Speaker 0: As far as I know, they're in the in the hallway. Thank you. Thank you very much. So we just had a member of the community go out into the hallway to ask them to return to the chambers. Work. Could we find out what happened to our council members?
Speaker 1: I mean.
Speaker 0: Counsel. We're going to go ahead and continue the now in the room. All right. The attorney, please.
Speaker 7: So thank you, Madam Mayor and mayor and council. There is an issue that I believe needs clarification on the action you took on item five H on the parcel map on 1700 Parkway. Based on the action the council took, we want to clarify what the consequences of that action are. And I'm going to ask Selina Chen, assistant city attorney in my office, to explain that to you.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Evening. Selina Chen from the city attorney's office. I just wanted to give you a little bit of additional information about what the final vote meant. As you know, the project entitlements were approved a couple of years ago. What's before you today is was the parcel map approval?
Speaker 0: To clarify, it was over three years ago, not a couple. I think that's critical. This is back in 2014.
Speaker 4: Thank you, Mayor.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 7: Thank you. So the vote that was taken was two approvals, one no and two abstentions. In the MAP Act. The MAP Act requires the Council to either approve or disapprove a map. A partial map at this meeting or the next regularly scheduled meeting. If the findings are made, and if the map doesn't conform to the findings, you would disapprove the map. That goes on to say that if the Council does not approve or disapprove, it can be deemed approved. So it could be approved by a matter of law within a matter of time. So we just wanted to be transparent and let you know what the final vote was. Because by. I'm sorry.
Speaker 8: So can we recall the question then?
Speaker 7: I think your options are you could make a motion for reconsideration or move. The reconsideration has to be done by one of the abstainers because it has to be somebody who would change their vote that would impact.
Speaker 0: One of.
Speaker 5: The three of us.
Speaker 4: So I'm going to make no one of the abstainers. There were only two abstainers.
Speaker 0: Vice Mayor.
Speaker 8: I would like to make a motion for reconsideration.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. I. I saw that motion passes. All right. All right. So would someone like to make another motion?
Speaker 3: I would like to move the approval of the partial map.
Speaker 0: They're a second. I'll second all those in favor I others oppose.
Speaker 8: Oppose? No.
Speaker 0: So that motion fails. 2 to 3. So. I'd like to hear from you real quick.
Speaker 7: What I think I heard you say when you were having a discussion earlier is that you believe the subdivision is inconsistent with the general plan because the two resulting parcels exceed the general plans f.r, among other reasons. So to make. To disapprove. The map, you need to make a finding that the map is inconsistent with the general plan, and I would recommend making certain changes to the resolution if you choose to do so.
Speaker 0: Okay, so it's my end. So there was a list. It's not showing up here currently of multiple reasons, and my opinion is that the denial would actually be based on much more than just the one ground that there was only, I think one that I could have supported from that list, as well as the other reasons enumerated in the Unite Here letter. So I would like the findings to be exhaustive of all these enumerate all the multiple reasons, not just the meeting, the general plan, because I think there are multiple reasons raised and there was. So I don't have that sheet in front of me currently. The other.
Speaker 7: So if, if, if I might just insert here, I think that if you wish to take the action tonight that it would be relatively straightforward to go ahead and base the findings to disapprove on not being consistent with the general plan and let it go with that. If council wants staff to work through other potential reasons findings to not to disapprove, then we might have to bring this back.
Speaker 0: So like, I would think we can I would think we could enumerate all of the reasons because I anticipate we may have a lawsuit and I want to enumerate them all, not just one, but I don't I would think we can do that. We had the list up here earlier with like 13 reasons. And I personally would like to I'm happy to make the motion, but I think. Member Ody do you want to go ahead?
Speaker 5: Thanks, man. I mean, to me, there was a problem with the general plan and the development agreement. So I don't think those are things that couldn't be fixed if we either modified this somehow or modified the general plan incorporating some changes to this. So. As a hint for future action. I just at this point, I think it's in disagreement with this first development agreement. And that's the only problem I have with it.
Speaker 0: That is the only problem you have. I'm sorry. I couldn't hear.
Speaker 5: You. Yes. Yes, Madam.
Speaker 8: Chair. All right.
Speaker 0: All right. Vice Mayor, did you want to speak to this item?
Speaker 8: I just. I don't think it's consistent. I think it's very hard to follow. I think there's issues with the D.A.. I think there are issues in terms of just making it more clear. The example anyways, I defer to what our legal counsel saying in terms of if it's, you know, if it needs to come back to us to capture what the mayor's saying.
Speaker 0: And I don't I don't know why it would need to come back to us, because this is I would think that we should we could today make findings that it didn't meet that list and enumerate them all specifically, as well as the items that were raised in the correspondence from. And I don't know if I have, you know, if you all would be agreeable to that, but I think it is a better position than just enumerating to some.
Speaker 7: If I may. And I mean, Selina can go through all of the findings if you want to take the time to do that. But I believe you only need one. And I think we heard counsel and we've just heard counsel, including you, Manu, Mayor, that you are you do believe that it is not consistent with the general plan at this point in time and the three of you are supportive of that. So we could go with that. But I'm not arguing with you if you want to go through other findings.
Speaker 0: And so there was.
Speaker 4: Process to your question for the city attorney. What I heard my counsel, my colleague, Councilmember Otis, say is that he would like to see clarification of the development agreement, but that's not the same as saying an inconsistency with the general plan, is it?
Speaker 7: I believe that is it. That is the entire point. And I think and I don't mean to put words in any of your mouths or make your arguments, but I think what Councilmember Odie was suggesting is that something that could be fixed. So even though it would be disapproved tonight, staff could come back with clarifications to make the development plan and the general plan clearer that they are consistent. And once that happens, arguably, they can come back for a partial. I think it would only require an amendment maybe to the general plan, because the finding that is relevant is that the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general or specific plan. It doesn't the map doesn't go into development agreements. So even if we did believe it was inconsistent with the development agreement, I don't think that would necessarily be a finding that would result in that would support denial. Of the map.
Speaker 5: It just in my mind, it needs to be clear. And and.
Speaker 7: I agree it should be.
Speaker 5: Clear. And I think there was some comment by staff when Alan spoke that it was a little bit fuzzy. So clarity is helpful. And I think the attorney captured my thoughts.
Speaker 0: So do you want to make a motion? The member already?
Speaker 5: So it would just be a simple move. Help me with this. So we do it the way you before.
Speaker 7: You make the motion, I would recommend making of some changes to the revised resolution, which I'd like to read into the record. We would revise the title by deleting the word approving and replacing it with the word disapproving. We would revise the first resolve clause and possibly bring.
Speaker 4: Bring that up on the screen.
Speaker 8: I'm sorry.
Speaker 4: Give us just a moment. Mr. Henry would.
Speaker 5: Make can we come back to this in, like 15 minutes? Do you do a mock up or. Oh, you have them.
Speaker 7: Oh, I have. Okay.
Speaker 5: I'm sorry.
Speaker 0: It's just you have.
Speaker 7: A red line to show you that.
Speaker 4: Even if we can at least revalue.
Speaker 7: And follow.
Speaker 4: Along and not only has, but the audience. Thank you.
Speaker 0: So, staff, pull the document.
Speaker 1: Trying to get it.
Speaker 0: We're having a.
Speaker 7: And this is the revised resolution, right? Yes. Okay.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 0: Because I think it has to. Could someone just go ahead?
Speaker 8: I can also pull up the list that Trish was referring to the objection.
Speaker 0: You know, there was a list of campaign items. I think.
Speaker 7: It's actually still on the.
Speaker 0: Table. Right. So if someone could actually pull that up before we do this. The one on the table. Just turn on the table, please.
Speaker 4: Will we be able to see them?
Speaker 0: No, but let's start at that.
Speaker 7: So what city attorney Kern said is accurate? The government code requires the legislative body to deny approval of the parcel map if it makes any one of the findings that are listed before you. And some of these findings, if you if you go through them quickly, there's findings about public health and safety. There's. Findings about conflicts with easements. Endangered species habitat. I mean, it's it kind of runs the gamut. And what I was hearing the most from the council members and most consistently was consistency with the general plan.
Speaker 0: Well, the first one, right, that the proposal is not consistent with the general plans and specific plans. But I would also like us to consider the second one that is on those two.
Speaker 7: Yes. Speak to the same issue.
Speaker 0: Okay. But I. So we would include them both. And then for the type for.
Speaker 3: We don't have a designer. Right. Yeah.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry.
Speaker 3: Well, how can we include that one? If. If there's no design yet?
Speaker 7: It's actually the. I'm sorry. If I could. Go ahead. It's the design or improvement that's on the map. It's not actually the design that was approved by the planning board.
Speaker 3: Point taken.
Speaker 4: Thank you. So the improvement could be the division of the parcel? Yes.
Speaker 7: Okay. And sometimes any roads.
Speaker 5: So is it just number two then, or is it.
Speaker 0: One and one and twos, but I believe is appropriate. Looks like I have city attorneys could do. I'm sorry. I see nodding heads, but if you could just say I.
Speaker 7: Think wanting to both speak to consistency with general plan.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Right. So, um, would you like to make a motion?
Speaker 5: Do we want to go through the court?
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 7: Tell him the changes that you would make to the resolution. Get the resolution up. I could walk you through what changes I'd recommend if you'd like to make a motion to deny approval. So in the title, the first word approving, we would change that to disapproving. We would go to the first resolve clause. And revise it to read as follows it deals with. And we would say now, therefore, be it resolved that the City Council of the City of Alameda finds that its disapproval of parcel map number 10275 is not subject to the requirements of Sequoia pursuant to Sequoia guidelines section 15270. Sequel Guidelines Section 15270. Yes. And then delete the rest up through the semicolon and end. We would revise the second resolve clause to delete paragraphs two through eight in their entirety. And we would revise paragraph one to read as follows the proposed. Map comma together with the provisions for its design and improvement. Karma is not consistent with the general plan. Improvements. Is not consistent with the general plan, period. Page four. Of the land use element. Of the general plan. States that the maximum FFR. For the Harbor Bay Business Park. Is point five. Up with increases. Up to a maximum of two permitted. Of the number two committed. Karma. Proportional to the amount of.
Speaker 5: My like my typing.
Speaker 7: Proportional to the amount of required.
Speaker 5: Pressures on.
Speaker 7: Amount of required parking enclosed in a structure period. The proposed subdivision of the parcel. And development. Of a second hotel. Would result in two parcels. That exceed. The General plans. Apostrophe S. Point five. FMR limit. Semicolon and. And then we would revise the third and final resolve clause to read as follows. Now, therefore, be it further resolved that the City Council of the City of Alameda denies approval. Of Parcel Map number 10275. For the subdivision of the parcel at 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway into two parcels pursuant to. Government code. Sections. Six, six, four, seven, three, comma. 66473.5 karma. Six, six, four, seven, four, comma. And six, six, four, five, eight. And Alameda Municipal Code. Section 30, dash 78.5. Period.
Speaker 0: Three. Of the word of day. The second line denies removal of. Thank you.
Speaker 5: Yeah. That's it. That's it. So that I would move approval of that. The revised second resolution denying the property based or denying the map based on, as you describe it.
Speaker 0: Motion and the second. All those in favor I. I oppose.
Speaker 3: No, no.
Speaker 0: Emotion. Carriage 3 to 2. Thank you. Thank you. Then we can move on to the next item. Thank you. All right. So we have, uh, now we're on the regular agenda item six a.
Speaker 1: Public hearing to consider approving the Housing Community Development Needs statement for the Community Development BLOCK Grant in a plan for Fiscal Year 2018 19.
Speaker 0: And a mayor, council members and staff. I'm Lisa Fitz with the Alameda Housing Authority, and I'm here to speak on the Community Development BLOCK Grant needs for the fiscal.
Speaker 7: Year.
Speaker 8: 1819.
Speaker 1: Action Plan.
Speaker 0: Next slide. Do I have control over the site?
Speaker 7: Yes, that's right.
Speaker 0: So what is CDBG? The Community Development BLOCK grant is for federal funds that are provided by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to develop their use to develop viable urban communities primarily for low and moderate.
Speaker 7: Income persons through decent.
Speaker 0: Housing, a suitable living environment and economic opportunity. The CDBG funded programs serve between 7000 to 8000 resident city residents per year. What are the required documents? The city is required to prepare a five year strategic plan, which outlines the housing and community development priority needs that will inform CDBG funding decisions for the upcoming five year period. To receive CDBG funding, the city has to submit to HUD an annual action plan detailing the program's.
Speaker 7: Activities and.
Speaker 0: Resources to address the housing and community development needs identified in the five year consolidated plan. In addition, there is a priority among the needs for non housing, community development.
Speaker 7: Social.
Speaker 0: Services.
Speaker 7: The Social Services and Human Relations Board.
Speaker 0: Shrub provides a refined priority statement to reflect the social service needs in the community, which is included in Exhibit.
Speaker 7: One of the packet. For the fiscal year 1819 needs process.
Speaker 0: There were three steps.
Speaker 7: The needs process commenced.
Speaker 0: With step one. On November 30th, Shrub heard public.
Speaker 7: Comment prepared the needs statement, which is.
Speaker 0: Included as exhibit one. And we also have Andre here to speak. Strub also conducted the needs survey in December.
Speaker 7: Jennifer Hastings will be.
Speaker 8: Speaking on the preliminary results of those.
Speaker 0: Of that survey, and those are included in exhibit two. I'm going to talk about exhibit three, which is not in the slides.
Speaker 8: What was included in your packet?
Speaker 0: So exhibit three.
Speaker 7: Contains the schedule.
Speaker 0: Beginning with November 30th. There. I've already talked about the first two items today. January 16th is the city council meeting. The next step will be releasing the NOVA. Right now I've got March 1st, 2018 listed. We are aggressively trying to see if we can move up that date to accommodate shrubs request. And if so, we will be.
Speaker 8: Releasing it sometime between.
Speaker 0: February 1st and March 1st. And that is the notice of funding availability.
Speaker 7: Yes, thank you.
Speaker 0: If we once we move up that date, that.
Speaker 7: Would move up the next stage.
Speaker 0: The date that.
Speaker 7: The responses are due as well, giving us.
Speaker 0: More time between the time that the responses are due and the notice of.
Speaker 7: The public hearing. The remaining dates are expected to remain the same.
Speaker 0: Provided no new information from the federal government.
Speaker 7: The last item. Exhibit four.
Speaker 0: Is an overview of the Community Development BLOCK grant priority.
Speaker 8: Needs and objectives.
Speaker 7: I'm just going to highlight that the priorities that are listed. They are affordable housing, homelessness, other special needs.
Speaker 0: Non and non housing community development. So tonight's.
Speaker 7: Goals will.
Speaker 0: Be for the city.
Speaker 7: Council to hear public comment and.
Speaker 0: To accept and adopt the needs, priorities and objectives for the five year strategic plan. And Annual Action Plan. That commences or that's the end of my part. All right. So I'm going to go ahead and call our members, our public speakers, Jennifer Hastings Rella and then Audrey Heineman. And I only have the three speakers. If there's anyone else I'd like to speak on this, please submit your step at this time. Thank you for your presentation, Mosfets. Now. She's she Shabazz. Hello.
Speaker 8: Mayor. Council members. My name is Jennifer Hastings. I'm a member of the Social Service Human Relations Board and included an exhibit in exhibit two. You'll see we have a very high level summary of the survey results, and I'm just going to give you some highlights of that document. So I'll be very brief. So as you probably know, we did a survey. We conducted a survey that went out to the whole community online, as well as hard copies.
Speaker 7: At various locations.
Speaker 8: For approximately six weeks, November to December last year.
Speaker 7: And it was also available in multiple languages, multiple languages.
Speaker 8: English, Spanish and Chinese, and both printed and online form. And it ultimately yielded over 1700 responses.
Speaker 7: And that which is representative. So you probably.
Speaker 8: Will know more than me approximately 5.8% of the households. So just the highlights, we're still analyzing the data. As you can imagine, 1700 is a lot because both the the the the parts of the survey, the first part was the needs.
Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 10275 - A Parcel Map for the Proposed Subdivision of the Parcel at 1700 Harbor Bay Parkway (Hampton Inn and Suites) into Two Parcels. (Public Works 310)