ndesired; Council can also direct staff to bring back a zoning amendment to change the\nunderlying zoning from mixed use to open space; classifications established in the General Plan\nare implemented by the zoning code; the General Plan is is the policy document that guides\nfuture zoning, not the zoning code.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what can be done with the proposed document to\nclarify keeping the current commercial recreation use.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation responded the General Plan cannot establish zoning;\nstated the General Plan is adopted by resolution and zoning is adopted by ordinance; the\nGeneral Plan cannot do anything specific to change the zoning; the General Plan can include\npolicy statements such as: consider changing the zoning, which does not create a commitment;\nthe General Plan can show a priority for site zoning decisions; Council may add an action for\nstaff to have the matter go through the ordinance adoption process to change the zoning.\nThe City Attorney stated that he believes Councilmember Herrera Spencer seeks to modify the\nGeneral Plan to clarify that the policy Council wishes to effectuate are pure recreational uses;\nthe process will begin the conversation about staff bringing back conforming zoning updates if\nCouncil establishes overarching General Plan policies that the area should be pure recreation.\nThe City Planner stated the Harbor Bay Club site is a single site; consideration from Council\nmight include how the policy effects the individual site versus a broader area; the nature of the\nGeneral Plan is to consider general policy, as opposed to specific spot zoning.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated a section of the General Plan references open space\nwhere no housing is allowed at the Harbor Bay Club site.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the section references park areas\nunder Land Use Classifications at the end of the Land Use Element.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated it is absolutely possible for the General Plan to state the area has\na land use designation which does not allow housing; the problem which will immediately occur\nwill be a direct conflict between the underlying zoning and the General Plan designation; if\nCouncil takes the next step to prohibit housing on the site and zone the site for open space,\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n14", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 15, "text": "legal issues will be generated.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the zoning could not be changed, but instead\nit could be clarified that the site for recreation or commercial use.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the situation is complicated;\nstated the site has been designated commercial recreational in the General Plan for 30 years\nand has been zoned mixed use to allow residential; residents would like Council to zone the\nspace not to allow housing, which is acceptable; he is struggling with what to change the zoning\nto; questioned whether the City is committing to owning and running the site as an open park or\npublic facility if the City designates the site as open space; stated if the City does not allow\nhousing, the property owner will not be allowed a return on investment and other issues will\narise; staff has left the designation and zoning alone.\nThe City Attorney stated the City runs greater risk in limiting possible uses; the City runs less\nrisk in limiting less uses and remaining open to other uses; there is a sliding scale where the\njudicial decisions on zoning allow the Council great flexibility in zoning; however, if all viable\nuses are eliminated, a compensatory taking argument is possible; if Council wishes to set broad\npolicy about the kinds of uses desired, Council may direct Planning staff to designate\nrecreational uses for the site; Council may even designate recreational with ancillary\ncommercial uses for the site; Council may direct staff to create a zoning for the types of uses\nwhich still create opportunity while limiting the number of uses; if Council places limits, judicial\nreview is likely.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated page 51 of the General Plan document speaks to parks\nand wildlife; there is a category called commercial recreation, which the Harbor Bay Club is\nunder; other categories listed designate that housing is not permitted in certain areas; inquired\nwhether Council may direct staff to add similar language under commercial recreation, to which\nthe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for input from the City Attorney; stated the\ncommercial recreation section has not prohibited housing; the section could be expanded\nwithout touching the zoning similar to the other listed categories.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the General Plan designations that\nindicate no housing is allowed have underlying zoning which prohibits housing; discussed the\npublic parks designation, which does not allow for housing; stated a covenant preventing\nhousing at the Harbor Bay Business Park was placed by the Port of Oakland when Harbor Bay\nwas originally developed; the covenant is the result of a prior lawsuit about building housing\nclose to the airport; Councilmember Herrera Spencer's proposal would create a General Plan\ndesignation which states no housing is allowed even though the zoning allows for housing; the\nconflict would have to be resolved by changing the zoning; staff and the Planning Board chose\nto leave the matter as-is and punt the issue to the discussion of the project or Housing Element\nif the City decides housing is needed at the site; if housing is needed at the site, the General\nPlan designation would need to be changed and the zoning would remain as-is; staff felt as\nthough it is premature to have the City make decisions on the matter.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to hear from the City Attorney.\nThe City Attorney stated that he believes there is no problem in adding commercial or ancillary\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n15", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 16, "text": "uses to the end of page 51 under Commercial Recreation.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the prior category language; suggested adding: \"the\nnew development supports or enhances the mission of the institution \" in the Commercial\nRecreation category to \"support or enhance the recreation facility;\" stated there are carve outs\nfor recreation areas; expressed support for coming up with language to limit residential use.\nThe City Attorney stated adding any of the commercial categories creates no concern; if Council\nwishes to add language stating: \"residential uses are not authorized,\" staff will have to return to\nCouncil with conforming zoning changes due to the creation of inconsistencies between the\nGeneral Plan and underlying zoning.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated an application to completely rebuild\nthe recreation center will be submitted; the application will have 6 tennis courts, rather than 18;\nthe land from the remaining courts will be used for housing; discussed the process for building a\nnew health club; stated neighbors in the area do not support the application and desire land\npreservation; neighbors would like a community-owned recreation facility; community-owned\nmeans the facility is either owned by the City or the Home Owner's Association (HOA); if\nCouncil includes language in support of recreation use, an applicant can defend the use of\nhousing as supporting recreation; if the goal is not to have housing on the site, Council must\ndirect staff to provide the zoning change via ordinance.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated Council may\namend the General Plan to provide for a wide range or semi-wide range supporting ancillary\ncommercial uses; a wide of commercial uses is most helpful for Planning staff; Planning staff\nwill return to Council for conforming zoning changes, which would presumably eliminate housing\nfor the site and seek to up zone elsewhere; under State law, staff needs to create housing\nopportunity neutrality; the neutrality can be achieved elsewhere.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether it is necessary to add the term \"ancillary\" and\nwhether the commercial uses are limited or unlimited, to which the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director responded the current commercial zoning is broad.\nThe City Planner stated the zoning for the site is the same zoning that applies to shopping\ncenters, which allow residential; there is not a standalone commercial zoning that allows an\nathletic club and prohibits residential; staff would likely need to create a new zoning district.\nExpressed support for the General Plan as-is; stated dedicating so much discussion to one\nparcel is unfortunate; downzoning could be considered a taking issue causing litigation\nconcerns; the City would also run afoul of SB 330; the equivalent housing loss for the site would\nhave to be created elsewhere; the discussion is not a prudent discussion for a General Plan;\nexpressed concern about Brown Act violations due to un-noticed rezoning discussions: Zac\nBowling, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the General Plan; stated the Plan is impressive and will guide in the\nyears ahead; she applauds the work done on the mobility element; the vision turns today's\nchallenges of safety, affordability and climate crisis into opportunities; urged Council to support\nthe General Plan and take every opportunity to resource efficiently through infrastructure and\nincreasing staff budgets; stated transformative projects are complex and need a doubling down\non commitment: Cyndy Johnsen, BikeWalk Alameda.\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n16", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 17, "text": "Stated the current General Plan draft looks very good and addresses previous concerns;\nexpressed concern about typos; stated provision CC26A should be strengthened to call for an\nimproved tree preservation ordinance; the section needs prominent and effective enforcement\nprovisions and expanded species protections; urged Council to consider modifications he\nsubmitted: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society.\nExpressed support for the latest draft General Plan; stated that she supports designating the\nHarbor Bay Club as commercial recreational; the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners\nAssociation pays for security, fire, schools and must also account for the recreational space;\ndiscussed the sale and development price for the site; expressed concern about the people of\nHarbor Bay receiving nothing; stated the recreational space is needed; owners pay for the\navailable amenities: Lesa Ross, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about putting the City in a lose-lose situation where court cases are bound\nto appear Statewide; urged Council not to go too far in any one direction that goes against the\ngeneral wishes of the public: Jim Strehlow, Alameda.\nStated that he agrees with the commercial recreational designation for the Harbor Bay Club;\nquestioned why the Harbor Bay Club shares the same C2 zoning as the Harbor Bay shopping\ncenter; stated the zoning makes no sense since the land uses are completely different; the\nzoning should reflect the differences; expressed concern about C2 zoning allowing housing to\nbe built at the Harbor Bay Club site; urged the issue be put to rest by clarifying or correcting the\nzoning for Harbor Bay Club; stated the zoning clarification should have been made 40 years\nago: Chris Aria, Alameda.\nStated that she feels as though there is perception of something different happening on Harbor\nBay and Bay Farm that is not accurate; expressed concern about the potential for no options of\nprivate and public recreation on Bay Farm and safety issues; stated the perception of a divide\nbetween the East and West Ends needs to stop: Michelle Russi, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer expressed support for staff addressing concerns raised by\nSpeaker Aria.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Speaker Aria raises a good point; the\nsimilar C2 zoning is a result from a Council of 40 years prior; the proposed Housing Element\nplaces a multi-family (MF) overlay to the shopping centers desired for housing, which allows\nstaff not to draw in the question of the Harbor Bay Club.\nIn response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director stated public institutional use areas are things like schools; City Hall and\nhigh schools are designated as institutional uses.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether commercial recreation can be moved up to\nparks and wildlife and include the general policy of no residential.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he thinks the goal is to clarify\nthe City's policy to have no housing in the commercial recreational land use designation, similar\nto parks and open space; Council can add language to the commercial recreational land use\ndesignation similar to parks and open space; however, there is implication in doing so; the\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n17", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 18, "text": "designation will only apply to one site and staff will need to return with a zoning amendment to\nprohibit residential.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the designation for commercial recreational should be\nmoved up under parks and wildlife.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can move the designation, if\nCouncil desires to do so.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether a motion is being made.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving the commercial recreation under\nparks and wildlife on page 51 of the General Plan and adding that no residential uses are\npermitted in all areas, as well as any commercial use needed to enhance the use.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated that she recommends Council take action on the final\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to a motion on the General Plan.\nCouncilmember Knox White moved approval of the final EIR [including adoption of the related\nresolution.]\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether separate votes are needed for the matter.\nThe Assistant City Attorney responded one vote certifying the final EIR and adopting the\nfindings is needed.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will not be supporting adoption of the\nfinal EIR due to the contemplation of certain areas which are still at the heart of the previous\nmatter, the amount of housing at shopping centers and the possibility of multi-family housing\noverlays and associated impacts; the General Plan discussion is intriguing and carefully vetted\nquestions are needed.\nOn the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the motion made by Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the motion is to move the commercial\nrecreation land use category into the parks and wildlife category to make a general statement\nthat all three land use classifications under park and wildlife prohibit residential use.\nThe City Clerk stated the motion also includes any accessory commercial uses need to enhance\nthe use.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n18", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 19, "text": "Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney's office would\nhave to take some time to do additional analyses for any legal implications related to the takings\nclause; noting takings clauses are usually associated with zoning changes; questioned whether\nthe takings clause still arises under the General Plan designation; inquired whether the City\nAttorney's office needs more time for analysis.\nThe City Attorney responded that his initial read of the motion is allowing a wide range of\ncommercial uses; stated the range provides comfort that there is the likelihood of a successful,\ndefendable, takings claim; the more Council narrows the use, the more difficult it will be for staff\nto defend actions on a takings claim; staff cannot predict how a Court will rule in any litigation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the commercial recreation designation in the General Plan is\nunder the institutions category on page 51; the designation consists of two paragraphs, which\ndo not reference housing; inquired whether the absence of any reference to housing means that\nthere cannot be a reliance on the General Plan land use designation to seek housing.\nThe City Attorney responded the absence of the reference does not mean housing is prohibited;\nstated many things are not prohibited but are not mentioned in the General Plan; the General\nPlan is a high-level policy document and is not intended to cover every detail; people will read\nthe General Plan in conjunction with the zoning ordinance to determine what can be done;\nCouncil can set specific policy which creates limits as proposed by Councilmember Herrera\nSpencer's motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any reason why Council would need\nto\napprove the current motion; questioned whether it is possible to table the matter in order for\nfurther legal analysis to occur on the topic of the taking clause; stated the risks are high; given\nthe magnitude of risk involved, he would feel more comfortable with tabling the motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted Councilmember Daysog can withdraw his second for the motion.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the matter will still need to return.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council can provide staff with direction.\nCouncilmember Daysog expressed support for providing staff direction; stated that he seconds\nthe motion with a friendly amendment that staff perform further legal analysis to supplement the\nobservations shared.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she understands Council will vote on accepting the\nGeneral Plan; if Council does not make the change, the General Plan will be approved as-is and\nthe City will continue to have the issue; her preference is to hear from staff.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated that he recommends Council adopt\nthe General Plan as-is with direction to staff to come back with additional analysis on the Harbor\nBay Club issue; he shares concerns raised by Councilmember Daysog; Council should tread\ncarefully; the Harbor Bay Club is a separate issue filled with legal implications on both sides;\nholding off on the General Plan to sort through the implications of the Harbor Bay Club would be\na shame.\nThe City Planner stated whether or not Council adopts the General Plan, if a residential\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n19", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 20, "text": "development application for the Harbor Bay Club comes in tomorrow, the current zoning would\nrequire the developer to go through a conditional use permit as well as an amendment to the\nzoning; the provisions of the current zoning allow the Planning Board and City Council sufficient\ndiscretion whether residential uses are compatible for the site.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated part of the problem is that he does not agree with the General\nPlan; while he is seconding the motion made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer related to the\nHarbor Bay Club, he generally does not agree with the General Plan.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she hopes staff can bring the Harbor Bay Club\nmatter forth sooner rather than later; she disagrees that there is no impact by waiting 40 years\nto address the issue.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving up the commercial recreation\ndesignation under parks and wildlife as opposed to institutions on page 51.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether additional changes are being proposed or whether the\ntwo sentences are simply moving, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that\nshe would like the commercial recreation to fall under parks and wildlife.\nVice Mayor Vella inquired the intention and purpose of moving the designation; stated that it\nseems as though Council is trying to sell a bill of goods to the public or create a foundation for\nan action which has not yet been reviewed by legal staff; expressed concern about the motion.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer responded the sentence under commercial recreation speaks\nto similar things listed in the categories under parks and wildlife; stated the designation speaks\nto indoor and outdoor recreation, open space for public access or habitat preservation.\nVice Mayor Vella stated the difference is that the Harbor Bay Club is privately owned; open\nspaces are not privately owned; expressed concern about creating intent; inquired whether the\nchange indicates the City is taking the first steps to do something.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the distinction made by Vice\nMayor Vella is on staff's mind; stated the parks and wildlife categories are 100% publically\nowned and maintained lands; the institutional category includes some publically owned, areas\nsuch as schools; however, privately owned land is also included; whether staff moves the\ncommercial recreation under parks and wildlife, a message is being sent.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated the definition states: and recreational facilities,\nincluding commercial marinas, restaurants, boat rentals and repair businesses;\" the definition\nincludes commercial businesses.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the definition is related to publically\nowned land; the marinas and golf courses are leased.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White stated that his understanding is that staff has\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n20", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 21, "text": "need on the site in the context of the overall Citywide Housing Element discussion and will\ncome back with recommendations which could include changing the zoning to have no housing\nbased on other housing decisions across the City.\nCouncilmember Knox White made a substitute motion to approve providing direction to continue\nfollowing the process outlined by staff with the understanding staff will return with zoning\nrecommendations as a part of the Housing Element, including recommending whether or not\nhousing should be an allowable use at the Harbor Bay Club.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White wanted to make the\ndirection in connection with a motion to approve the General Plan [including related resolution],\nto which Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he seconded Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a substitute motion has been made; inquired whether the substitute\nmotion vote would take precedent, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Vella seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not believe her motion\nand Councilmember Daysog's second can be disregarded.\nThe City Clerk stated a substitute motion is being made; Council needs to consider the\nsubstitute motion.\nOn the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council still needs to consider adoption of resolution adopting the\nAlameda General Plan 2040.\nCouncilmember Knox White stated that he has a number of proposed corrections: \"pre-history\"\nshould be changed to \"early history\" on page 10 under milestones; on page 11, Coastal Miwok\nis not correct; he expects better language to be used in place for the 2022 update; he would like\nto add language to prioritize early engagement of historically ignored voices on page 22 LU-1d.;\nthere have been a number of processes which consider voices at the end versus at the\nbeginning; the beginning is where the work is being done; expressed support for Council being\naffirmative in the General Plan policies related to outreach; requested Electronic Vehicle (EV)\nlanguage move from transportation demand management on page 31 LU-16d to parking\nrequirements on page 31 LU-16e; \"such as a significant proportion dedicated spaces and\ninfrastructure to support clean air vehicles like EV's, carpooling vehicles and hybrids as well\"\nshould move to 16.e; expressed support for the language reading: \"commute support and\nunbundle parking;\" stated page 39 LU-25 proposes a new action, which should include a\nprocess to ensure the City is aware and helps to pass on costs; page 57 under empower should\ninclude an action requiring the City to report out on how outreach has been conducted; he would\nlike to add: \"prioritize solutions and strategies which support both the City greenhouse gas\nreductions and meet other City policies for transportation, housing and economic development\"\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n21", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 22, "text": "on page 60 CC-7 at the end of the policy; \"minimize sound walls\" should change back to the\nexisting: \"prohibit sound walls\" on page 62 CC-7f; he would like a similar change under page 62\nCC-7h for the term \"including transit\" to \"especially transit;\" page 63 CC-10b under parking\nrequirements, language should be changed to \"maintain street parking requirements and\ninclude maximum parking requirements;' a Section should be added on page 64 CC-12b called\n\"Revenues\" which will utilize congestion management pricing revenues to fund improvements to\ntransit and active transportation modes of travel; Council should make sure the City provides\nbetter options for people not to pay for expenses; page 74 CC-29 Alameda Point Marine\nConservation Wildlife and Recreation Area discusses a new park which has not been discussed\nby Council and includes six to seven actions that have staff going out to find funding; expressed\nsupport for removing the actions putting staff in charge of the funding and change the first word\nto \"support;\" stated the City should be performing more outreach and stepping back to\nacknowledge a good thing while also being supportive; language should be changed back to:\n\"prohibit widening\" from the proposed: \"discourage widening\" on page 88 ME-7h.-i; he would\nlike to add a Section e: \"complete streets shall not be interpreted to prohibit pedestrian, bicycle\nand/or transit-only streets which provide direct connections for active transportation and transit\nusers\" on page 89 ME-10; the City can say it has complete streets and is developing streets for\neverybody and can also ensure that cars do not drive on all asphalt areas; the only action\nshown is to increase driving by building off-street driving zones on page 91 ME-12, Council\nshould add a Section ME-12a: \"prioritize the actions listed in ME-14 and support a safe mobility\nand access to school sites\" and change the current Section 12a to 12b adding an intro stating:\n\"where safety issues are identified, and drop-off areas can be accommodated without prioritizing\ndrive\nto\nschool\ntrips\nconsider.. naming rights agreements that do not limit or change public\naccess to the facility on should be added page 107 OS-3b; \"seek\" should be changed to\n\"support\" next to funding requests on page 115 OS-22 in order to enhance habitat values; he\nwould like to ensure prioritizing outreach and outreach to communities which have not\nhistorically been contacted.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated she would like input on changes to page 74, CC-29, Alameda Point\nMarine Conservation Wildlife and Recreation areas; she does not want Council to eliminate\nnecessary work for grant applications; grants can be time critical; she agrees with the concept\non Council approval; the comments provided are recommendations and can be direction to\nstaff.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated removing the actions does not\nprevent the Recreation and Parks Department from seeking funding; the actions list seeking\nfunding, but does not determine whether the action is priority over all other things seeking\nfunding.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she is fine with most of the recommendations proposed by\nCouncilmember Knox White; expressed concern about changes to page 74, the Alameda Point\nMarine Conservation Wildlife and Recreation areas; stated that she would like feedback from\npartners; she would like to ensure Council does not do something which will impact\nrelationships with other agencies; outreach should consider not only the who and what, but also\nthe when; expressed support for equitable access early on without waiting.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated early equitable access is key across everything the City does; it\nwould be difficult for the City to over-communicate; residents expect communication of the City.\nCouncilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like Council to consider adding:\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n22", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 23, "text": "\"streamline and expedite permits for businesses\" on page 27; the process is an ongoing issue\nfor businesses; people of color and women are not included under the list in Section LU-11 on\npage 27; the Section needs to include people of color and women; the list should be\nalphabetically; people of color are a historically marginalized population; she is saddened to see\nthe exclusions; the \"partnerships\" should be listed alphabetically; photos included throughout\nthe General Plan are mostly white people;, she is saddened to see the images.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember Herrera Spencer\nregarding Section LU-11; she does not think the list was meant to be inclusive or exclusive; the\nSection states: \"interventions that break down barriers to employment pre-historically\nmarginalized populations such as: youth, seniors, people with disabilities. stated that she\nwould have added unhoused individuals to the list; the term \"such as\" expands the definition;\nshe would like to ensure the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White would\nnot hamper the Recreation and Parks Department's ability to pursue outside funding; since\nCouncil has not yet approved the project, the actions listed in the General Plan seem to be\njumping ahead.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not think adding the term \"support\"\nwould hamper either being lead agency or partner on a grant; the term change still shows the\nimportance to the City; adding the term is fine.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether removing the actions causes any difficulty.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated that she has come to the discussion late and would\nlike time to read the details and provide an accurate answer.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendations provided should be considered to have staff\nlook at all the potential ramifications and implications; staff should report back to Council.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can report back to Council; the\nlist helps identify high priority matters; there is a way to re-write the policy and indicate support\nfor efforts with partners; staff can list facilitation of seeking funding or pursue mapping, trash\nremoval, signage, oil spill, public access structure and additional items; the General Plan is a\npolicy level document; there has not been much Council discussion about the project; the\nGeneral Plan takes a good idea and puts it out in the open.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the section is listed as \"Conservation Climate Action Element;\"\nCouncil has held discussions about conservation and climate action; the description includes:\n\"protecting and restoring natural habitats to support bio-diversity and to prepare for climate\nchange is a key goal of the General Plan;\" maps which establish a biological inventory should\nbe done; expressed support for funding being acquired to help with oil spill booms and\nprotection of sensitive habitat areas affected by oil spills; proposed language can be modified;\nhowever, she would like to give the Recreation and Parks Director and Planning, Building and\nTransportation Director the opportunity to confirm; inquired whether Council can provide\ndirection to staff.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded that he will need to know whether\nCouncil is adopting the General Plan and asking staff to come back with potential revisions; staff\nwill return after working through tribal language with the Planning Board; the Transportation\nAppendix will be worked on with the Transportation Commission; it will be easiest if the General\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n23", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2021-11-30", "page": 24, "text": "Plan is adopt as-is; there is room for more discussion when the matter returns for a revised\npolicy recommendation.\nThe City Manager stated that he concurs with the Planning, Building and Transportation\nDirector's recommendation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a lot of the issues regarding intensity of uses are still tied to the\nHousing Element discussion; he is not supportive of the General Plan.\nThe Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the intensity of uses proposed in the\nland use classification are specifically tied to existing zoning intensities; staff did not want to\njump the gun on the Housing Element; the Planning Board set the land uses intensities to\nexisting zoning; there are no proposed increases in intensities for the General Plan.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the South Shore housing has prospects of 800 units; the actual\namount could increase to 1,200 units; the amount is part of the General Plan discussion; he\ndoes not see himself supporting the General Plan; the matter is related to the impacts and EIR;\nthe housing amount will affect the impacts; everything must work together.\nVice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks staff has explained that matters are related to zoning;\nshe is supportive of the General Plan and the recommendations provided by Councilmember\nKnox White; proposed changes should be included in an updated appendix.\nVice Mayor Vella moved adoption of resolution.\nMayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the motion includes giving staff\ndirection to consider including comments made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer.\nVice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers\nDaysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye.\nAyes: 3. Noes: 2.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nContinued November 16, 2021 Regular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 30, 2021\n24", "path": "CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf"}