pages
24 rows where "date" is on date 2021-11-30 sorted by page
This data as json, CSV (advanced)
Link | body | date | page ▼ | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,1 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 1 | MINUTES OF THE CONTINUED NOVEMBER 16, 2021 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING UESDAY- -NOVEMBER 30, 2021-5:00 - P.M. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft convened the meeting at 5:03 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Herrera Spencer, Knox White, Vella, and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft - 5. [Note: Councilmember Knox White arrived at 5:12 p.m. The meeting was conducted via Zoom] Absent: None. CONTINUED REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (21-773) Workshop to Review and Comment on the Draft Housing Element Update to Accommodate the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Period 2023-2031 in Compliance with State Law. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a Power Point presentation. (21-774) Vice Mayor Vella moved approval of allowing 5 minutes for the presentation. Councilmember Knox White seconded the motion, which carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: Aye; Herrera Spencer: Aye; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 5. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director concluded the Power Point presentation. Expressed support for recommendations provided by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) and Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT); urged Council to consider adding more units along the main transit corridors and seek to preserve architectural elements throughout the City; expressed support for Council refraining from up zoning in the R-2 through R-6 neighborhoods and for adopting an emergency ordinance related to Senate Bill (SB) 9: Carmen Reid, Alameda. Stated that she is pleased to see a draft site inventory; urged Council not to consider the inventory finalized until the required, companion Fair Housing Analysis is included; stated the City must maintain adequate capacity for its housing throughout the entire planning cycle; if the Council decides not to put 1,000 units of housing at shopping centers at a future time, other locations within the City must be found to make up the units; expressed support for an affordable housing overlay: Sophia DeWit… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,2 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 2 | housing and ensure equity, inclusion and anti-displacement: Betsy Mathieson, Alameda. Expressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the included goals, policies and programs are sensible and admirable; she especially appreciates Goal 3; the Housing Element is lofty and a lot of work must be done in order to reach the goal; the Housing Element goals will put the City on the right path in addressing the housing crisis; expressed support for the proposed zoning changes, including increasing density in residential zones R1 to R6; stated the changes are needed to reverse exclusionary and inequitable land use practices and will strengthen the vibrancy and diversity of the City; increased density will support more sustainable and walkable lifestyles; urged City staff to look at further increasing density; expressed support for the City following all State laws, including putting forth a compliant Housing Element: Elizabeth Kuwada, Alameda. Encouraged smart growth, raising Alameda Point housing limits and raising shopping center height limits to accommodate additional housing; expressed opposition to up zoning: Devon Westerholm, Alameda. Expressed support for the attempt to discuss the housing cap being raised for shopping centers; stated the raised cap is key to not over burdening residential areas; the current Housing Element density increases avoid Article 26; expressed concern over developers buying buildings for demolition; questioned the message being sent to voters; urged Council consider acting on the AAPS proposals: Dolores Kelleher, Alameda. Stated the draft Housing Element does not adequately reflect the 2010 Webster Street Vision Plan, nor does it implement the November multi-family overlay zone proposal; the Vision Plan calls for retaining the existing architectural character of Webster Street south of Lincoln Avenue; discussed WABA's multi-family overlay proposal height limits; expressed concern about the Housing Element not reflecting WABA's housing proposal and for higher density limits exceedin… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,3 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 3 | Expressed support for not removing the Harbor Bay recreation area; stated promoting health and well-being is fundamentally important to communities; the recreation area provides many resources; mental and physical program access is important after the isolation due to the pandemic: Jason Gerke, Alameda. Stated RHNA includes minimum limits set by the State; the minimums only include half of the amount truly needed; urged Council go above and beyond with zoning changes; stated housing is needed near transit; expressed support for less focus on parking and automobile traffic; urged Council not to make the minimum the goal: Paul Bickmore, Alameda. Expressed support for the staff recommendation and draft Housing Element; stated the City has to look at considering up zoning R1 to R6 in order to break down historical systems of segregation; years of exclusionary zoning have left a lasting impact and must be corrected; the City must allow for higher density and affordable housing; he is not swayed by the arguments from organizations seeking to deny housing in Alameda; Article 26 is not enforceable and violates State housing law: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Stated the Encinal Terminals site is a third of the City's RHNA; urged Council to allow the site to move forward; stated there are practical, legal and moral limits to building all-new housing; expressed support for the proposed sub zoning and for more housing in shopping center districts; expressed concern about owners of commercial areas not being open to development; stated that he would like to see the Park and Webster Street areas expanded for more than the estimated 300 units; the areas could use 1,000 units or more and are transit-rich; discussed development in downtown Oakland: Joshua Hawn, Alameda. Expressed support for the matter; stated that he is confused by people saying more housing is needed, then not supporting utilizing State density bonus law; the State density bonus law is one of the strongest tools Alameda has to construct affordable housing; urged Counci… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,4 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 4 | more housing at Alameda Point, which requires 25% affordable housing; stated the rest of Alameda only has a requirement of 15% affordable housing; ADUs do not have to be affordable; urged transit corridors be considered: Margaret Hall, Alameda. Stated it is a myth that R1 through R6 zones are exclusionary; many of the housing within R1 through R6 include rentals with affordable rates; if housing is torn down, displacement will occur; greater density land is more expensive; construction costs are expensive; rent control will leave from old units; expressed concern over gentrification: Paul Foreman, Alameda. Expressed concern over too much density being pushed on R1 through R6; stated established, historic neighborhoods need to be protected; increased density will cause more traffic and transit problems; urged a focused density that does not impact buses and is closer to Alameda Point; outlined State density bonus law related to units on a single lot; urged Council increase density, but not go over the top: Erich Stiger, Alameda. Stated the proposed blanket up zoning of R2 through R6 is unnecessary and overkill; blanket up zoning will encourage demolition and replacement of historic buildings and threaten the exiting stock of relatively low-cost, privately owned rental units by encouraging developers to replace buildings using the State density bonus law; urged Council get the word out to the public about City happenings; discussed distribution of flyers for the meeting: Brenden Sullivan, Alameda. Stated that she would like to live in a community that is welcoming, inclusive and diverse; expressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the draft Housing Element will help meet RHNA obligations; she would like an update on the status and enforceability of Article 26 and State preemption: Kristi Black, Alameda. Expressed concern over the proposed up zoning in residential areas; stated that he is not convinced the up zoning is necessary; expressed support for looking to large underutilized sites such as shopping… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,5 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 5 | Urged Council to rezone the Harbor Bay Club back to its original intent as a recreational, commercial space; stated there is a reclamation district bond for bay dredging; Harbor Bay Club is considered an amenity for the community; urged Council to stand up for the Harbor Bay Club and not let developers take precedence over people: Lesa Ross, Alameda. Stated that he would like Harbor Bay Club to be zoned as recreational; the Harbor Bay Club never paid a reclamation district bond assessment; the bond financed the filling of Harbor Bay Isle and has been paid off; allowing a private developer to profit at the expense of assessment paid by the public would be inequitable; many people like the Harbor Bay Club as a recreational space: Behrad Aria, Alameda. Urged the City to move more aggressively on discussions with the Navy to lift the cap at Alameda Point; stated lifting the cap will result in greater capacity for additional housing units in an area which can accommodate much more than the current cap allows; there is a need for more affordable housing in the City; the City is straining to meet its infrastructure commitments to the community; a large increase in housing units will further exacerbate the problem; expressed opposition over any effort which will rezone areas within the community for high density housing: Bill Pai, Community of Harbor Bay Isle Board. Expressed support for the draft Housing Element; stated the plan is sensible and goes a long way towards fulfilling the legal and moral obligations to produce housing; the Bay Area produces many jobs; the City must accommodate and do its part to build housing for the people here; expressed concern about the lack of housing production: Doug Letterman, Alameda. Expressed support for the housing policies; stated it is important that the policies further fair housing and the right of first refusal for those who have been displaced; it is important that all Alameda neighborhoods provide opportunity for affordable housing development to take place; expressed suppor… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,6 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 6 | Urged Council to vote no on the matter of up zoning; expressed concern about the future of Alameda and residential neighborhoods; stated development will be indiscriminate; expressed concern over a future lack of open land: Kevin Frederick, Alameda. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Housing Element changes around the WABA district. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the business area corridors are transit-oriented, commercial corridors that would be good for adding housing; one of the criticisms received is staff is not pushing enough; staff will begin to look at more sites and talk with neighbors in the area; staff has questioned how to tailor zoning to get more housing on Webster Street without sacrificing or losing some of the historic character; staff believes the goal of tailoring zoning can be accomplished; zoning can be carefully tailored to obtain desired results. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the Harbor Bay Club zoning. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Harbor Bay Club site is currently zoned for mixed use, which allows for commercial and residential; the historic use for the space has been for a health club under a commercial use; the owners have indicated a desire to sell; the potential buyer has indicated an interest in replacing the health club with a new health club facility, plus residential; the development application will go through the normal process. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter of Harbor Bay Club is before the Council, to which the Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the negative; stated Harbor Bay Club is separate from the Housing Element. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification about the different types of housing at Alameda Point. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated Alameda Point has a variety of housing; the area has market rate and affordable housing; there is agreement in the need for affordable and subsidized housing; market rat… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,7 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 7 | into effect January 1, 2022; the Planning Board will review staff's initial zoning amendments for the R1 district on December 13th; there are approximately 9,500 R1 parcels in the City; the R1 district allows an ADU up to 1,200 square feet and a junior ADU; the draft Housing Element proposal allows for an additional ADU; Council cannot stop State law and SB 9; SB 9 allows a property owner to perform a lot split and sale of the alternate unit; staff believes SB 9 will increase the capacity in the R1 zoning districts; staff is expecting a moderate increase in production and roughly 30 ADU projects per year due to SB 9; many ADUs are not discernable; the City's ability and authority to regulate land is passed down from the State; if the voters of Alameda adopt a measure in conflict with State law, the measure is unenforceable; Council adopted zoning regulations in 2012 which were in conflict with the City Charter since Article 26 is in conflict with State law; it is unfortunate that voters kept the conflict in the Charter since it is unenforceable; staff cannot maintain General Plan conformance with State law and respect the City Charter; should if City wishes to maintain its land use authority, a Housing Element must be adopted; the Housing Element is in conflict with the City Charter. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired where the City is currently at with the Navy cap at Alameda Point. The City Manager responded around 2011, the City and Navy came to an agreement which included a no-cost transfer of land to the City of Naval land; stated the no-cost transfer includes several stipulations, including the Navy having to clean up the land; the Navy cap allows only a certain number of housing units, which are included in the Housing Element; the Navy has had to review the agreement to ensure compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); the agreement and any subsequent amendments would also have to remain in compliance with NEPA; NEPA is required when a federal entity works with a local jurisdiction. Mayor Ezz… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,8 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 8 | extent directed by the City Council; stated unless there is a direct appellant decision, it is not staff's place to declare an act of Council or an act of the voters is unlawful; given guidance received from the State, he recognizes staff's point, that there is some doubt with respect to the continued viability of Article 26; there is also the perspective that until a court order declares Council or a voter action unlawful, the Article remains law of the land. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether Council could include clarification about the use of Harbor Bay Club in the Housing Element. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded if Council wants to rezone the Harbor Bay Club space to recreation only, a zoning amendment would need to be done; a Planning Board public hearing needs to occur prior to Council approval; the purpose of the Housing Element is to identify the sites available for housing, it does not show where the City will not build housing. The City Attorney stated that he agrees with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director that the Housing Element may not be the best way to address the matter; the General Plan item up next might be a better place to include direction about the Harbor Bay Club. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to focus on the negativity about Alameda's racial history; the City currently has a minority-majority; the White population is 42.7%; the percentage has decreased over time; other data that does not depict Alameda as racist could have been presented; she is Mexican American and has a hard time reading a document with a negative portrayal; Alameda has done a good job; the report could include data showing the decrease in the White population is attributable to the housing offered; discussed the City of Berkeley and San Francisco's population; stated the City of Alameda has been providing things which result in the diverse community; expressed concern about the language used; stated multiple places depict Alameda negati… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,9 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 9 | central areas; staff is proposing to spread the housing around. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether there is concern for tsunami risks. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff has raised the issue with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which responded every city in the Bay Area has environmental risks and the risk cannot be a reason not to build housing; the concerns are real issues; however, none will allow the City to avoid identifying where to build housing. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is concerned with how to evacuate or bring supplies to people and what mitigation can be done; ABAG offered support; expressed support for keeping access to the Estuary in mind; stated South Shore is problematic due to a lack of ferry access. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff is working on the issues; a hazard mitigation plan exists; staff works with the community and surrounding agencies to prepare for the event of an emergency; staff should be working on these issues irrespective of a Housing Element; the Housing Element does not force the issues of safety and evacuation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated Alameda Point is the better site due to ferry access; noted South Shore does not have boat access; boat access is available along the Estuary as well. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated pieces of the draft Housing Element are not yet complete; a full demographic report and a fair housing analysis will be completed; if previous land use patterns show discrimination, the City must show ways the patterns are being corrected. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the tone of the Housing Element could be changed; expressed concern over comments showing one side town in a negative way. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft called a recess at 7:17 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:35 p.m. *** Councilmember Knox White stated the City has to follow State law; inquired what happens if the City be out of compliance with the Stat… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,10 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 10 | Alameda taxpayers; staff recommends adopting the draft Housing Element. Councilmember Knox White inquired how the draft Housing Element identifies where the impacts are in order to affirmatively further fair housing and how the City is looking at furthering fair housing. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded staff is aware of affirmatively furthering fair housing; stated HCD produces maps; the maps show areas of less opportunity on the West End; most of the affordable housing is being built on the West End; staff is proposing to spread out the housing; there is more land available on the West End; however, a conscious effort is being made to show HCD that all new and affordable housing is not being placed on the West End; the R1 through R6 districts play an important role in furthering fair housing by providing the most equitable way of spreading the RHNA through all of Alameda. Councilmember Knox White stated Alameda has a couple large policy guidance choices which will be beneficial for all; one of the choices is how Council will prioritize historic aesthetics over affirming fair housing; he is confident that the City can build new housing and also protect a lot of the older buildings; the City being out of compliance is about the worst thing; he would like to understand whether or not there is Council unanimity to having a compliant Housing Element; if Councilmembers do not support a compliant Housing Element, he hopes members will be willing to more affirmatively seek judicial input on whether Article 26 trumps State law; if there not be support for a compliant Housing Element, it would be interesting for Council to give direction to have a Closed Session on how the City might proactively and affirmatively have judicial review of the questions in order to avoid harm before certifying the Housing Element; the wise choice is to have a certified Housing Element; however, State laws have to be followed. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she would like to have a dialogue to see where Councilmembe… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,11 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 11 | Council should save neighborhoods; there are options for housing adjacent to Bayport; questioned whether the Main Street ferry terminal site is currently being used; stated the City must offer other spaces for housing; Neptune Park could be looked at; higher densities at Webster Street make sense; he does not have specific recommendations related to past discrimination; he would like to ensure an understanding of a number of State and federal laws, which ensure fair housing; there has been a history of racism; however, there have also been successes; the disparity seen cannot be solely due to racism; expressed support for having a balanced review of past discrimination as well as successes; stated elements of the draft Housing Element are difficult to support; he was the campaign chair for the No on Measure Z campaign; many things included in the draft Housing Element undermine the success of the campaign; the City needs to find another way to meet its RHNA obligation; he respects that fellow Councilmembers come from different perspectives and will fight hard for said perspectives; he has his own perspective of what Alameda needs in order to move ahead in a well-planned manner. Councilmember Knox White stated that he is hearing one of his colleagues desire to remain non-compliant; his question remains about rather than taking a huge risk in provoking two State groups going after non-compliance, that the City ask the Courts whether or not non-compliance is allowed; the proposed outline from Councilmember Daysog is non-compliant; the goal of the process is to have HCD sign-off on the Housing Element; he is looking for a way forward that does not result in trouble; expressed concern about Council paying legal fees and losing control of land use planning; stated if Council moves forward with a Housing Element which conforms to State law, he would like to note concern about not coming anywhere near the needed numbers for Park and Webster Streets; the proposed 900 units for the residential districts areas is not realis… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,12 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 12 | many units will be found; stated Council needs to equitably address how to spread housing throughout the City; saying the City will find reasonable ways to provide housing is not enough; Council needs to have the numbers and find places for the units designated on a map; negate housing locations is not enough; outlined Alameda Point historic buildings discussions during her time on the Historic Advisory Board; expressed concern about the hypocrisy of housing arguments; stated concerns related to access points for getting on and off Island do not coincide with placing all housing at Alameda Point; it is difficult to listen to conflicting concerns; policies are not the only things which address a racist past; racist deed covenants still exist; historic wealth exists due to racist pasts; Council must ensure equity in housing; the notion of the market taking care of itself is not enough; Council must vote and provide direction to certify the Housing Element; she hopes Council's actions can meet its words; the City's current position is due to policies being in place which put restrictions on and prevented multi-family housing and generational wealth; the City can ensure it has public housing; Council must approve the units being built; Alameda is not the only city providing housing arguments and pushback; expressed support for equitable distribution throughout the City; stated transit options throughout the City can be expanded; it is not fair, equitable or practical to place all housing at Alameda Point. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like to look at housing at the Harbor Bay Business Park. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft discussed rents paid to the City; stated zoning designations exist to support various uses; the City will hurt itself if it takes away from business parks, which provide revenue; housing placement should not be a punishment for supporting a ballot measure; expressed concern about the staff report explanation of furthering fair housing requirements; stated that she would like to make sure t… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,13 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 13 | Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she is trying to come up with solutions; when two businesses give $60,000 to a campaign and have large parking lots, a ferry and are close to the airport, the businesses might be interested in trying to figure out how to put housing in the Harbor Bay Business Park. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the December draft will be better than the November draft; staff will continue to work through issues based on feedback provided. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired how the public can stay up to date on the matter. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded via the General Plan update website at: https://www.alameda2040.org/; stated staff is posting all Housing Element information on the website, including upcoming meetings. The City Planner stated there is an upcoming HAB Housing Element workshop on Thursday, followed by a Planning Board meeting on December 13th, which will include draft zoning amendments related to SB 9 as well as objective design standards. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the Commission on Persons with Disabilities will hold a workshop on the Housing Element on December 8th. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she would like a check-up on the progress for raising the Navy cap at Alameda Point. (21-775 ) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 15841, "Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report, and Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the General Plan Amendment to Update the Alameda General Plan." Adopted; and (21-775A) Resolution No. 15842, "Adopting Alameda General Plan 2040.' Adopted. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director gave a PowerPoint presentation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she has spent time with staff making grammatical changes; inquired whether any of the changes have been made. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded in the neg… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,14 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 14 | policies with the Lisjan people, which should go through the normal General Plan amendment process; the process of taking changes through the Planning Board and community for review is an educational process; the changes surround sensitivity to the types of issues for staff and decision-making bodies; staff will return with a 2022 General Plan amendment for the Housing Element; a Transportation Element appendix amendment is also coming. Councilmember Herrera Spencer requested clarification about the zoning options of the Harbor Bay Club parcels. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the issue of Harbor Bay Club came up in the context of the General Plan; staff and the Planning Board decided that the question for zoning at the Harbor Bay Club should be decided in the Housing Element process; it would be premature for the General Plan to predict the process; the current designation for the Club, which is commercial recreation, was kept in the General Plan; the matter is related to the General Plan designation, not the zoning for the site; changing the designation is possible, if desired; Council can also direct staff to bring back a zoning amendment to change the underlying zoning from mixed use to open space; classifications established in the General Plan are implemented by the zoning code; the General Plan is is the policy document that guides future zoning, not the zoning code. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired what can be done with the proposed document to clarify keeping the current commercial recreation use. The Planning, Building and Transportation responded the General Plan cannot establish zoning; stated the General Plan is adopted by resolution and zoning is adopted by ordinance; the General Plan cannot do anything specific to change the zoning; the General Plan can include policy statements such as: consider changing the zoning, which does not create a commitment; the General Plan can show a priority for site zoning decisions; Council may add an action for staff to have the matt… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,15 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 15 | legal issues will be generated. Councilmember Herrera Spencer inquired whether the zoning could not be changed, but instead it could be clarified that the site for recreation or commercial use. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director responded the situation is complicated; stated the site has been designated commercial recreational in the General Plan for 30 years and has been zoned mixed use to allow residential; residents would like Council to zone the space not to allow housing, which is acceptable; he is struggling with what to change the zoning to; questioned whether the City is committing to owning and running the site as an open park or public facility if the City designates the site as open space; stated if the City does not allow housing, the property owner will not be allowed a return on investment and other issues will arise; staff has left the designation and zoning alone. The City Attorney stated the City runs greater risk in limiting possible uses; the City runs less risk in limiting less uses and remaining open to other uses; there is a sliding scale where the judicial decisions on zoning allow the Council great flexibility in zoning; however, if all viable uses are eliminated, a compensatory taking argument is possible; if Council wishes to set broad policy about the kinds of uses desired, Council may direct Planning staff to designate recreational uses for the site; Council may even designate recreational with ancillary commercial uses for the site; Council may direct staff to create a zoning for the types of uses which still create opportunity while limiting the number of uses; if Council places limits, judicial review is likely. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated page 51 of the General Plan document speaks to parks and wildlife; there is a category called commercial recreation, which the Harbor Bay Club is under; other categories listed designate that housing is not permitted in certain areas; inquired whether Council may direct staff to add similar language under commercial recrea… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,16 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 16 | uses to the end of page 51 under Commercial Recreation. Councilmember Herrera Spencer outlined the prior category language; suggested adding: "the new development supports or enhances the mission of the institution " in the Commercial Recreation category to "support or enhance the recreation facility;" stated there are carve outs for recreation areas; expressed support for coming up with language to limit residential use. The City Attorney stated adding any of the commercial categories creates no concern; if Council wishes to add language stating: "residential uses are not authorized," staff will have to return to Council with conforming zoning changes due to the creation of inconsistencies between the General Plan and underlying zoning. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated an application to completely rebuild the recreation center will be submitted; the application will have 6 tennis courts, rather than 18; the land from the remaining courts will be used for housing; discussed the process for building a new health club; stated neighbors in the area do not support the application and desire land preservation; neighbors would like a community-owned recreation facility; community-owned means the facility is either owned by the City or the Home Owner's Association (HOA); if Council includes language in support of recreation use, an applicant can defend the use of housing as supporting recreation; if the goal is not to have housing on the site, Council must direct staff to provide the zoning change via ordinance. In response to Councilmember Herrera Spencer's inquiry, the City Attorney stated Council may amend the General Plan to provide for a wide range or semi-wide range supporting ancillary commercial uses; a wide of commercial uses is most helpful for Planning staff; Planning staff will return to Council for conforming zoning changes, which would presumably eliminate housing for the site and seek to up zone elsewhere; under State law, staff needs to create housing opportunity neutrality; the … | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,17 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 17 | Stated the current General Plan draft looks very good and addresses previous concerns; expressed concern about typos; stated provision CC26A should be strengthened to call for an improved tree preservation ordinance; the section needs prominent and effective enforcement provisions and expanded species protections; urged Council to consider modifications he submitted: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. Expressed support for the latest draft General Plan; stated that she supports designating the Harbor Bay Club as commercial recreational; the Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners Association pays for security, fire, schools and must also account for the recreational space; discussed the sale and development price for the site; expressed concern about the people of Harbor Bay receiving nothing; stated the recreational space is needed; owners pay for the available amenities: Lesa Ross, Alameda. Expressed concern about putting the City in a lose-lose situation where court cases are bound to appear Statewide; urged Council not to go too far in any one direction that goes against the general wishes of the public: Jim Strehlow, Alameda. Stated that he agrees with the commercial recreational designation for the Harbor Bay Club; questioned why the Harbor Bay Club shares the same C2 zoning as the Harbor Bay shopping center; stated the zoning makes no sense since the land uses are completely different; the zoning should reflect the differences; expressed concern about C2 zoning allowing housing to be built at the Harbor Bay Club site; urged the issue be put to rest by clarifying or correcting the zoning for Harbor Bay Club; stated the zoning clarification should have been made 40 years ago: Chris Aria, Alameda. Stated that she feels as though there is perception of something different happening on Harbor Bay and Bay Farm that is not accurate; expressed concern about the potential for no options of private and public recreation on Bay Farm and safety issues; stated the perception of a divide betwee… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,18 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 18 | designation will only apply to one site and staff will need to return with a zoning amendment to prohibit residential. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated the designation for commercial recreational should be moved up under parks and wildlife. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can move the designation, if Council desires to do so. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft questioned whether a motion is being made. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving the commercial recreation under parks and wildlife on page 51 of the General Plan and adding that no residential uses are permitted in all areas, as well as any commercial use needed to enhance the use. The Assistant City Attorney stated that she recommends Council take action on the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prior to a motion on the General Plan. Councilmember Knox White moved approval of the final EIR [including adoption of the related resolution.] Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether separate votes are needed for the matter. The Assistant City Attorney responded one vote certifying the final EIR and adopting the findings is needed. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he will not be supporting adoption of the final EIR due to the contemplation of certain areas which are still at the heart of the previous matter, the amount of housing at shopping centers and the possibility of multi-family housing overlays and associated impacts; the General Plan discussion is intriguing and carefully vetted questions are needed. On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested clarification of the motion made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the motion is to move the commercial recreation land use category into the parks and wildlife category to ma… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,19 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 19 | Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney's office would have to take some time to do additional analyses for any legal implications related to the takings clause; noting takings clauses are usually associated with zoning changes; questioned whether the takings clause still arises under the General Plan designation; inquired whether the City Attorney's office needs more time for analysis. The City Attorney responded that his initial read of the motion is allowing a wide range of commercial uses; stated the range provides comfort that there is the likelihood of a successful, defendable, takings claim; the more Council narrows the use, the more difficult it will be for staff to defend actions on a takings claim; staff cannot predict how a Court will rule in any litigation. Councilmember Daysog stated the commercial recreation designation in the General Plan is under the institutions category on page 51; the designation consists of two paragraphs, which do not reference housing; inquired whether the absence of any reference to housing means that there cannot be a reliance on the General Plan land use designation to seek housing. The City Attorney responded the absence of the reference does not mean housing is prohibited; stated many things are not prohibited but are not mentioned in the General Plan; the General Plan is a high-level policy document and is not intended to cover every detail; people will read the General Plan in conjunction with the zoning ordinance to determine what can be done; Council can set specific policy which creates limits as proposed by Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any reason why Council would need to approve the current motion; questioned whether it is possible to table the matter in order for further legal analysis to occur on the topic of the taking clause; stated the risks are high; given the magnitude of risk involved, he would feel more comfortable with tabling the motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft note… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,20 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 20 | development application for the Harbor Bay Club comes in tomorrow, the current zoning would require the developer to go through a conditional use permit as well as an amendment to the zoning; the provisions of the current zoning allow the Planning Board and City Council sufficient discretion whether residential uses are compatible for the site. Councilmember Daysog stated part of the problem is that he does not agree with the General Plan; while he is seconding the motion made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer related to the Harbor Bay Club, he generally does not agree with the General Plan. Councilmember Herrera Spencer withdrew her motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she hopes staff can bring the Harbor Bay Club matter forth sooner rather than later; she disagrees that there is no impact by waiting 40 years to address the issue. Councilmember Herrera Spencer moved approval of moving up the commercial recreation designation under parks and wildlife as opposed to institutions on page 51. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether additional changes are being proposed or whether the two sentences are simply moving, to which Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded that she would like the commercial recreation to fall under parks and wildlife. Vice Mayor Vella inquired the intention and purpose of moving the designation; stated that it seems as though Council is trying to sell a bill of goods to the public or create a foundation for an action which has not yet been reviewed by legal staff; expressed concern about the motion. Councilmember Herrera Spencer responded the sentence under commercial recreation speaks to similar things listed in the categories under parks and wildlife; stated the designation speaks to indoor and outdoor recreation, open space for public access or habitat preservation. Vice Mayor Vella stated the difference is that the Harbor Bay Club is privately owned; open spaces are not privately owned; expressed concern about creating intent; inquired whether the change indicates the City is ta… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,21 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 21 | need on the site in the context of the overall Citywide Housing Element discussion and will come back with recommendations which could include changing the zoning to have no housing based on other housing decisions across the City. Councilmember Knox White made a substitute motion to approve providing direction to continue following the process outlined by staff with the understanding staff will return with zoning recommendations as a part of the Housing Element, including recommending whether or not housing should be an allowable use at the Harbor Bay Club. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Knox White wanted to make the direction in connection with a motion to approve the General Plan [including related resolution], to which Councilmember Knox White responded in the negative. Councilmember Daysog stated that he seconded Councilmember Herrera Spencer's motion. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated a substitute motion has been made; inquired whether the substitute motion vote would take precedent, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor Vella seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Herrera Spencer stated that she does not believe her motion and Councilmember Daysog's second can be disregarded. The City Clerk stated a substitute motion is being made; Council needs to consider the substitute motion. On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated Council still needs to consider adoption of resolution adopting the Alameda General Plan 2040. Councilmember Knox White stated that he has a number of proposed corrections: "pre-history" should be changed to "early history" on page 10 under milestones; on page 11, Coastal Miwok is not correct; he expects better language to be used in place for the 2022 update; he would like to add language to prioritize early engagement of historically ignored voice… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,22 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 22 | on page 60 CC-7 at the end of the policy; "minimize sound walls" should change back to the existing: "prohibit sound walls" on page 62 CC-7f; he would like a similar change under page 62 CC-7h for the term "including transit" to "especially transit;" page 63 CC-10b under parking requirements, language should be changed to "maintain street parking requirements and include maximum parking requirements;' a Section should be added on page 64 CC-12b called "Revenues" which will utilize congestion management pricing revenues to fund improvements to transit and active transportation modes of travel; Council should make sure the City provides better options for people not to pay for expenses; page 74 CC-29 Alameda Point Marine Conservation Wildlife and Recreation Area discusses a new park which has not been discussed by Council and includes six to seven actions that have staff going out to find funding; expressed support for removing the actions putting staff in charge of the funding and change the first word to "support;" stated the City should be performing more outreach and stepping back to acknowledge a good thing while also being supportive; language should be changed back to: "prohibit widening" from the proposed: "discourage widening" on page 88 ME-7h.-i; he would like to add a Section e: "complete streets shall not be interpreted to prohibit pedestrian, bicycle and/or transit-only streets which provide direct connections for active transportation and transit users" on page 89 ME-10; the City can say it has complete streets and is developing streets for everybody and can also ensure that cars do not drive on all asphalt areas; the only action shown is to increase driving by building off-street driving zones on page 91 ME-12, Council should add a Section ME-12a: "prioritize the actions listed in ME-14 and support a safe mobility and access to school sites" and change the current Section 12a to 12b adding an intro stating: "where safety issues are identified, and drop-off areas can be accommodated without prioritizi… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,23 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 23 | "streamline and expedite permits for businesses" on page 27; the process is an ongoing issue for businesses; people of color and women are not included under the list in Section LU-11 on page 27; the Section needs to include people of color and women; the list should be alphabetically; people of color are a historically marginalized population; she is saddened to see the exclusions; the "partnerships" should be listed alphabetically; photos included throughout the General Plan are mostly white people;, she is saddened to see the images. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember Herrera Spencer regarding Section LU-11; she does not think the list was meant to be inclusive or exclusive; the Section states: "interventions that break down barriers to employment pre-historically marginalized populations such as: youth, seniors, people with disabilities. stated that she would have added unhoused individuals to the list; the term "such as" expands the definition; she would like to ensure the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White would not hamper the Recreation and Parks Department's ability to pursue outside funding; since Council has not yet approved the project, the actions listed in the General Plan seem to be jumping ahead. The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she does not think adding the term "support" would hamper either being lead agency or partner on a grant; the term change still shows the importance to the City; adding the term is fine. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether removing the actions causes any difficulty. The Recreation and Parks Director stated that she has come to the discussion late and would like time to read the details and provide an accurate answer. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the recommendations provided should be considered to have staff look at all the potential ramifications and implications; staff should report back to Council. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated staff can report back to Council; the list helps … | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf,24 | CityCouncil | 2021-11-30 | 24 | Plan is adopt as-is; there is room for more discussion when the matter returns for a revised policy recommendation. The City Manager stated that he concurs with the Planning, Building and Transportation Director's recommendation. Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of the issues regarding intensity of uses are still tied to the Housing Element discussion; he is not supportive of the General Plan. The Planning, Building and Transportation Director stated the intensity of uses proposed in the land use classification are specifically tied to existing zoning intensities; staff did not want to jump the gun on the Housing Element; the Planning Board set the land uses intensities to existing zoning; there are no proposed increases in intensities for the General Plan. Councilmember Daysog stated the South Shore housing has prospects of 800 units; the actual amount could increase to 1,200 units; the amount is part of the General Plan discussion; he does not see himself supporting the General Plan; the matter is related to the impacts and EIR; the housing amount will affect the impacts; everything must work together. Vice Mayor Vella stated that she thinks staff has explained that matters are related to zoning; she is supportive of the General Plan and the recommendations provided by Councilmember Knox White; proposed changes should be included in an updated appendix. Vice Mayor Vella moved adoption of resolution. Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Knox White inquired whether the motion includes giving staff direction to consider including comments made by Councilmember Herrera Spencer. Vice Mayor Vella responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Councilmembers Daysog: No; Herrera Spencer: No; Knox White: Aye; Vella: Aye; and Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft: Aye. Ayes: 3. Noes: 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft adjourned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The a… | CityCouncil/2021-11-30.pdf |
Advanced export
JSON shape: default, array, newline-delimited, object
CREATE TABLE "pages" ( [body] TEXT, [date] TEXT, [page] INTEGER, [text] TEXT, [path] TEXT, PRIMARY KEY ([path], [page]) );