Speaker 0: All right. Thank you very much, staff. Thank you for your work and and for the presentations. Great to see you all. All right. We was pretty close to 3 minutes, maybe five between the two of them. So then we are now moving on to item 60 and we'll do a little shuffling of staff. Exit stage left, enter stage right. However you do that, maybe it's backwards. But while there are other exiting and entering. Madam Clerk, could you introduce this item?
Speaker 2: I like carrying. A public hearing to consider adoption of resolution of intent to prepare a housing element update for the period 2023 to 2031 that maximizes the use of city owned land at Alameda Point and shuttle terminals and rezoning certain sites and districts to permit multi-family housing in residential densities of at least 30 units per acre and consider impacts related to the city charter and consider directing staff to file an appeal of the city's regional housing needs allocation.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And joining us tonight, I think we have our planning bills and transportation director Andrew Thomas and Ms.. Selina Chen from the attorney's office. So we're ready for you anytime.
Speaker 1: Welcome tastic. Good evening. Mayor Ashcroft, members of city council. Can you hear me?
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 0: Yeah, just fine.
Speaker 1: My name is Andrew Thomas. I'm your director of planning, building and Transportation. As you know, the city of Alameda is in the process of updating its housing element of the general plan, which is mandated by state law. The housing element update is a major effort and challenge for the Alameda Community Staff, the Planning Board and the City Council. Due to the size of our regional allocations, often referred to as the Rena. These challenges are immense and they will be citywide, and the consequences of failing to adopt our housing element will be equally immense and will be felt citywide as well. Those consequences are described in the staff report, so I will be able to answer any questions about those if needed. We believe to be successful in this effort, which will take us about a year. We'll need a coordinated effort between staff, the Alameda community, the planning board and the city council. And we will need our city council to lead our team effort through this year long planning process. Tonight, we are asking the city council to provide direction and confirmation on four specific questions. Number one, would you like staff to file an appeal of our arena allocation? As described in the staff report, staff does not believe an appeal will be successful, but staff will file the appeal that the Council would like us if you would like us to. However, the deadline is July 9th, so we need your direction tonight. And if you decide to appeal, we would like your direction on the arguments that you would like us to make on your behalf. Question number two Are we, as the city of Alameda, committed to adopting a housing element in compliance with state law? Question number three Are we, as a city of Alameda committed to adopting multifamily zoning as necessary to comply with state law as we have done for the last two successful housing element cycles in 2012 and then again in 2014. And fourth and finally, are we, as a city of Alameda committed to working to maximize, to the extent feasible, the use of vacant and underutilized city owned land to accommodate our regional housing need? Tonight, you have three alternative recommendations before you staff provided a recommendation not to appeal the arena, and we offered a draft resolution confirming questions to three and four in the affirmative. The planning board considered the resolution and the issue of the appeal, and they also recommended that you not appeal the arena. And they offered a draft resolution confirming items two, three and four in the affirmative. But their resolution removes conclusions regarding state law and preemption of Article 26 that are in the staff resolution. And then finally, we have you all received today an alternate resolution from Council member Herrera Spencer that recommends that the city council appeal the Reno. And confirms questions two, three and four in the affirmative. Her resolution also removes the language that the planning board removed from their resolution regarding Article 26 and City Charter. Excuse me, city charter. And her resolution adds an additional direction to staff to prioritize all efforts to eliminate the Navy's financial constraints designed to limit the number of units that we might be able to accommodate at Army Point, staff is willing and able to to move forward with the Council's direction and from staff prospective, any of the three alternative resolutions provided provide adequate direction at this time, in this process for us to be moving forward. With that, I am available to answer any questions you might have, and we look forward to your deliberations tonight. Thank you very much.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that succinct report. Mr. Thomas, Counsel Any clarifying questions for Mr. Thomas? Councilmember Knox White Thank you.
Speaker 3: And thanks to our staff here for the incredible amount of work that has gone into all of this on any of the resolutions, whether it's Councilmember Herb Spencer's resolution or the staff resolution, does the adopting.
Speaker 2: Of the.
Speaker 3: A plan to use EMF overlay zoning? Is that a policy that actually that actually carries weight or is it just a statement that in the future there is an expectation that the MF overlay will be used?
Speaker 1: Yeah. What staff is saying is we know for sure that we are going to have to use that to comply with state law if the council. Does not wish us to pursue that strategy, which is the strategy we used in the last to the last two housing element cycles. We would like to know that now not we do not want to wait until a year from now to find that out from the city council because at that point, it will be too late to adjust. So from our perspective, we just trying to make sure that the Council understands and agrees that we should pursue the same the same approach as we did the last two cycles. Does that answer your question?
Speaker 3: It does. I'm not sure I see that being clearly outlined in the Council Member Spencer resolution, but that's okay. I can I can address that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I. From from Shasta perspective in her resolution and the final bullet point I think her I don't have it directly right in front of me but something to the effect of we are going to adopt a housing element in compliance with state law and do the necessary zoning, multifamily zoning as necessary to comply with our arena . If I if I read it correctly.
Speaker 3: Thank you.
Speaker 0: Okay. Further clarifying questions, Counselor de Fog.
Speaker 1: Thank you. On the third item of adopting multifamily zoning, we already have in place in our zoning, we have the multifamily overlay. So that's not a new zoning. It's not a new approach when it comes to trying to meet state obligations. Are we contemplating a new zoning code, new zoning category? Call it what you might, because my understanding is there's some contemplated, some sites that are currently zoned C two PD might be labeled a new zoning category. So is that what is meant by adopting multifamily zoning? It's. There's. The what? The same strategy as was used two years ago. But it would have to be applied to. To accommodate our our regional housing need. We're going to have to apply it to additional sites. So it's not a new zoning code, but it will be added to additional sites in Alameda. Whether you do it as a multifamily overlay or an adjustment to the C two, it's a very simple. You both achieve the same thing. It's removing the multifamily prohibition and allowing at least 30 units the acre, whether you do it by amending the zoning or whether you do it through a multifamily overlay. The effect and the input and the the result is the same. And we're we can do it either way that from staff prospective it doesn't it doesn't matter if the council has a preference. We're we're happy to do it either way. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Hey, for the clarifying questions. Okay. Madam Cook, do we have public speakers?
Speaker 2: You have three.
Speaker 0: All right. So if the number remains at three, you are to remind speakers how much they have.
Speaker 2: Well, we're up to five now, so if we. When we get to seven, there's six. Okay. Yes, we have seven now. So there is now 2 minutes per person instead of three. And the first speaker is Sophia DeWitt.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Welcome back, Speaker to.
Speaker 2: This is my item. Good evening. Council members and city staff as both a resident of the city of Alameda residing at 1581 of US two Avenue Apartment E and as a member of staff at East Bay housing organizations where I serve as program director. I'm coming to support the staff report on this item and urge that you prepare a resolution of intent to begin the housing element process consistent with what is stated in the staff report. We are pleased that Alameda, in the past two cycles for the housing element process, has submitted two previous conforming housing elements in both 2012 and 2014. And we were urged that you would do that again and so that you would do everything that would be required in order to submit a housing element that is consistent with state law, including using the multi-family overlay zones that you've used previously, and that you do the zoning changes where necessary to allow multi-family housing in places in the city where it might not have been allowed previously. We do believe that Article 26 is in conflict with state housing element law, and we would also urge you not to appeal the arena designation for the city of Alameda. We do not believe that that would be a successful appeal for the city and that the city and in addition, needs to meet its regional obligations along with other cities in the Bay Area. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Zach Boling.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Boling.
Speaker 1: And their counsel. I made some comments on the planning board, but if I had to read some of my notes to council on this item, so I wanted to reiterate some of that a bit. One of those was related to as SFH requirements concerning the site inventory, excluding R one from the R to DA six of zoning . Some of those areas are high resource historically green zoned areas and red lighting maps and in some of the transit rich areas defined under state law. Look, it doesn't take a lawyer, but lawyers and powers councils have said that Article 26 conflicts with state law verbatim. So I'm in favor declaring such in our resolution. I also believe Mr. Thomas can correct me if I'm wrong. But if City has not responded to the city's request for comments on Made by Paul McDougal about the MF overlays and using those. It's a bit unique to see such huge MF worlds in my experience in reviewing and commenting on housing elements across the state. I know it's a weird hobby. Don't ask. I'm wondering why we can't up zoned underlining zoning and codes on some of that instead of having big overlays. I'm also concerned that that might create issues with the wording of some of the new FHA laws that that overlay might be questioned by each city. When we do our checklist, the proposal triggered by Councilmember Spencer mentions focusing most the area housing on an Alameda point, but I don't think that would meet FHA rules. If you look, I would ask maybe to review the video that Paul McDougald did a presentation on the requirements there. It would explain some of these issues in better detail than I could on arena appeals. They pretty much end up being a waste of time and staff resources. They very rarely see significant changes in arena count. I could be twisted my arm to not be against an appeal if we wanted just to get in writing all of these complaints that don't hold water to just put them to bed. And that's basically all I got to say in that amount of time, which is very hard. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank your next speaker.
Speaker 2: Ellen Parsons.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Parsons. Ready for us. We're ready for you.
Speaker 2: We could go to the next speaker and try coming back. Perhaps they just stepped away for a moment. Drew Abrams.
Speaker 0: All right. Good evening. Speaker Jerry Abrams.
Speaker 1: Hi. Good evening to Dara Abrams calling in this evening from Calhoun Street over on the East End. First, a thank you to city staff and also the planning board for working so diligently to thread the needle of Alameda next housing element. I'm calling in this evening to voice support for Alameda making a good faith effort to meet its RINA numbers. Much work is still needed to actually get to the finish line. So let me encourage city council to focus city staff's time on the work at hand, not waste resources on appealing the city's arena numbers to a bag of just a reminder, as I hope everyone knows, that there's really only one way to reduce Alameda Arena numbers and that's to force them onto another one of the Bay Area's 101 cities. So let's play our part on this housing.
Speaker 2: Opportunity site.
Speaker 3: Draft that's been prepared.
Speaker 1: It's it's fascinating to read. I wish it had pictures because it really does cover a lot of neighborhoods, a lot of densities. And it's kind of fascinating to think ahead to the form that Alameda could take with this real variety of future potential. The one comment I do want to add is I live over here in the East End in the AR one zone. R One is not mentioned in this opportunity. Cyclist And so I encourage the city to think of ways to let all of the zones contribute to different housing sizes and potentials over time. Thanks again to city staff and the planning board and to council for these comments.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next.
Speaker 2: Speaker. Let's try Galen again. Galen Parsons. Let's see. It works now. Can you hear me now?
Speaker 0: Yes, we sure can.
Speaker 2: That is. All members, thank you for the opportunity to speak. The housing element for the city of Alameda should be compliant with state law. It should be aligned with our values of equity and justice, embodied in the statement Everyone belongs here. We will never know what we lost in this city as a consequence of redlining. The neighbor, the neighbors we never got to know because certain housing types were explicitly disallowed. That had consequences for family wealth and it had severe consequences for the vibrancy of our community. We know that neighbors that we have lost as a consequence of the forced housing scarcity that have driven a housing crisis for the last 40 plus years. I miss my neighbors desperately. Who moved away. Those families who were displaced. I will never forget those families.
Speaker 1: A470 Central.
Speaker 2: We have a responsibility to the past to build a better future for Alameda communities. And tonight, that means acknowledging that our responsibility as a city with good transportation options and close proximity to jobs is to comply with state law to maximize housing on the former base. Yes, and to ensure that our residential zoning can.
Speaker 1: Credibly.
Speaker 2: Result in 5353 units between 2023 and 2031 that are not in only one area on the island. Encourage you to adopt the staff resolution tonight, recognizing that change is constant. And together we can plan in Alameda where everyone truly belongs. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Grover Whitman brown.
Speaker 0: Good evening. Speaker waving throughout the evening.
Speaker 2: Council members, i am calling in to express my support for the city staff's resolution as they stated and specifically. We want to emphasize how important it is that affordable housing and multifamily housing is dispersed throughout the city and not pressed onto the base as part of affirmatively furthering fair housing and ensuring that the benefits opportunities of having neighbors who have different class statuses and who are younger and older and not just earning age with two children and a dog and a white picket fence, are able to live on our island. And so please consider the bright, vibrant future that can be when we really invest in creating the community that we need in the future . Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker.
Speaker 2: Christopher Buckley.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Buckley.
Speaker 1: Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: We sure can. Hi.
Speaker 1: Very, very good. Good evening. Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. We sent you a letter last night which summarizes previous letters that you should have received. I like to go over several of the points in the letter. First, we do support the idea of filing the appeal. We agree it's a long shot, but we don't think it will do any harm. Second, concerning the resolution, we agree with the Planning Board recommendation to delete that clause concerning Article 26. But if the Council would like to leave something like that in there, we suggested some alternative language. I would also like to hear from the city attorney as to the necessity of including that statement. In there, we believe it's overly broad and basically state law does not totally preempt Article 26. It only partially preempts Article 26. And then finally, we think the overall strategy presented in the staff reports is very good, particularly the emphasis on looking to Alameda Point and also other sites like internal terminals as a way of meeting a good part of the arena numbers. We would like to promote that further, including the idea of asking the Navy to lift the cap on Alameda Point. And the idea here isn't to throw all the all the marina in the Alameda point, but to maximize options as to where to distribute it and also take advantage of the site opportunities that Alameda Point offers. Also to expand the idea of internal terminals and look at the estuary shopping centers as as sites are including bridge side Alameda landing and Marina and Marina village marina village has expressed interest recently. We'd like council direct staff to check to check with the other two and see if they're interested.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Fletcher.
Speaker 0: Good evening, Speaker Fletcher. You just want to unmute?
Speaker 2: Here we go. Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity, Mayor Ashcraft. Members of the council and our wonderful city staff. I'm speaking tonight to urge you to direct staff to develop a comprehensive game plan to successfully renegotiate Alameda Points residential caps with the U.S. Navy. There's one thing that we all seem to agree on in every staff report in the draft resolution of the housing element and in comments submit submitted by our community based organizations and activists that we want to adopt a housing element that maximizes the use of city owned land. At Alameda Point, this is a major tool in our toolbox for meeting our regional housing needs allocation. And yet the preliminary site inventory doesn't reference the potential beyond the current cap. It's clear that we can't maximize the use of city owned land at Alameda Point without lifting unreasonable and outdated caps on housing units. This effort needs to begin now and be on a parallel track with preparing our housing element. Is it possible to add language to the resolution or the housing element that acknowledges that the city is taking action to renegotiate obsolete caps that don't serve present day needs? That the renegotiation climate is in our favor and that we project a reliable potential for X number of additional housing units that could be provided, including 25% affordable on the base. These units could easily relieve pressure of shoehorning 500. Housing units into medium density neighborhoods, as also shown on the preliminary side inventory. Please consider this. There are 482 cities in California and each one is required to make available its fair share of sites to address the housing crisis. Regardless of the burden or the impacts. But there is only one city in the entire state that has the opportunity to absorb its fair share on a 1500 acre piece of land that's been waiting for 25 years to fulfill its destiny as a collection of vibrant, diverse and take your time.
Speaker 0: Matt Reed should evening Speaker Reed.
Speaker 1: Hello, Mayor and Council once again. Thank you. I want to indicate my support for filing an appeal. I can't be the only person thinking that the state hands out numbers expecting cities to appeal. Many of your fellow Bay Area cities are doing just that. And so this is a negotiation. So it's time for us to take the next step. I also fully support what the previous speaker said about dealing with the Navy and trying to lift those caps. That seems absurd. They should have such a strong say in the future of our city. I thought we parted ways a while ago. So and then lastly, I think, honestly, the projections for growth in California are a bit rosy. I keep wondering if the city council and planners in Detroit, Michigan, in 1960 were having the same conversation about sustained growth over the next 20 to 30 years and demanding that zoning laws be dropped to support multi-family housing in every neighborhood. And I see this coming from the R to myself. And so, you know, I'm questioning the projections. We just lost a congressperson. The economy could take one wrong turn, and now you've got less growth. So for what it's worth, please do file that appeal. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Your next speaker.
Speaker 2: Herman Reid.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 2: Speaker Reid. Hello? Can you hear me?
Speaker 0: We can.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Good evening, Mayor. And City Council members and city staff. I am in full support of appealing the arena allocation numbers and I ask that the city pursue this further. I see this as a very simple issue. As Alameda is limited in our geography, we are primarily an island city with the peninsula and Harbor Bay and Bay Farm, and we don't have enough bridges or tunnels to accommodate. Proposed growth of thousands of units without the necessary infrastructure. I appreciate your consideration and urge you to ask Alameda to join other cities in petitioning a reduction of our numbers. The Embarcadero Institute did and did an interesting study last year, and I ask that you review it. It mentions that the Rina calculations are not correct. I also concur with Christopher Buckley's thoughtful comments. I also want to make a brief comment regarding making public comments and was wondering if you could please allow the necessary time for the community to respond and raise their hand. Many people may not know how to raise their hand or what numbers to push if they're calling in on the phone. So I ask that you please be patient and welcoming so that all of our community members can participate. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. I'll just add that I think we are both patient and welcoming. But madam, quick, do you want to just give the instructions for if you are both about making sure your Zoom app is the latest? And also, if you you're calling in from a cell phone.
Speaker 2: Right? So, yes, in order to promote you, please do have the most current version of Zoom or else we won't be able to promote you. We do have a guide posted online as well and if you are calling in, the information for the calling is at the top of the agenda and you can hit Star nine to raise your hand. And we have one more speaker on this item. Rose Linda Fortuna.
Speaker 0: And thank you for that, Madam Clerk. Welcome. Speaker four Tuna.
Speaker 2: Hello. I wanted to ask the council and the mayor a question. California has a water shortage problem. Can you tell me how you're going to solve the water shortage problem for the entire state? I know that many people want to live in California, but do we have the resources for everyone to be able to come to California ? If you really believe that you can solve the water problem, then go ahead and proceed with what you are planning to do. If you don't believe you can accommodate people so they can live in California with the proper resources that we need, then then go ahead and file for the appeal. Everybody wants to come to California, but we can't accommodate everyone. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. And more speakers.
Speaker 2: That was our last speaker.
Speaker 0: All right. With that, I will close public comment and I.
Speaker 2: Will.
Speaker 0: Open it up to, well, council deliberation. And then with a special emphasis on.
Speaker 2: The.
Speaker 0: Four questions that Mr. Thomas presented to us. And if it's agreeable to council, I think, and city attorney's, please chime in. I think that perhaps we want to start with a discussion and vote on whether or not to file an appeal of our rent allocation. I see you nodding, Mr. Sharon, but you know how the court reporter can't take down nonverbal communications? Can you tell it to us verbally, please?
Speaker 1: Sure. I wasn't sure that was necessarily a question to me. But, yes, I. I think we would recommend that you take up that question first because it is time sensitive. And I believe Mr. Thomas needs to file papers either late Thursday or early Friday. So he's looking forward for direction on that first and foremost.
Speaker 0: Thank you, counsel. Everyday thought.
Speaker 1: Yes. Quickly, I would recommend that we have our time set out 15 minutes. We have before us three incredible meaty topics, 3 to 4 meaty topics, each of which could be agenda items in and of themselves, and each of which represents incredibly substantive, in-depth analysis. And I just think that 9 minutes is not enough. I think we should have 15 minutes.
Speaker 0: This is what I'm willing to do. Let's see how far we get on this first item that I'd like us to consider. And I'm more than willing to consider a motion for expanding time. And maybe it's 15, or maybe it's even something else that I. Councilmember Herrera Spencer, your. Your resolution is titled Resolution of Intent to appeal to want to make a motion.
Speaker 2: I would like to move that. We file that we file an appeal. And that's not the the entire title. That was just the beginning of the title for those that are just listening and have it full of the document. But it does include filing an appeal and it says for some of the reasons I think we could include, but we have heard reports from other speakers and we see emails. What I would like to make a motion that the city appeal the prescribed screening numbers.
Speaker 0: All right. Is there a second? Councilmember ADFA. I think he might be muted partly.
Speaker 1: I'll second the motion.
Speaker 0: All right. Thank you. Okay. For the discussion. Or should we just take a vote?
Speaker 3: Ask a question.
Speaker 0: Of course. Sorry.
Speaker 3: Not sorry. Well, this appeal. Provide direction to staff on what we are appealing and how. Rather than asking them to come up with their own ideas.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Harry Spencer, so on.
Speaker 2: So first of all, I want to apologize for getting this proposed my proposed resolution submitted today and is actually late today because of the holiday weekend and working with staff. And I do want to thank staff taking my questions and helping me with this. But within this document, on page two, I lost some reasons and I know there have been others. For those of you that are trying to follow along, it was attached to the agenda item. And I think it says the title is like proposal proposed resolution from Fisher expenses. If you wanted to find it. But some of the reasons I actually tried to include just the so I start with on page two that the cities I should own is about my time for this cause it is on here. But yes, some of the reasons I set forth go to the landmass size approximately ten square miles. The know I.
Speaker 0: May I ask you a question? Yes. Clarifying question. Are you saying that the previously approved projects that will result in construction of approximately 1522 housing units should suffice as our arena allocation. Is that why that number is there? No. Okay.
Speaker 2: So that was actually from the original resolution. I just I kept as much of the original resolution that I thought I could support, and then I added other language to it.
Speaker 0: So are you are you proposing any arena allocation for Alameda?
Speaker 2: I know I would. Well, I don't have a specific number of council wants to discuss when I. From what I understand and I don't know, my staff can help me. I don't know that we've proposed the number or if we just say that we're appealing their number.
Speaker 0: Well, I believe you have to have grounds for the appeal. But Mr. Thomas, could you shed some light on that for us?
Speaker 1: Well, I think a stronger appeal probably provides a recommended number. But I you know, as we've said in multiple staff reports, we think it's going to be a very, very low chance of success. So what we're looking for is give us if you'd like us to appeal, if you can direct us towards the arguments that you would like us to make. And if you have a particular number in mind, absolutely. Give that to us as well as attorney. City Attorney Sharon said, you know, we just have a couple of days to put this together. So we really and we're doing it on behalf of the council. So let us know what you want us to say and we will take it from there.
Speaker 0: Counselor, our dissertation did not.
Speaker 1: Was there not an alternative? Read a number other than the 5300 with roughly around 3300. Is that a question for me? And no, no, not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 0: Okay, Councilman? That's right.
Speaker 2: Go ahead.
Speaker 3: So I plan to support the appeal tonight. I do not plan to support the resolution as written. I would if the maker of the motion to the second hour of the motion were willing, I would list the following three reasons for why. For the basis for our appeal. One is 60% of our voters recently voted to uphold our adopted charter provision that prohibits multi-family housing from being built, meaning our reallocation means thwarting the will of our voters. Altimeters uniqueness is an island of the San Francisco Bay, subject to sea level and emerging groundwater issues, trans liquefaction and loss of access to the mainland. Should an earthquake destroy our bridges and tubes? And lastly, our transportation and infrastructure constraints? We are an island with limited ingress and egress and water supply transported by pipelines on the mainland. Unlike many cities, Alameda lacks direct access to BART within their borders, and these mirror the comments we've received from many people in the community who have asked us to appeal.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Harry Spencer.
Speaker 2: So I appreciate those reasons and I'm happy to include those reasons when we're not quite and I'm not sure then that if you spoke to the significant geological seismic issues also if that was within there. But that was those are things, you know, the fault within the fault zone. So if you look at those paragraphs, that's actually a lot other than the building issue. I think that that those are reasons. I think that the language in here is broader, includes more points. But I would agree to include those that also. And I'm happy to come up with a number if we think we have a number.
Speaker 0: Perhaps council member, not white has a number in mind. Or is it zero?
Speaker 3: My number is that that I'm okay with the methodology. I just think that they should look at our uniqueness and let us know how they might adjust it.
Speaker 0: Okay, Counselor. Every day. Zach, I see your hands up.
Speaker 2: You're muted again. Councilmember DE So.
Speaker 1: I'm fine with item two and item three raised by Councilmember NOx five. But I think item one, even for the No on Z crowd, was more nuanced in that we understand that, that we have an obligation with regard to multi-family housing and we've been meeting it through the housing over housing overlay and the density bonus within the context of Measure A. That that's that's the reality.
Speaker 0: Okay. Other council comments before we take a vote and I'll go last vice mayor of village when I say I think.
Speaker 2: I'm not going to be supporting the appeal tonight. I appreciate the position that my council colleagues are taking relative to representing the will of the people. I also think that we've had a number of subsequent presentations from our regional bodies and from other groups about really addressing kind of the hardest of all of the issues that were raised. It's the it appears that there's going to be support for the appeal. I just you know, it just concerns me because I think, as one of our speakers mentioned, Christopher Buckley. He doesn't think that it's it's going to be successful, but we are going to be spending staff time on it. And I just I don't like taking frivolous action, but I understand wanting to get clarity in terms of perhaps having somebody else be the adult in the room and saying, no, you have to do this.
Speaker 0: I will chime in and say most emphatically that I do not support an appeal. And while I appreciate our uniqueness as an island, I can tell you from the statewide and regional bodies I serve on that the Uniqueness Club is not an exclusive one and there are states up and down. There are cities up and down this state who would argue that they are coastal cities, they're built on hillsides, they have fire danger, they're in earthquake zones. And if everyone were to do this and bear in mind that the reason that Housing and Community Development Department of the State of California has these rules that the legislature has enacted is because cities around this state are not and have not met their obligation to provide housing. And so year after year, the housing crisis only got worse. And sometimes it's a matter of delaying so much that a project becomes so expensive, so costly, that it can't be built. There's all different ways that you can stall a project, try to kill a project. What I would prefer for us to do and what I think our city has generally been very adept at over the years and working with our very competent staff is look for the solutions. Because, again, we know this. We know people that it's not that each city will just simply say, Oh, you know what? A big 101 cities and nine counties that make up the Association of Bay Area Governments. Never mind that housing crisis thing, we'll just let it slide for a few years. No, they just take the portion of our housing number and put them somewhere else. Maybe in Oakland. I don't know where, but they're going to go somewhere else. And by the way, appeals are not just made by a particular city. Other cities can appeal are as I mean, there are other cities who could say, you know, we don't think Alameda is taking on enough housing. They've hardly built multifamily over the years. I mean, it's a it's a slippery slope to go down. I don't think our grounds are very strong. I could be wrong, but I've sure been in a lot of meetings and listened to the arguments presented. But, you know, this is a democratic body. We go by a majority vote.
Speaker 2: So I am.
Speaker 0: Surprised and disappointed that a majority wants to support this. But again, we whether we like it or not, the majority vote of the council is what we abide by. So if there's no further discussion. Councilmember Harry Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. And and I'm not sure if this is a member Knox's comments in regards to also pointing out that portions of the city are were created by filling in the San Francisco Bay so it's them feel more and more vulnerable to seismic events and susceptible to the convection.
Speaker 0: Thank you for pointing that out. We share that quality with other cities around the Bay Area.
Speaker 1: Councilmember Desai I think our appeal would be strengthened if we had a number in there. Granted, you know what that number is in the last three, an allocation, it was roughly 1730, something like that. And I think in this new allocation is roughly 5300. I just think, you know, if if I think if we're going to go in there with an allocation, we need to go in there with a number. I think splitting the difference, I think, is, is it sounds fair. So 5300 divided by two is 2650. So 2650 is substantially above our 1733 allocation, previous allocation. So I would I would just go with 2650 as as the number because I think we need to go in there with something because they might say, okay, well, we'll allow your thing, but instead of 50, 300, you get 50, 100
Speaker 0: . And did you want to also specify what city you think should take our.
Speaker 1: No, that's not my responsibility. That's a that's a bags responsibility or or California's responsibility. My responsibility is to just specify a number that that I think the city of Alameda can and bear. I don't think we can bear 5300. We're an island 2600. I mean, it's still substantially above last time, 1730 allocation. But but at least it's something. So so I would go with 2650 is splitting the difference of 5300 our current allocation. So that would be my suggested amendment.
Speaker 0: And I forgot who did. Did you make the motion?
Speaker 1: I did make those.
Speaker 0: Who made it accountable for her, Spencer.
Speaker 2: I think I made the original motion. And then I think, remember not. I had some additional language, which I'm fine with, and I'm fine with this number.
Speaker 0: Okay. We need to get clarity on what it is we're voting on at all.
Speaker 2: All of them.
Speaker 0: I'm sorry. Can you restate the motion as you understand it?
Speaker 2: Okay. So it was my motion to appeal, but then to in regards to Director Thomas wanting some grounds member. Not so. I articulated some grounds. I added some.
Speaker 0: Okay. I'm looking for specificity for the city clerk. Those grounds are.
Speaker 2: That I don't I hopefully she had or or.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Knox. Right.
Speaker 3: I haven't written down I can say it again and I'd be happy to just email it to the city clerk as well as the and.
Speaker 0: For the public. Can you say it again?
Speaker 3: But I just said I would.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: Point one. 60% of voters recently upheld the voter adopted city charter provision that prohibits multifamily housing from being built in L.A. Not meeting arena allocation means thwarting the will of the voters. Almeida's uniqueness as an island in the bay, subject to sea level rise and emergent groundwater liquefaction and loss of access to the mainland in an earthquake which could destroy all of our bridges and tubes. And point three Transportation and infrastructure. Alameda is an island with limited ingress and egress and water supply transported from pipelines on to the mainland. Unlike other East Bay cities, Alameda lacks direct access to BART within its borders.
Speaker 0: Okay. And it counts day.
Speaker 1: So I guess in my amendment. Point number one was to say whatever the final sentence is, to put a comma saying, recognizing that the city of Alameda has adopted the density bonus law and the multifamily housing overlay to meet state law regarding multifamily housing and multi-family housing and and RINA obligations. Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 3: I would take out the density. Bonus is not allowed to be used in the arena determination. So mentioning it here only confuses things and actually makes us look like we don't know what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: No, that's just not. Not true. Density bonus laws at the heart of of modifying measure because the density bonus law has two components, one of which is the regulatory component that allows you to be free from the from measure a. The second component is the quantitative formula that that that it's so so you got it. It's the density bonus law that that allows you to be free from Measure eight. It's just because the city of Alameda adopted the state density bonus law and the regulatory framework of that. All right.
Speaker 3: With all respect, that that's not how it happens. We adopted a multifamily overlay to get around the state regulations. The density bonus law allows us to go above the MF overlay, but literally in arena law and housing element, a law does not allow us to use the density bonus to achieve our Reno numbers. So I think it would make us look very.
Speaker 0: Bad if we're going to have one speaker at a time. Councilmember de SAC hold on. And Councilmember, I'm not saying continue yours, your comment.
Speaker 3: So I'm simply saying that since we are not allowed to use the density bonus to calculate any of our arena numbers, using it to say this is how we're going to make our arena numbers makes us look like we don't know what we're talking about. And I do not think our letter appealing this is going to look very sincere or authoritative if we're including things that show that we don't understand the law itself.
Speaker 0: Councilor Redford.
Speaker 1: My point is this, is that what the every time we have a multi a project project proponent who wants to do a multifamily housing, the first thing one of the first thing they have to do is they have to pull the density bonus trigger. And the part of the density bonus trigger that they're pulling is the part that speaks to the getting relief from the regulatory local regulatory regimes that constrict affordable housing. That's that's the part of the density bonus trigger that they first have to pull. They're also going to pull the second part that says, oh, by the way, here's a mathematical formula by which you can increase the number of housing above and beyond what you would typically do. So the density bonus law is a critical part of of our meeting, you know, our our affordable housing obligations. I mean, if you look at, for example, the staff report, the staff report says that it that when you calculate the density bonus law in the meeting, our affordable housing numbers, it's not 30 units per acre, but it's 36 units per acre. So the point is they're already calculating it in there. So it is an intimate partner.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Desai, I'm just going to interrupt you and forgive the interruption. I don't think either one of you is going to convince the other as we sit here tonight. So we have a couple of choices. We can include everything or we can vote on an appeal that does include the reference to density bonus fire and multi-family overlay . And when that doesn't. You also have the the number, the suggested number. So let's figure out what we want to do and let's take a vote. But what are we going to vote on? I appreciate you laying out there. And I was taking notes. I'm sure the city clerk was, too, but where are we going to go on that one? Hold out for just a minute. Councilor rehearse. Spencer I want to give Councilor Woodside the chance to finish his thought.
Speaker 1: Then I think two things. One is I think we should go, we should adopt a number. I think that's that's important. And I'm sorry, but you know, 2654 purpose is at a summit for four at a cemetery. On the second point, I think we have to recognize that the dense I think we maybe the way to frame it is to say, as I said before, comma, recognizing that the city has employed the state density bonus law into its own local ordinances as well as created a multi-family overlay comma in an effort to build multifamily housing. So I'll be I'll be silent as to the arena, but I'll say in an effort to build multi-family housing. So I take I strictly any reference to Rita. By the way, this is why this all of this subject is very complicated. And that's why we require a lot of time.
Speaker 0: No, no disagreement there. Counsel for her expense. You had your hand up.
Speaker 2: Thank you. I was just going to give it to Director Thomas and see if he thinks he can somehow make this make sense so that it does make it look like we do know what we're talking about. Given this input.
Speaker 1: Yes. I think what I'm hearing is Councilmember de SA saying, look, if we're going to talk about the measure Z and the city wide prohibition, also clarify that we do allow multifamily housing through multifamily overlay and density bonus. And then but also in response to Councilmember Knox, why don't use that as an argument as to why we're going to get 2650 units? Because he's right. State law says you can't don't you can't count on density bonus. That's something that's offered. A developer may take advantage of it, but you can't count on developers taking advantage of it. So I think we can right the appeal. So it makes that distinction clear and it doesn't show. I'm not going to write a letter that makes us look stupid. And that'll be my first job.
Speaker 2: And then could I follow up? Do you feel like you have sufficient direction from council given this motion and what you've heard from the other council members?
Speaker 1: Yes, we can work. We can work with this.
Speaker 0: Let's get a motion before we did, because we hadn't quite finished the issue of including the number their agreement on including the 2650 number.
Speaker 2: I'm fine with that number.
Speaker 0: Councilmember That's why.
Speaker 3: I will support I prefer no number, but I'll support the number if that's what they want.
Speaker 0: And you can send that message home as anything. Any thoughts about that?
Speaker 1: I. I think we just go with it. I. I think we will explain it sort of as Councilmember de Song explained it. Hey, we were we were able in this last cycle to do about 1750. It was 1725, but it was a stretch. We think with a little more stretching, we can get to 2650 at the next cycle. But what I heard the Councilmember de SOG saying, you know, 53 is not within our reach, 2650, we believe is. Yes.
Speaker 0: Okay. So I think we have clarity on the motion and it's been assuming the center of the motion, which was you. Councilmember Desai Correct.
Speaker 2: That is correct.
Speaker 0: Okay. And you accept others the additional language. Okay. Okay. Then we have a motion and a second, an agreement with the added language. So maybe we have a roll call vote.
Speaker 2: Please remember de sac or center. I Knox White. I Vela. No mayor. As the Ashcraft know, that motion carries 3 to 2.
Speaker 0: All right. All right, everybody. So then let's move on to the next question that. Mr. Thomas posed to us, which is the is the you know, Mr. Thomas, you're probably better able to decipher what you said than my reading my notes.
Speaker 1: I think where we are at now is we have sort of three different resolutions on the table. They all three have common denominators. All three support doing a housing element in compliance of state law. All three support using multifamily housing as necessary to meet the Rena. All three support the idea of maximizing the use of city land. Where they differ is in how they characterize Measure A and the relationship between Measure A and the charter. The planning board stripped all the language out entirely. Councilmember Herrera's stripped it out entirely. So I think there's a question do you want to strip it out entirely or not? If you don't, then you go with the staff resolution or some variation of it. Chris Buckley did have suggested a variation where it's not completely stripped, but partially stripped. The second thing that differs here is Councilmember Herrera's resolution puts a big emphasis or adds an emphasis which is not inconsistent with the others, but it puts extra emphasis on the need to renegotiate or at least actively push to negotiate the Navy cap with the Navy and try to get that eliminated. And the concept there is under the cap we can only get and what the staff report points out, we can get about 1200 units of our 53 at Alameda Point. I think the intent of renegotiating the cap would be to try to max to try to get more than 1200 at Almeida Point. We have a variety of constraints that our point allow me to point at which we are going to have to work through as a community over the next year even to get to 1250. But certainly from staff's perspective, the idea of removing the cap at Almeida Point is a good idea. Even if we don't get it done for this cycle, you're going to need it in future cycles. That cap from staff perspective has got to go. The sooner the better. But I think just the last point on that, there are some of your speakers there are there there are fair housing aspects of out of state housing law . The idea that we're going to do all of our units at Alameda Point, I think that is not a strategy that is going to be successful. But the idea of, you know, the fact that Alameda Point has a lot of land that's vacant and underutilized and it's also where we can do 25% affordable, makes for a strong case for why we want to maximize the use of Alameda point. So I think those are the big differences and I think those are the kind of where we would be looking for some clarification from the council. And once again, we're just we're looking for direction and conformation. How do you the council want to lead this next year process? What do you want us focusing on?
Speaker 0: I want to just ask a question about that point about the Navy cap. I don't disagree with that. I've been talking for probably a couple of years and definitely as long as I've been mayor about when are we going to approach the Navy? Because it just doesn't make sense in this day and age when we have a housing crisis to have to pay a premium to add more housing at Alameda Point. However, I'm not sure that the wisest approach is to signal that by putting it in this resolution, Hey, Navy, this is what we're going to do. I think we have a congresswoman in D.C. We've certainly discussed this with her. We have lobbyists. We have ways to go about doing that. I want that negotiation to be as successful and effective as possible. And I'm just wondering if we can't accomplish that same goal by giving staff clear direction that we want you to begin exploring , pursuing this lifting of the of the cap. And, I mean, I happen to think there would just be lots of political support for that. But anyway, we'll take it.
Speaker 1: Just answer that quickly, I think from staff's perspective, where it could. Either way is fine with us. I mean, obviously, you can just give us direction, and particularly if you think politically we might have more success. If we do it that way, then, you know, we would certainly agree with you. We want to have a successful negotiation and whatever that's going to take. And we want a quick one.
Speaker 0: Those are my $0.02 worth, Councilmember Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Director Thomas. So I included the language in my proposed resolution in regards to the cap, because I think, as you pointed out, of course, that additional 1000. How much is it? $1,000 or something now per unit? $3,100 per unit. Sorry, 100,000 per unit. In addition, does then make it harder to build affordable housing complicates is that for me, the goal is not to build luxury housing or high income housing. It is to build workforce housing or affordable housing and housing for the middle. However you want to describe it, that 100,000 obviously makes a difference in increasing the developer's costs and then gets passed on to the consumer. And so I included this because I would like to be able to support a resolution. But these points are important to me that it all be in one document, which is what I was looking for. I appreciate we already did the language on the appeal though, so I guess I would be okay with striking that. But some of the next step then is like I want someone to be able to read this and see how it relates to each other. I think we do need to reduce that cap and look our increase the cap, reduce the cost to build out at the point in order to try to meet these numbers, especially if we end up at the 5300 if we don't get any reduction. So I was trying to come up with an inclusive document thinking.
Speaker 1: Councilor Desai thank you in my three minute remaining 3 minutes. So this is where things get a little complicated because I think it's not the two. There are three items commitment to housing, element compliance, adopting multifamily zoning, and the fourth being use of vacant city land. So I just want to talk quickly to number two and three, commitment to housing element compliance and adopting multifamily zoning. And so this is why I think this this issue really is a standalone issue in and of itself, because the kind of the issue that's not being addressed here is the general plan and the land use category that we are creating in the general plan. And so one of the general plan, land use categories that we are creating is something called mixed community, mixed use, land, community mixed use. And that is a that is a general plan designation that's going to be put on certain places. Most was particularly shopping centers. The issue, though, is that community mixed use land use category will have a density of 30 to 65 units per acre. Now, one thing is land use category, but the other thing is zoning. So it's possible that we don't change the zoning. But the way that our codes read is that where there are inconsistencies between the densities that are expressed in the general plan and the density that are expressed in the zoning, the general planned land use category takes precedence. And this is in density bonus areas, and practically every new housing development is going to be a density bonus project. So this is where I think the discussion is a lot more richer than just kind of voting on these things. I think we have to have a more detailed discussion.
Speaker 0: Councilor David, Mr. Thomas has his hand up. Let's hear from him on this. Mr. Thomas.
Speaker 1: Let me just quickly clarify if I can. I think what Councilmember De Saag is referring to is the current the March draft of the general plan, where we were put forward recommendations for land use classifications. And one of them is the shopping center land use classification that he made reference to. And when that in that draft that we released in March, we identified the types of densities and zoning that might be necessary to get to 5300. The planning board and a number of speakers on that draft said, Whoa, you're going too fast, too quickly here. Let's just keep the general plan more general. Let's decide what the necessary zoning is and densities in the various land use classifications and the zoning when we do the housing on. That's when we need to make these tough decisions. So just last week, staff released proposed revisions to that draft general plan where we brought that land use classifications much more into sync with what we currently have. So essentially that land use classification that Councilmember Desai is referring to. We have eliminated all the language that we're recommending to the planning board eliminate and not recommend the language that Councilmember De Saag is describing. And we're just using an R, which is from the existing zoning for the shopping centers. That's what we are recommending. The planning board recommend to you City Council, just in terms of process, that general plan, if all goes well, we'll be coming to the City Council for review and approval and you can certainly make changes to that general plan before it gets adopted. That will happen this fall. And then what will happen is next fall, if all goes well, the Planning Board will be recommending the housing element to the City Council with the necessary zoning to meet our arena in which, you know, and whatever that arena ends up being. So we've set this up as a sequence of steps which allow you to make these decisions, we think, in a logical way and not getting the cart before the horse, which is, I think what Councilmember De Saag was was sort of getting was getting concerned about.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember, they said, just for clarification, my question to you is, are you suggesting with regard to the second question, Mr. Thomas posed, that we would not be committed to adopting a housing element that is in compliance with state law? And I would like to add, and I think you're probably aware of the pretty dire consequences that would result for our city if we weren't to be if we were to adopt a housing element that didn't comply with state law.
Speaker 2: Well.
Speaker 0: Go ahead.
Speaker 1: Just quickly with one minute.
Speaker 0: Well, what about extending your time?
Speaker 1: What I'm saying is that this issue is so complex and convoluted that it's just not. Look at housing element, look at multifamily zoning. There's also these other outstanding issues like what categories and what densities we come up with in the general plan land use section and how all of this interplays into, you know, what the at the point in time a developer wants to build somewhere, let's say they want to build on the horrible landing center. You know, what are the rules that they that they can rely on to build at the densities that they seek? And so I think that what I'm getting at is that, you know, that level of discussion, you know, isn't before us. So I my my sense is that, you know, we should really be doing the housing element compliance and adopting multifamily zoning kind of kind of separate as a standalone discussion on some other night. It's so complicated.
Speaker 0: Hmm. I see what you're saying. So, Mr. Thomas, we definitely have a deadline for filing the Reena appeal, which is to say, Friday. As far as these other items, we have a little more time. What's what's your thought?
Speaker 1: Well, we are proceeding, and I, I guess I, we are proceeding on the assumption that we are going to need multifamily overlays. That's just the way we needed them to get to 1725 in the last cycle and just be cool and just like we needed them to get to 2200 or 2300 the cycle before. So that's all we're saying. We're not asking you to commit to where they will be. We're not asking you to commit to whether it's going to be 30 units or 36 units or 30. That's what we're going to spend the next year working with the community and the planning board and with all of you on. So all the.
Speaker 0: More general says, a more general concept.
Speaker 1: We're asking right now if if any of you are like, No, I never want to see a multifamily overlay brought to the city council, ever. Tell us now, because that's the conversation we need to be having right now, because we believe we are absolutely going to be bringing you multifamily overlays to get this housing homeowner adopted. There is no scenario where that is not part of our equation. So if there's any councilmember who doesn't saying, look, I do not want to ever see one. That's the conversation we want to have, whether it's 30 or 32 years or 28 units or 38 units. That's a that's a very important conversation. And we're going to need a year to work through that with the community and the planning board before we can even come back to you with recommendations at that level of detail.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Councilmember, next, what you got here.
Speaker 3: So to that point, I think there has been talk at previous council members about coming back with a policy for the council to adopt related to MFF. My concern is that right now the staff recommendation is kind of wishy washy. I remember with all respect, Councilmember Hirsch Spencer's is even less clear. It just kind of commits us to something, but it doesn't really answer that question and I don't think we should be spending time on MFF overlays if there's not support for AMF overlays. And so I'm curious to me, I'd be interested in giving staff direction to come back because the other, the other concern I doubt that either I'll just flag is that you know, we're talking about MFF overlays and I think some of us think that the MFF overlay is a specific thing with a specific number. But in the presentations to the planning board or whatever else, it's very clear that MFF overlay could have 30, could have 60. I haven't seen 120, but it could have 120. Right. The MFF overlay and I think having some idea of what we're I don't want to, I don't want staff spinning the reels and coming back with something at the end of the day thinking they heard oh there's support for MFF overlays and then all the work is kind of torn apart because it doesn't meet preconceived notions that weren't what were intended. And so I think getting some policy direction tonight and possibly maybe at our next meeting would be smart.
Speaker 0: In the future. Connie. Thank you. Councilwoman Farrakhan, you Councilmember de. I would just say that perhaps for consistency with the argument that you all raise are raising in your appeal of the arena numbers, you would want to bear in mind that if you're not supportive of a multifamily overlay zoning of some sort, then what you seem to be saying is you are for a single family residential, which certainly sounds like suburban sprawl, which doesn't seem environmentally advantageous for a city that's concerned with things like sea level rise, rising groundwater, etc.. But Councilmember de SAC.
Speaker 1: Okay, quickly. So here's what I'm supportive of multifamily overlay as it is currently used, meaning that the amount of density can never be more than 30 units per acre, but factor in without factoring density bonus, which comes out to be 36 units per acre. That's what we have multifamily overlay right now. It does not allow anything bigger than that. It has only 30 units per acre. That's the way the ordinance reads, plus density bonus, which comes out to be 36 units. And that's the way that that that I want I don't want to, you know, I don't want the underlying zoning or the underlying land use to be more than 30. That should be that's sufficient in terms of meeting state law, 30 units per acre in order to meet state law when it comes to multi-family housing.
Speaker 2: This time.
Speaker 1: I just clarified.
Speaker 0: We'll take care of that.
Speaker 1: If I just.
Speaker 0: Very quickly, please.
Speaker 1: Technically, theoretically, let's assume there are people is not is not successful. Let's assume we're doing a 5300 to get to 5300 and meet that criteria as outlined by Councilmember De Saag. We would literally have to spread the MF Overlay over much larger areas of the city. So the that the the benefit of being flexible on this, you do that through the community process. The community might say, no, we want to do a lot of housing at any point. We want to do it on these three shopping centers. And we really want you to minimize MF Overlay in the neighborhoods. To get to 5300, we might have to say, okay, we can do that. But that means the IMF overlay on the shopping centers has to be higher than 30 N.S.A. because otherwise the math doesn't get you to 53. So if we set this arbitrary cap of 30 U.S.A., now what the the the unintended consequences is we might have to apply it to larger areas and more of the neighborhood areas. So I would just argue that you might want to stay flexible on that at this point and let that planning process play out. If the community is like, well, try and spread it around. Let's put it in all the neighborhoods, the every neighborhood. Get some R MF overlay, but keep it at 30 USC acre and let's just get to 5400 that way. That's a viable way to do it. However, they may not. They may say no concentrate at these locations and and try to minimize. Where you put it in the neighborhood. So that's that's my only caution to that approach.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Before I call in another speaker, let's do a little housekeeping, because Councilmember Desai is at a time and I don't want to preclude anyone from this important discussion. So we're going to have Vice Mayor Vella. She can sell off some of her time. No. What would what would be reasonable folks? We could. Here's a thought. We could open to suggestion negotiation. We could just ask the city clerk to put us all back at nine. That means we were just starting on a level playing field for those of you who've held your time and you want nine plus. I just we've got another another item that we really need to get to tonight. And I do want to wrap this one up, but I'm open to suggestions. Councilmember Knox, why then decide?
Speaker 3: I think I was going to I'm going to say what I think Tony was going to recommend. We heard is our councilmember.
Speaker 0: Did mind reading going on. I love it.
Speaker 3: Let's just add 5 minutes. I'm sorry. I don't think it's it's it's arbitrary and unfair to let people who talk all the time talk a lot and everybody have the same numbers again.
Speaker 0: So we might be okay.
Speaker 3: Let's just add 5 minutes.
Speaker 2: All right.
Speaker 3: Get another five.
Speaker 0: Okay. That's a motion to add 5 minutes to everybody's time to have a second councilmember Dave, 5 seconds. Okay, let's take a roll call vote real quickly, please. Adding 5 minutes to everybody's time.
Speaker 2: Of member Dave.
Speaker 1: Guy.
Speaker 2: Amir Spencer. I next fight.
Speaker 3: Hi.
Speaker 2: Vella. I mean, Christy Ashcroft, I know, carries my five eyes.
Speaker 0: You should start with vice mayor of L.A.. Okay. All right. So let's see here. Council member. Well, we were okay. Councilor decided you want to respond to. But Mr. Thomas was explaining. No. Okay. So how are we going to treat this? Do we want to commit to adopting a housing element in compliance with state law, with the understanding that we will be coming back to fine tune exactly what that means. At a later date. Councilmember Harry Spencer.
Speaker 2: Thank you, Mayor. I would like to circle back to Director Thomas and ask, do you have an idea of what number you think it would work out to be since you've been looking at this? If it's not the 30 and 36, how dense do you think it could turn out to be to make it work when you're talking?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean, I think I think we should be we should be very flexible. I think it sounds crazy, but a two story building in one of the stations with housing that was built at the turn of the century is 80.
Speaker 0: Units the.
Speaker 1: Acre. It's only two stories. It's got small workforce units. Why is it such a high density? Because small, affordable units. It's only two stories.
Speaker 2: It's 80 units, the acre.
Speaker 1: So I would say don't get freaked out by that number. Now, 80 units, the acre at a huge site like South Shore. Not necessary. Not necessary at all. 30 units at South Shore. Plenty. Fine. No problem. But if you're talking about trying to encourage Ann, the is having this conversation right now with us like what's the right density? They're trying to encourage some projects to go forward because under the current regime, they haven't seen that kind of project in 40 years. So they're okay with this conversation, like maybe it's 40, maybe it's 35, maybe it's 50, we're not sure. But they know what shape and size of buildings they want. I think that's the right way to do it. I also think we need to just work this through. You know, what's appropriate on Webster Street is going to be different than what's appropriate at South Shore. What's appropriate, I'll make a point will be different than both of them. And I just think we should let the community decide. And what we've been trying to structure with the planning board and with the community is let's talk about how many units we want to get out of the allocation at each location. What the planning board has said and we've started this work. Show us massing diagrams like how tall are those buildings? How big are they? What do they look like? And then we will back into, well, what's the density we need before we decide? So that's the approach.
Speaker 0: And I was just going to jump in and just say, Councilmember Harry Spencer, I think you and I share the belief that some of our units need to be what's called affordable by design. They're just smaller, so they command a lower price mean. I think we need a whole range of of units, but I definitely want to see a lot of smaller units anyway. Tony Sorry. Councilor Desai had his hand up and then that's you. Councilor Hurray. Spencer.
Speaker 1: No, I. I'm from the vantage point that I think we should lead by the type of community that we think fits within our built environment. When you look at Alameda, you know, there's a kind of a homogeneity with respect to its built environment. Like, for example, if you go down Shoreline Avenue, there's kind of an elegance in the sense that most of the building, most of those apartments are of the same size. And that's because there is a uniform type of density throughout much of Alameda that I think people can live with. I think that's where we need to lead with. And so to me, you know, 30 units per acre isn't an arbitrary number. I mean, it is a number that that the state law or state practice or program requires. It has to you know, if they're going to own land to be arena eligible, it has to be a 30 unit minimum. That's why when we adopted the housing overlay as our planning director well knows, that's why the 30 units per, per, per acre number was used. I hear what he's saying. What he's saying is that, well, you know what? That but but if we don't come up with 26, 50 total allocation, which I want, but we come up instead of 5300, then I get it. The math won't work. Well, you know what? I'm sorry, but it's wrong to do 5300. And I'm not going to like I don't want to set in place a regime that accommodates 5300. I just don't you know, if there was going to be a regime that accommodates anything, it's going to it should be to accommodate 2650. And that, you know, without doing the math, I suspect that the the 30 units per acre current overlay regime will work without doing the Mafia. I suspect it would. But so so I'm leading from the example of, you know, if you create, you know, if you lean on the on the on the side of of being flexible , well, you're basically leaning on the side of being flexible to accommodate 5300 units. And I I'm just wary of that. And and so I just that's a concern. I would rather.
Speaker 0: Thomas and then Councilmember Harry Spencer.
Speaker 1: I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. I think we don't it's premature to decide, from my perspective, what the densities should be. And I agree with Councilmember Desai. We don't know what our number is. We're going to appeal. It might be different. We might be successful in that appeal. We shouldn't be deciding what that density is now and for the reasons he's argued. There's really as I'm listening to the conversation, I feel like I've put you in a difficult position. I'm asking you to make decisions. And before you've been through a year long planning process with the community about what they're going to be comfortable with. Here's the one thing that is just driving us around this issue. And I just to put it in context, we cannot afford to have disagreements at the very end like the consequences , because the state law is like we have a deadline. Like if we miss that deadline, we immediately start paying penalties so we can't afford a disagreement. I don't need to convince Councilmember de SAG tonight. I need to convince all five of you over the next year that we've got a good plan to accommodate whatever arena we have . So at this point, you know, I feel like we're going a little bit beyond where we need to go. And I guess I just really I'm hoping that what I'm hearing from Councilmember De Saag is, look, we're going to get a housing element adopted. We're going to do what's necessary to get it adopted. We're certainly you know, that's what I'm hoping we all are in agreement on. But we're going to reserve judgment as to where we should do density and how high that density is until we actually see the numbers and we see how it plays out. If the council wants to set an absolute cap and absolute sort of ceiling on how we do this and really constrain the process over the next year, well, we will certainly work with that. I just wouldn't advise it.
Speaker 0: And I am just going to say I am really adamant that I cannot imagine that we would vote not to adopt a housing element that doesn't comply with state law. So please just keep that in mind, because I don't care how special.
Speaker 2: We are.
Speaker 0: As an island or what have you. A state law. A state law. And the penalties are steep for not complying with it. Councilmember Herrera Spencer, I think your next. Still muted. Okay. Try. Yeah, I know that. Double unmute.
Speaker 2: Okay. I wanted to ask you. I appreciate the conversation. I personally I don't know. When I look at it, I'll just say the willows. I don't know what their density is. And maybe if you can give us some examples as we're going through this process of what density is for some of these places, what the square footage is of the units. I and and I do agree in regards. But the mayor is saying I do want to do and I've that I've spoken back when I was mayor and now same thing of affordability by design. I'm very unhappy with the pricing out at the point. I think that is a failure. I do not think it supports the majority. And, you know, our meetings, most of us at least people I know and hang out with. We can't write a check for over $1,000,000 and most of that housing salvia out there is over $1,000,000. So that, in my opinion, is a gift to the community. It is a gift to the community. And we need to try to figure out a way to come up with housing that people can actually buy and not have to pay rent for the rest of their lives. This is a serious problem. But, you know, house mob as a unit have to be to bring down to the point, the price point. And that to me is a legitimate question. Sure. Okay. That's build a 200 square foot home. Is that right? $2,200 a year for the home to run. I'm going to say let's build a 200 tiny house. And then as my developers still going to put a $1 million price tag on it because of so and this is not working and we have a serious problem . We have to come up with a way to work with some developer that can actually build housing to buy that comes in significantly under $1,000,000. But we are doing to our cities, I believe is we're doing gentrification and we're seeing this all over. And I know a lot of people don't like that word, but that's the reality. If I can't buy a home and mice in Alameda, $400 million and you can look at the prices for houses that have, you know, are from the turn of the century and new homes, if you look at what is the lowest priced home you can buy. And I think that is significant. That is how generations can acquire equity. And I am a renter. And just so you all know, and I used to be a member, Odie and I are the two renters. And so I think at this point I'm the runner up here. I'm a renter, long term runner in Alameda, can't pay $1,000,000 for a home. So I do want I'm interested in looking at these different densities to see that I needed to actually be reflected in the price points to purchase. And sadly, I don't think that actually happened as much as we tried out at the point. Right. We tried I tried to get a condo overlay and, you know, we end up still everything's over $1,000,000. So, you know, but I do want to you know, I'm I'm interested in trying to be flexible and trying to make this work. So I wanted to share that. I appreciate having the opportunity to say that. And I actually part of my proposal was to strike reference to SNL terminals within this document. That project I have not put my name on yet. I may not put my name on it. I'm happy to have the developer here that I am still trying to negotiate. And so I don't think it's appropriate to put that in here and let a developer know, oh, he's already got the four votes for the swap. There was already, as is referenced in the document, a plan that was approved without the swap. And so they have a plan that they could be proceeding on if they want to have the developer say, oh, it's not viable for me. Was that made is not viable for you or someone to build and charge over $1,000,000. So how much money you're making? And honestly, when we have these discussions, I don't know how much money developers actually really make. I never get to see their books. I don't actually know what the real costs are. I don't know what their real revenue is. So I just have to look at the end product and say, okay, but for me, a plan was already approved for and SNL, they haven't built it. That's on them. They want the swap. They're going to have to negotiate for four votes. And my any reference to them in this, I think suggests that they already have the four, in which case that hurts my ability and anyone else, any other council members ability to try to negotiate. And they did come to count the prior to the prior council and did not get the four votes. But my, my recollection is at least number matter I see. And I maybe member Desai I'm not sure who was sitting on there at the time was not interested in what they were offering. So that's why I had omitted those references. Also just speak to that so people and are in all honesty with it, where I came from in trying to support this effort, I think you.
Speaker 0: Can just to reference back to the internal terminal site, there is a difference between properties that require four votes to approve and three votes to approve. And so it's it's not so much a matter of signaling to the developer. I think, you know, we we most of us talk to these folks. But if we are told by the state that we have to build some housing, whether it's 2650 or 53, 50 or some other number, it's got to go somewhere. And if we can't use this site, if we can't get it reconfigured, it is what it is, we will look elsewhere. But I think that to the principle that Mr. Thomas raised, is it do we approve using, to the extent possible, vacant, underused land? I, I think that has a place in this discussion. Anybody else want to weigh in on this? I think I feel like three of us carrying much of this conversation. Councilor Knox White Vice Mayor Vella. Counselor and that's why I got.
Speaker 3: So I'm going to go back to I have not heard. A broad commitment for what an MF overlay looks like so far. I've heard Tony say Councilmember de Sung Save MF 30. I understand that we need some flexibility. I don't know that we need to build that build the house exactly right now. But I'm going to be very uncomfortable moving forward using an MF overlay if they're a majority of the council that does not include me, doesn't say that we're going to use the MF overlay and we're going to be flexible with it. So I'm going to be really clear that, well, you know, I agree with everything Councilmember Spencer just said about housing, but I would say that the housing policies that are being pushed, including the appeal that was just filed, are the reason that the costs are what they are. Our housing authority is spending $1,000,000 per unit to build housing units. That's the cost to build the units. You can make 200 that one 200 square foot homes somewhere in Alameda. They are not going to sell for $400,000. They're going to still be extremely expensive. That's what happens. The cheap the cheap houses that exist in Alameda are the old houses. The new houses are never cheap, but we're not building new houses. So we haven't been able to filter down the houses the way that traditionally that that kind of affordable stuff goes. So, you know, if we can't build if we can't build denser housing and we can't build it cheaper with in places where, you know, where there is already the infrastructure to build it, then we're going to end up continuing to make sure that every single unit we build is going to be in that one point whatever million dollars. I mean, it's ridiculous. I couldn't afford to live in the city anymore. I, I am very lucky to own my home. I could not live in the city today if we had not bought in 20 years ago. So, you know, I am. Thankful and aware of that privilege. But I also am very aware that it is a privilege, and my goal is to try to stop the problem that's happening so that other people can have the privilege as well. So for me, I would like to know that there is more to me. So I'm going to as one of the co-chairs for the measures the campaign. I feel that our Councilmember de sa notwithstanding I feel that what we heard from our voters very clearly was they want us to limit housing to the greatest extent possible in Alameda. And they want us to honor our charter. And I feel that I am in a very difficult place whereby if I vote to violate our charter, I am just ignoring the community who just voted on the question I ask them. And so for me, I will be honoring the voters. And I'm aware that that may cause us to be noncompliant, which I think will be terrible. And I also think it will be okay if we end up in court and there will be some pain. But I think that we will finally have a long term answer to the question that keeps getting asked. But everybody continue to pass. Counsels have ducked it every single turn. The MF overlay isn't some magic thing that the state developed to say, Here's how you get around your stuff. It's something that staff came up with, with How can we sell ignoring our charter based on some stuff from, you know, they they pulled laws and calculations from state, but it wasn't something magical. It's not a it's not a state thing. It's something that Andrew Thomas and John Russo came up with. And we're able to pitch and sell to the to the council ten years ago. And, you know, nobody fought it because they understood Measure eight is illegal. This is a way for us to pretend that we're addressing it now. We're in a place where the only way for us to address that is a multifamily overlay that goes well over 30 units to the acre or else all the angry emails, hundreds of them that we have gotten from Bay Farm are going to get a response with sorry, we're sticking with 30. And guess what? It's not just your shopping center, it's your actual housing areas that are going to start getting this MF overlay as well, because we're going to have to be everywhere. But, you know, right now, you know, I don't feel comfortable being a being the vote who ignores, you know, being being one of the votes who just, you know, ignores the voters. So, you know, I think we really you know, for me, I'm looking for for four or five votes saying we're going to be very flexible, that we understand that an overlay is going to be more than 30 units in the acre in some places. And that we're encouraging, you know, really going on the record saying, staff, we want you to work on this because I'm really worried about what's going to happen six months from now when we come back. And the staff has got 80 units, the acre on Park Street because they're all really small little Watson. That's the only way to make it work. And everybody flicks out and says, but that's more than 30 and we're going to be noncompliant. And again, I'm okay with being noncompliant. I'm not happy about it. But I believe that it is at least one way to be ethically and morally aligned with the question I asked the community last fall. I'm not saying that's the only way I think other people can make other equally ethical and moral decisions. But I want to be really clear that I'm not going to be a part of a majority. That is Vice Mayor Avella and Mayor Izzy Ashcraft that rams through MF Overlays all over the place and kind of , you know, sorry. I mean, that, you know.
Speaker 0: You I know you're not making ad hominem attacks on you.
Speaker 2: I'm not I'm.
Speaker 3: Saying that that the comment was made, somebody has to be the adult in the room. And I think sometimes the adults in the room have to carry this while other people, you know, say, well, I'm not going to do that. And I think at this point in time, our full council needs to be the adult in the room and that I'm going to be I'm happy to join it. The council being the adult in the room, but I'm not going to be a part of a three vote adults in the room on this issue right now, even if that means that ultimately we're, you know, ending up in court, that with the state about it. So.
Speaker 0: Well, okay, we could just table this discussion for now because it doesn't seem like we're going to get a four or five vote majority on anything, if that's what you're looking for. I mean it con the vice mayor because she hasn't spoken much as evidenced by her 13 minutes. You could just you know.
Speaker 2: I'm not planning this fever soliloquy. So, you know, look, I do have concerns. We are fiduciary. And I understand. I think one of the biggest problems with the state of California is that we have allowed kind of a ridiculous amount of zoning via the ballot box, which has resulted in the conundrum that we are faced with tonight . And I to Councilmember Knox white point. It's not a majority of the voters. It was a majority of the people who turned out to vote and in specific elections have made kind of decisions that have said the city of Alameda does not want to comply with this, that or the other or this is what we're going to do. And we're going to limit the ability to actually have local control and have project by project decision making. That is based off of a number of different things we have kind of allowed for. And by we I don't just mean the city of Alameda. I mean many jurisdictions through these different measures have kind of, you know, limited local control, limited the ability of elected councils to make real time decisions on projects through measures that have been put in place decades prior. So, you know, I think that that's part of the issue that we're faced with. I don't think that Alameda is unique in it, not a mayor and I sit on a statewide committee and we we hear these arguments about uniqueness from all over the state of California. And lots of different jurisdictions have exclusionary zoning provisions or provisions that limit certain amounts of whether it be density or other sorts of type of construction. So I you know, what I am concerned with, though, is we are fiduciary is we do have conflicting obligations here. So I think one of the things that I would like to hear about are what are our options from the city attorney's perspective that that we're faced with? You know, I understand that we have the resolution before us tonight. I also understand from Mr. Thomas that we don't necessarily have to make a decision tonight. But I do think it's important to have a conversation about what all the options are. And I certainly want to avoid you know, I don't necessarily want to cause or push a lawsuit to be filed against. The city one way or the other. But I do think that we have to address the elephant in the room. And I am concerned, like I said, about this legacy of of zoning via the ballot box that has caused these limitations.
Speaker 0: And I am going to have to interrupt at this minute because we have to do some housekeeping. I am certain to tell you that it's almost 11:00 and the city clerk reminds me that we must make a motion by 11 p.m. so we can deliberate for very long to consider the new items, which are six F that's the Greenway Golf and gyms on the course lease amendments. And and then there's those two items that were pulled from the consent calendar. Now, one option would be to only hear city staff and continue the consent items to a specific date and time. Since we've already heard public comment on them, I am more than willing to go up to midnight for as far as we can get. I hope that we can get to the Greenway item because there's a settlement agreement that kind of hangs in the balance on that one. So measure, measure, motion to keep going until 11, but to definitely start Greenway Golf next. And then if we get to the consent calendar items.
Speaker 2: You know.
Speaker 0: Midnight hasn't come yet, we'll do those otherwise they get continued to I think a date certain which would be our next council meeting. And it's 1045. 1049. Councilmember not.
Speaker 3: I move to continue the meeting. Past 11:00.
Speaker 2: Which new items you're considering?
Speaker 0: Yeah, we have to. We have to. If we don't make this decision by 11, this is the last one we'll hear.
Speaker 3: Now, I understand, but we can just continue to hear new items after 11. I don't have to identify which ones.
Speaker 2: Yeah, you just have to say which new. I, I think the rules of order or specific enough that you have to identify that item. Let me read you that. Yeah.
Speaker 3: Of all the outstanding items we can here at and before midnight.
Speaker 2: Okay. All right.
Speaker 0: Okay. A quick second and then a quick roll call vote. That's very valid seconds. We have a real cover place.
Speaker 2: Councilmember De Sang?
Speaker 1: Yes.
Speaker 2: Career Center. No. Knox, right. Yes. Yes. Mayor as Ashcroft.
Speaker 0: Yes.
Speaker 2: That carries way forward.
Speaker 0: All right. Perfect. Thank you, everyone.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: Back to Vice Mayor Vallee. You had.
Speaker 2: The floor. So I would like to hear from our city attorney physically on kind of our fiduciary obligations and our obligations relative to this. And I also I agree that there needs to be some sort of. At least attempt at unanimity relative to the IMF overlay. And I would like to also hear from our city attorney and city staff relative to approaches towards that.
Speaker 0: And possibly also the implications of not being in not having a housing element that complies with state law. Okay. Where should we start with city attorney? Don't all rest and you go ahead.
Speaker 1: I'm happy to answer some of your questions, Vice Mayor Vela and Council Members. So I think the one important thing to remember is that there is no. Now that you've decided the appeal, there's no pressing deadline tonight. The housing element does not need to be certified till the end of next year. So you do have time. The planning director has informed you that he's going to he has a path and he's working on it. He'll bring it back to you and he'll continue to keep you planning board and the community updated. So I think one option is for the council to simply continue this item and allow the planning director to bring back new information. And he's going to get them because he's going to tell you whether our appeal is successful and whether our arena numbers change and that might inform your conversation. So I actually think that may not be a bad place to be to just let our planning director do the work with the community. You could take any number of other actions. You can make commitments about doing multifamily overlays tonight. You can make commitments about prioritizing city owned land tonight. You can make none of those commitments tonight. All of that is fine. You can make commitments in the opposite direction. You couldn't, you know, harden the position and direct us to litigate. You certainly, certainly don't have to do that tonight as well. And I would recommend that if you want us to talk about litigation, that you direct us to bring you to talk about it in closed session and not in the open. And so there is a wide range of options before you and you have a lot of time. And so my recommendation is that you let Mr. Thomas do a little more work and come back to you in a few months with an update.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mr. Sheahan. If I could slip in a question to Mr. Thomas. Do you have any idea about when we could anticipate hearing back regarding the appeal? I know the deadline is July 9th. I'm sure there are other cities appealing idea and.
Speaker 1: We've I'm sorry. And I should have looked that up before tonight's meeting for some reason, I believe, by the end of the calendar year. I would be wrong about that. And I will follow up with a, you know, email to council in the next day or two. But for some reason I remember reading about this and thinking it was, you know, by the end of this calendar year or early, it could be early beginning of next year. In terms of.
Speaker 0: What. Yeah, I you know, it as I say, I am just.
Speaker 2: I.
Speaker 0: Just pulled out my airbag, general assembly binder. And do you want me to give you a quick overview of the timeline? Sure you do. Okay. The what is the anticipated? If he'll schedule. Okay. We know that the deadline is in July. Okay. And then the. Oh, yeah. At the end by the end of August. That's the deadline for jurisdictions to comment on appeals submitted about notifies jurisdictions in each case about comments received September and October about context, public hearings to consider appeals and comments will notify jurisdictions 25 days prior to hearing. October, November Eric ratifies final determination on each appeal and issues final re allocations that include adjustments resulting from successful appeals. And then November or December 18, Executive Board can text public hearing to adopt final arena plan. So you're right end of the year.
Speaker 1: And just in terms of sequencing the work, I mean, the way we are approaching this and what we've just been describing to the planning board and to the community is sort of a a a series of steps we'll play out over the next nine months. And where it starts, we know we have 1500 units or thereabouts already approved in approved projects. So now they are game plan. We're very close to being wrapping things up on internal terminals. The planning board has finished its work. We're still working through negotiating some items within some terminals. So our plan would be to be back to you in the very near future on that project so that you can evaluate that separately and decide is it going into the basket or not. You can vote it up or down. If you vote it up, then that adds 589 units to our 1500. Then our plan was to come back in September with a conversation on Alameda Point because we want to know how many units we can start planning for and made a point and putting into that basket. And then we will know. I'm hoping by then, by the end of the year, we'll know, okay, how many units do we have approved in projects? And so Alameda point and everything else. And what's our arena final arena. Okay, what's our gap? And it's that gap that's going to we need to fill with MFW overlay. That's one we're going to really be able to get into the specifics. And that's when I think for the questions that Councilmember de SOG was asking, I think every member of your community is asking that same question where the multifamily overlay is going to be, how dense are they going to be? And it's hard to answer that question until we know what's the final number. So I, I see a series of meetings with the council over the next nine months, starting with specific project kind of meetings where you make decisions about projects and then following as we come down the homestretch decisions and direction about map overlays, where to put them, what kind of density is necessary, obviously with the input not just from staff but also from your planning board. And I think through that process, as the city attorney was saying, it allows us to keep moving through the process, to keep the council informed . So the council to be giving us feedback throughout this process. We just don't want any surprises at the end. At the end it's got to be smooth because, you know, that's when it'll be a shame to spend all this time and effort with the community and the planning board and all of you and then not be successful at the end.
Speaker 0: So and I'd just like to say something because the issue of the. Oh, Vice Mayor Vella, did I like on your comments? No. Okay. On the issue of the measures, the ballot measure has come up a couple of times and we're reading a lot into the election results. And I do agree that it was a resounding no. But I want to say a couple of things. The one of them is that I don't think it was a well-run campaign and I was the co-chair, but I've run successful campaigns before. And one of the things that you really have to do and we didn't do adequately in this one hardly at all, is to educate your voters. And so when I hear Mr. Thomas talking about the public process that will ensue going forward, this is what we should have been doing all along. And for a number of reasons. We made the decision as a council kind of late in the game to put it on the ballot. So we didn't have some of the the time that you would like to to inform people, your voters answer their questions to the point that Councilmember Herrera Spencer raised. What does what do these different densities look like? I mean. Mr. Thomas has a brilliant hand out. We used it at a number of presentations, but I don't I just don't think enough people really had a chance because that was the other thing. I think we did too much of talking, preaching to the converted. We talk to each other, the ones who think like us. You got to get out and really hear what people's concerns are. What are we going to do? We need to build all this housing, we're told, but how are we going to get people on and off the island? Fair point. Good questions. And you know what? We have a lot of good answers to, but we we fell short of communicating that. So here is our chance to have a do over, if you will, to do a better job of bringing the public along. Hopefully the council, too. But I think that we just we can't pretend there's not a housing crisis and that we need to address it. But I do think there's some better ways forward. But, you know, at the end of the day, we need to spend a lot of time solving these problems and we cannot and we have to solve them realistically. We can't say nothing higher than two stories anywhere. We can't do that. But there's you know, there'll be time for that conversation. It's probably not tonight, I think maybe we've got as far as we can go. But what I would like is for council to give Mr. Thomas some clear direction about the kind of things you would like included in his staff report. When he comes back to us sometime after our break. I would imagine it is not going to be at the last meeting in July. Trust me, that will be a full agenda. But council what what are the kinds of things do you want to be sure to have addressed? Councilmember Dysart, may I start with you? Because you had some well.
Speaker 1: You know, I just put together a statement because I just want to be clear as to where I stand and this is how I feel. And it goes like this. Is it okay?
Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah, I got you.
Speaker 1: Before I sign off on our housing element and multifamily zoning strategies, I first need to know what our final arena allocation is and determine if that is a that is fair to our island. Second, the public and council needs a thorough analysis regarding densities of new general plan land use categories and their relationship to multifamily overlays. If there is no substantial budge from the current 5300 arena allocation, I could find it very difficult supporting any kind of housing element or zoning overlay change that puts into effect an unfair arena allocation at the end of the day. We are unique. We are one of two incorporated cities in California that are islands. Coronado is the other and as such we can't support anything near the current 5300 arena allocation. You know, between now and when Planning Director Thomas puts together his is a report that that mayor as you referenced, you know, I'm more than happy to , you know, put out my thoughts even more to help him, you know, kind of see where how I'm looking at things. But but that's how I feel right now. I need to know the allocation now before we signing off on multifamily zoning strategies or housing element compliance.
Speaker 0: So Councilmember decide, do you prefer that this item not come back to us until after the November or December determination of our appeal?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Other council members. What do you think? Vice mayor, go ahead and mute this.
Speaker 2: I think it makes sense to wait until after we get a response. But I do think that there are a number of questions that we are going to have to answer as a council that are fairly you know, I mean, once we get a response, I do think that especially if in anticipating that the response is not necessarily going to be an agreement to our appeal, I think there are some some heavier, bigger decisions that are going to be coming before the council that will need to be made.
Speaker 0: And, yes.
Speaker 2: Such as all of the questions that have been raised that I've raised that you, Madam Mayor, have raised that that all of this could be raised. I think we are going to have to make a decision about the multifamily overlay. We are going to have to make decisions about where where the units go and what the density actually looks like. But I do think to your point, Madam Mayor, there are other cities that are grappling with these same things. The city of Berkeley certainly is looking at its its own exclusionary zoning provisions and the impact on its housing element. I do think that there needs to be robust conversation with the public. I think this is an issue that can get very confusing for people, and a lot of it is about really visualizing what that density looks like and what it means for our city and what it means for various neighborhoods. And I think we have a lot of high opportunity neighborhoods in the city of Alameda. We need to make sure that we're looking at that. And really, I hope that when we make the decision and we have this conversation about our housing element, we really center our priorities relative. We have stated for the Council about making sure that we are addressing our housing needs and really centering equity in that conversation. So I think there's going to be a robust conversation for us to have. A when we have that conversation, I'm going to certainly be coming at it from that lens and also really wanting to find a way to work things out and not necessarily, you know, I want to approve a housing element that I want to create a housing element that is compliant. So I think that's really important that we find a way to do that.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Who else wants to make suggestions? Okay. I'm seeing your hands going up. Mr. Thomas, to you. Oh, do you want to just tell us briefly? And I know it's after 11, and we need to get to our next item, but you just want to tell us briefly the repercussions of not having a housing element that complies with state law?
Speaker 1: Well, we yes. So if we missed the deadline for submitting a compliant housing element, we will immediately be cut off from a whole range of state funding sources. So that's just the state can just turn them off. You are no longer eligible. Only only cities that have are in compliance with housing law are eligible to even apply for these grants. For example, we've got a $2 million grant for Jeanne Swinney, but that was only because we had certified our housing element. We couldn't have either applied for it if we hadn't done it. So that just happens automatically. And it's about transportation money. It's open space money, it's affordable housing money, it's homeless money. It's we rely on all sorts of those funding. So that immediately happens right off the bat the day we fail.
Speaker 0: Okay, so that's the bad news. The good news is we don't have to submit that until when?
Speaker 1: January 2023.
Speaker 0: Okay.
Speaker 1: So what I would like to do is I would like to come back to you in the fall with what there's projects. So they're not about the housing element, but they certainly affect the housing element. And you can vote them up or you can vote them down. But we will be making very clear, like if you vote them up, we get to count them in our housing element. If you vote them down, we can't. The other thing will be coming back to you in the fall is the general plan. The general plan is designed to set up and support a housing element, but not predetermine whether it's going to be 5300 or 2600. It's a general plan. For the next 20 years, there will be three housing cycles that occur during the next 20 years. So it's not trying to predetermine that. It's allowing the decisions about map overlay and density to occur as part of the housing element, not as part of this. I think then what happens by the end of the fall? We hear from Arena and then you see me back. I'll keep working with the planning board and the community on these MF overlays over the next six months. But we will come back to the Council for an update study session, sort of similar to this report on our final arena, like, okay, here's the actual number. And here's what we think we need to do in terms of EMF overlays and what the planning board thinks we should be doing. That will be in January, February. That still gives us. You know, eight, nine months to keep working on it. Fine tuning it, adjusting it. So we won't need you to approve it that night. We'll just need you to give us some feedback and the kind of feedback I'm anticipating, like maybe a little bit too many units over here. A little bit. You can do a little bit more over there. Can we lower the density on that site? Maybe increase it over here a little bit. That kind of fine tuning.
Speaker 0: Thank you for that input and just something that I'd like to to have. And I certainly second what my colleague Mary Vella said is that I think now that we're knock on wood moving out of the worst of COVID and we just done remarkably well in its vaccines and we're starting to open up a little more. Maybe you could take that show on the road in the not too distant future. I would like to see workshops taking place in different parts of the city, making it accessible. I mean, I know there's these kinds of meetings, but I'd actually like to go out, maybe some walking tours. You've you've done that in the past that I think have been really very instructive. And so I know there is some, you know, creative ways that we may be able to help educate the communities so they understand, you know, what are our challenges, what are the ways that we might be able to to meet these challenges? So that would be my ask. So thank you all for your time, your thoughtful input. It is appreciated. And so with that, we're going to just continue this item to not to a date certain that you will come back to us when you feel that the time is right to to raise these issues with us. Okay. Thank you so much. Staff and counsel. Okay. We're going to close this item now and we are going to rapidly move to item six. Asked Madam Clerk if you could, I know you're multitasking there.
Speaker 2: And for your people. I have got an introduction of ordinance approving a Third Amendment to the Greenway Golf Lease Agreement for operation of the Creek Park Complex. This requires four votes and recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute the Third Amendment to the Jim's On the Course Concessionaire Agreement for food and Beverage Services at the Creek
Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution of Intent to Prepare a Housing Element Update for the Period 2023-2031 that Maximizes the Use of City-Owned Land at Alameda Point and Encinal Terminals and Rezones Certain Sites and Districts to Permit Multifamily Housing and Residential Densities of at Least 30 Units Per Acre and Consider Impacts Relating to City Charter Article 26; and 
Consider Directing Staff to File an Appeal of the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.  (Planning, Building and Transportation 481001)