Correspondence — Alameda City Council, May 3, 2022

From: Andrew Thomas
To: mary anderson
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Gerry Beaudin; Allen Tai; Lara Weisiger; Tony Daysog
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C April19 Council agenda, housing Element Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 5:22:09 PM
Ms. Anderson,

I completely understand what you are saying. The whole Bay Area is changing. I have been here only 30 years, and I can notice the changes over the years. Change is happening, its not just Alameda.

Our job is to manage it the best we can. We can’t make it stop. We cannot reverse it.

Some of that change is more people living on the streets. More Seniors living in cars. Kids living in cars! We have to do something, right? We do need more housing. Those people need us to do something. We cant just look the other way. So we are planning on building some more housing.

I think it is a good thing, since we cannot wind back the clock, right?

-
Andrew

From: mary anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Allen Tai <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C April19 Council agenda, housing Element

Thank you for your reply. You questioned why anyone would be likely to move if present residential zoning is rezoned to allow high density and other housing regulations not presently allowed. Greater traffic, fewer parking spaces, greater pressure on schools, greater demand on local services, including police, greater traffic on tunnels and bridges, etc. would make Alameda a less desirable place to live.

Our police already are stretched too thin. We avoid going to Webster street.. Park street is also becoming more and more of a challenge.I have talked with a number of people who are planning to move, or considering it, including my neighbors.

No one could deny that Alameda is not so nice a place as it used to be.

Alameda is an ISLAND and should not be required to meet the same expectations as other cities.

Sincerely, Mary Theresa Anderson

On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 6:31 PM Andrew Thomas <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ms. Anderson,

Thank you for your email. I am sure the City Council would prefer not to deal with these issues and these changes, but it is State Law. They do not have the choice to simply keep everything the same. State Law requires that the City Council decide how to accommodate 5,353 housing units over the next 8 years. it is a very difficult job that they must do, but it is not a job they can avoid.

The State of California is facing a housing crises and every city, including Alameda, must do its part to increase the availability of housing. It’s the law.

But there is no reason that you and your husband would be forced to move. The neighborhoods of Alameda can easily absorb additional housing without changing the character and atmosphere that you are currently enjoying. I don’t know who is trying to scare you, but it is not fair to make you think that you and your husband will need to move. Whoever is telling you this is not being honest with you.

If you have any questions about this process, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

-
Andrew Thomas 510-774-5361.

From: mary anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]> Cc: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>; Allen Tai <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C April19 Council agenda, housing Element

Dear Alameda officials,

By now you have read and heard many reasons to save our present residential zones. I submit one more appeal to please protect our homes and neighborhoods.

We bought our home and moved here, carefully selecting a residential neighborhood which is protected by zoning laws.

Now my husband is 86 and permanently disabled. He needs 24 hour care. His greatest entertainment and only social interaction is to walk with an escort twice a day through the neighborhood. He sees and talks with many neighbors. If we are forced to move or many of our neighbors move he will lose this and his quality of life will be irrevocably diminished.

It is unjust and immoral to let us move here under legal conditions which you then change. This is BAIT and SWITCH.

You have a sacred responsibility as public officials to protect the citizens under your care. Please act honorably.

Sincerely, Mary T Anderson
Resident of Alameda

From: mary anderson
To: Andrew Thomas
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Gerry Beaudin; Allen Tai; Lara Weisiger; Tony Daysog
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C April19 Council agenda, housing Element Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 5:07:33 PM
Thank you for your reply. You questioned why anyone would be likely to move if present residential zoning is rezoned to allow high density and other housing regulations not presently allowed. Greater traffic, fewer parking spaces, greater pressure on schools, greater demand on local services, including police, greater traffic on tunnels and bridges, etc. would make Alameda a less desirable place to live.

No one could deny that Alameda is not so nice a place as it used to be.

Alameda is an ISLAND and should not be required to meet the same expectations as other cities.

Sincerely, Mary Theresa Anderson
On Tue, Apr 19, 2022 at 6:31 PM Andrew Thomas <[email protected] > wrote:

Dear Ms. Anderson,

The State of California is facing a housing crises and every city, including Alameda, must do its part to increase the availability of housing. It’s the law.

If you have any questions about this process, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

- Andrew Thomas 510-774-5361.

Dear Alameda officials,

By now you have read and heard many reasons to save our present residential zones. I submit one more appeal to please protect our homes and neighborhoods.

We bought our home and moved here, carefully selecting a residential neighborhood which is protected by zoning laws.

It is unjust and immoral to let us move here under legal conditions which you then change. This is BAIT and SWITCH.

You have a sacred responsibility as public officials to protect the citizens under your care. Please act honorably.

Sincerely, Mary T Anderson
Resident of Alameda
From: Andrew Thomas
To: Marie Kane; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Trish Spencer; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Please keep upzoning of our city to the minimum requirements Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 8:35:58 PM
Dear Ms. Kane,
Thank you for your email regarding the Housing Element. Updating the Housing Element and up-zoning to accommodate additional housing is being done to comply with State Law and preserve Alameda's access to State funding and avoid significant financial penalties imposed by the State for cities that do not comply with State law.

This is not being done for "developers to profit".

As the author of the draft Housing Element, I can promise you that we drafted this Element to meet state law and not to exceed the minimum requirements of state law. (Just meeting the minimum requirements is hard enough.) - Andrew Thomas, Planning Director
-----Original Message-----
From: Marie Kane [mailto:[email protected]
]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 9:57 AM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Cc: Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; Andrew Thomas <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please keep upzoning of our city to the minimum requirements Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please do not make it easy for developers to profit while causing the loss of the current character of our residential neighborhoods. Our residential neighborhoods are the reason people flock to buy in Alameda.

Please keep upzoning to the minimal requirements.

Thanks for listening.

Marie Kane

Sent from my iPhone
From: Derek Chau
To: [email protected]; John Knox White; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: Height Standards Item 7C--Please reject as proposed.

Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:35:52 PM
Dear Council Members and Major:

I think Reyla Graber's point is valid and agree those two corridors are too narrow to accommodate the proposed heights. Not all buildings will be built at the same heights throughout the corridors and mismatches will reveal eventually the step backs at sides, creating incongruous sights here and there.

Additionally, the stepping backs in the new buildings will likely be used as terraces or roof gardens. To meet a fire separation, building codes dictate the fire walls erected at the property lines. The fire walls will be visible from the streets down below and when erected on narrow lots, they will look strangely out of place and likely reduce the facades aesthetics. And again, when the adjacent building height are varied, the aversion will be magnified even more.

Derek
-----Original Message-----
From: Reyla Graber <[email protected]>
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Apr 19, 2022 2:39 pm
Subject: Height Standards Item 7C--Please reject as proposed.

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Under Item 7 C I understand there is a proposal to raise the ceiling height along Park St and Webster to 50 (or 60 feet) ft.

If this is in the historic areas, I am totally against it and I know most Alameda residents would be against this.

We do want to retain the very unique character of our main streets if we are going to continue to exist as Alameda and not just some modern outdoor shopping mall.

Additionally, I understand there is a proposal to "step back" these 50 ( or 60 foot) buildings only after several stories. I think this is very wrong for our City becuase this step back is insufficient.

As reference please check out Pasadena downtown. In Pasadena, they have built up Colorado St. downtown area (and that street is far wider than our main streets) and Pasadena has made these buildings step back after 1 and 2 stories. As a result, when walking or driving down Colorado Street you do not feel overwhelmed by the buildings above the more historic one and 2 story buildings.

Please check out downtown Pasadena and I believe you will agree that this also unique city looks about as good as one could re design for a main street area.

It certainly is far superior than relatively no design standards, like here in Alameda and what is being proposed now. We can do better than this proposal!!
Please reject this height limits proposal and send it back to the drawing board.

Thank you,
Reyla Graber
From: Andrew Thomas
To: mary anderson; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Gerry Beaudin Cc: Allen Tai; Lara Weisiger; Tony Daysog
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C April19 Council agenda, housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 6:31:14 PM
Dear Ms. Anderson,

Thank you for your email. I am sure the City Council would prefer not to deal with these issues and these changes, but it is State Law. They do not have the choice to simply keep everything the same.

State Law requires that the City Council decide how to accommodate 5,353 housing units over the next 8 years. it is a very difficult job that they must do, but it is not a job they can avoid.

The State of California is facing a housing crises and every city, including Alameda, must do its part to increase the availability of housing. It’s the law.

If you have any questions about this process, please do not hesitate to contact me directly.

-
Andrew Thomas 510-774-5361.

From: mary anderson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>
Cc: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>; Allen Tai <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C April19 Council agenda, housing Element

Dear Alameda officials,

By now you have read and heard many reasons to save our present residential zones. I submit one more appeal to please protect our homes and neighborhoods.

We bought our home and moved here, carefully selecting a residential neighborhood which is protected by zoning laws.

It is unjust and immoral to let us move here under legal conditions which you then change. This is BAIT and SWITCH.

You have a sacred responsibility as public officials to protect the citizens under your care. Please act honorably.

Sincerely, Mary T Anderson
Resident of Alameda

From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; John Knox White Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Meeting of 04/19/2022 - Agenda Item 7-C Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 5:36:58 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg 2022-4-18HousingElementCityCouncil - AAPS CommentsFnlMergedFiles_Compressed.tiff Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

Dear Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, and Council Members Herrera Spencer, Daysog, and Knox White:

I am a longtime Alameda resident and voter. Here is what I think about the latest version of the Housing Element:

I fully support the recommendations of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (attached).

I object to the increased height limits along Park Street, Webster Street, and the ‘Stations’ neighborhoods. These should be maintained at a lower 30'-40' in harmony with the existing neighborhoods and historic buildings.

I also object to the overlay of allowing for unlimited density in 1/4 of transit areas: this would drastically affect a majority of central neighborhoods with hundreds of historical buildings in Alameda, and create a visual disruption of the character of Alameda, as well as increased density at levels inappropriate for these residential areas.

Taken as a whole, I see this latest version of the Housing Element as nothing more than an attempt to sneak through the essential parts of the 2020 Proposition Z, by bypassing Alameda voters.

As a reminder, Alameda voters voted down Proposition Z by a landslide 60% to 40% (25,063 to 16,749 – an 8,314-vote margin). Those same voters are still out there and will be voting again in the City Council elections this November.

Thank you for your consideration,
Ted McGavin
[email protected]

From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Meeting—April 19, 2022—Agenda Item 7-C (Housing Element) Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:36:39 PM
Honorable Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and City Councilmembers:

My husband and I moved to Alameda to raise our children in a walkable historic neighborhood with racial, ethnic, and income diversity. Our street has a mix of small houses, big houses, houses divided into units, garages converted to cottages, and apartment buildings. It is a dense, diverse neighborhood.

Many of the buildings can accommodate more units within their existing walls and roofs. Numerous such conversions happened before Article 26 was adopted.

Existing buildings in the historic commercial districts can also accommodate more residential units and provide more affordable housing. If construction of tall new buildings is allowed in the historic commercial districts, our cities’ favorite places will be turned into sunless wind tunnels, and adjacent neighborhoods will also languish in shadow. Allowing buildings taller than three stories on our historic commercial streets, whether through zoning codes or density bonuses, is poor city planning. Unlike construction on a large parcel such as Site A at Alameda Point, construction on scattered small parcels would result in a jack-o’lantern-teeth pattern of tall and short buildings.

The Housing Element Tool demonstrated that there are more than enough places to add housing. We need you, our elected representatives, not the Planning Board, to decide where new housing should go.

Our Housing Element and Zoning Code should not be a free-for-all of widespread upzoning and excessive height limits.

Such wholesale, unnecessary change would promote speculation and demolition by neglect, and provide an incentive for replacement of the homes of low-income residents. Developers will argue that an historic building stands in the way of an “economically feasible” project. We will lose not only existing housing but the sunlight and green spaces that make neighborhoods healthy places, physically and mentally, for all residents.

I urge you to determine the best places for new housing and not open up existing neighborhoods and historic commercial districts to massive new buildings. Thank you.

Betsy Mathieson
Alameda
From: mary anderson
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Gerry Beaudin Cc: Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; Lara Weisiger; Tony Daysog Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C April19 Council agenda, housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:01:15 PM
Dear Alameda officials,
By now you have read and heard many reasons to save our present residential zones.

I submit
one more appeal to please protect our homes and neighborhoods.

We bought our home and
moved

here, carefully selecting a residential neighborhood which is protected by zoning laws.

Now my husband is 86 and permanently disabled. He needs 24 hour care.

His greatest
entertainment and only social interaction is to walk with an escort twice a day through the neighborhood. He sees and talks with many neighbors.

If we are forced to move or many of
our neighbors move he will lose this and his quality of life will be irrevocably diminished.

It is unjust and immoral to let us move here under legal conditions which you then change.

This is BAIT and SWITCH.

You have a sacred responsibility as public officials to protect the citizens under

your care.

Please act honorably.

Sincerely, Mary T Anderson
Resident of Alameda

From: Joe VanWinkle
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19 Council Agenda, Item 7-c
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:00:06 PM

Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers,

In November of 2020, Measure Z was rejected by 60% of Alameda voters.

There was much information shared prior to the election and the people made their choice clear.

Thus, Article 26 remains the law today as supported by a majority of Alameda voters.

The April draft HOUSING ELEMENT identifies sufficient parcels of land to meet the state determined number of units needed in all income categories, without increasing the 21 units per acre density in our residential neighborhoods (known as R-2 thru R-6 zoning districts).

Nevertheless, the Planning Dept now proposes to massively increase the density of all these neighborhoods,
manipulating the housing element to void Article 26 entirely. This is overkill and invites indiscriminate development.

Having failed to repeal the Article with Measure Z, staff now seeks to eradicate it without voter approval.

They want you to go against the will of the people you are supposed to represent.

Fortunately, we live in a country where people can vote on important matters.

Good politicians acknowledge the results of elections and don’t try to overturn them through devious maneuvers.

Please respect Alameda voters and the choice they made.

Sincerely,
Joe Van Winkle

From: Mary McFarland
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Reference Agenda Item 7-C
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:49:21 PM
Dear City Council and Planning Committee,
I have written to you all before about the issue of how and where to build more housing in Alameda. My main concern about the state of CA's new housing

numbers for our city is the fact that we are an island with limited bridges to get on and off the island. I think Alameda should ask the State of CA to fund another bridge/tunnel for getting on and off the island and to eventually put a Bart Station here. I think this is a very good reason to contest the volume

of housing units the state
is requiring.

I am happy to see there is another ferry terminal in place but I think that for those of us on the East End we need dedicated parking to realistically use it. I think that Alameda has a diverse population (both socially and ethnically) but as with elsewhere in the Bay Area there is not enough middle income, low-income and no-income housing units available. I am in favor of common sense development and without this those of us who pay big mortgages

and taxes will move away from the overcrowding,
traffic, crime, and noise that high density entails.

Specifically I agree with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society's recommendations:
•I object to the increase in height limits along Park St. and Webster St. and the Stations neighborhoods. These should be maintained at a lower 30'-40' in harmony with the existing neighborhoods and historic buildings. •I also object to the overlay of allowing for unlimited density in 1/4 of transit areas-- this would drastically affect a majority of central neighborhoods with hundreds of historical buildings in Alameda, and create a visual disruption of the character of Alameda, as well as increased density at levels inappropriate for these residential areas.

Please listen to what the majority of your constituents want as reflected in the most recent vote against endangering the historic character of Alameda.

Thank you,
Mary McFarland

East End Resident
Mary McFarland, LCSW

Psychotherapy & Consultation
Via Video or Phone for CA
[email protected]
#510-655-5568
LinkedIn: Mary McFarland LCSW
Twitter: Mary McFarland LCSW @ Helpland
_________________________________
I cannot guarantee the confidentiality of any information sent via email. If you choose to email with me, you are acknowledging the dangers and potential for breach of confidentiality associated with email and are willing to accept this risk. Please contact me via telephone to discuss information you consider too sensitive for email.

The information transmitted in this email is

intended only for the addressee(s) and may
contain privileged material. If you have received this email and are not the addressee(s), please notify me and delete this email from your computer and other devices.

Thank you.

From: Catherine Bierwith
To: City Clerk
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element April 10 2022 Submission for discusson
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:45:01 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
As our elected representatives please stand up for the majority of Alameda residents who definitely are concerned about drastic change to our City's neighborhoods.

This evening, I urge you to voice your opposition to this up zoning proposal and ask for it to be removed from the draft Housing Element.

I support the suggestions made by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Committee (some notes will be found below). I also object to the overlay of allowing for unlimited density in a quarter of the transit areas--this would drastically affect a majority of central neighborhoods with hundreds of historical buildings in Alameda, while creating a visual disruption of the character of Alameda, as well as increased density at levels inappropriate for these residential areas.

Delete the proposed massive up zoning of the residential areas from the overall proposal. The Draft Housing Element and various staff reports state that the up zoning is necessary to obtain 270

non-Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) RHNA units in
the residential zones by 2031 (an average of

34 units per year). Such a drastic and
wholesale up zoning of the residential areas to obtain only 270 units is unnecessary and overkill. It is especially reckless since it is much harder to downzone than to up zone if it is later determined that the up zoning was a mistake.

In addition, staff increased the 5353 RHNA-required units by 1060 units (about 20%) for a total of 6413 units

in order to provide a “buffer“ based on HCD guidelines, in case the City has difficulty over the

2023–31 Housing Element period to produce
5353 units. Without the buffer and without the
270 units, the staff estimate of total units would still EXCEED the 5353 RHNA units by 790

units.

Moreover, the Draft Housing Element’s, March 14 Planning Board staff report and April

19 City Council staff report’s respective estimates of 50 to 70 ADUs per year, are all

too low. 79 ADU permits were issued in 2021, well above the 39 in 2020 and continuing an

upward trajectory. In addition, the February 15, 2022 SB 9 City Council staff report estimated that

nine additional SB9 units will be produced per year in the R-1 Zone, which, when added to the 79

ADUs, results in a total of 88 additional
RHNA units per year in the residential zones, or 704
units for the eight year RHNA period, 224 units more than the 400 and 480 estimated in the

Draft Housing Element and March 14 Planning Board staff report, respectively, and reduces

the 270 units that the Draft Housing Element estimates are needed for the residential

districts to 26 (slightly more than three units per year). The City should monitor monthly ADU and SB 9 production in 2022 and adjust the

estimates (likely
upward) as the Housing Element progresses based on the actual production.

An especially troubling aspect of the up zoning is that the proposed residential density

increases in the R-3 through R-6 zoning districts and in all areas covered by the Transit

Overlay will allow State Density Bonus Law (SDBL) projects on about one- third of the lots

in R-3 through R-6 and on ALL of the lots within the Transit Overlay, allowing developers to demand the relaxation of zoning standards, such as height limits, lot coverage, setbacks and
universal design requirements. On record, repeatedly stated concerns about the impact of the SDBL

relative to up zonings and asked for a staff analysis of the interplay between the proposed

up zonings and the SDBL in Alameda’s built-up
residential and historic commercial areas, but this

analysis is yet to be provided.

In addition, the Transit Overlay’s reliance on bus lines as a basis for up zoning (although

currently popular with some City planners) is unwise. Bus routes can be easily changed or

eliminated and the high frequency service that is critical to a “quality” transit route can be easily

reduced. It is irresponsible to base long-term and
not easily reversed massive up zonings on

something as ephemeral as a bus route.

Planning for transit-oriented development is more

appropriately based on more
permanent transit infrastructure, such as fixed rail.

Ironically, the proposed up zoning could threaten the existing stock of relatively low- cost privately owned rental units by encouraging developers to buy up these buildings and expand and/or renovate them to create more units at higher rents, especially if using the State Density Bonus Law. There is an increasingly worrisome trend for large institutional

investors to do this. Although density bonus projects are based on providing affordable units as

part of the project, the number of affordable units in
many cases will be insufficient to offset the
loss of the pre-existing affordable units.

Staff may be concerned that HCD, in its review of the first HCD Housing Element draft, will

question reliance on ADUs and SB9 units to obtain enough units in the residential zones by 2031.

But the City should not prematurely assume that HCD will reject this approach and should not preemptively include such extensive up zonings in the first HCD Housing Element draft. If HCD in its first review rejects the ADU/SB9 approach, the City can

present alternative strategies in the second HCD draft that could include, if necessary, residential

area up zonings that are more targeted than currently
proposed. In addition, once the Housing

Element was adopted, if after a specified
period of time (perhaps two or three years), the City is

falling short in meeting the
RHNA, further targeted up zonings and/or other development incentives could be considered. We understand that HCD is open to this kind of phased approach.

In addition, consider changing the R-1 Zone to R-2. This will eliminate the complications

presented by SB9 and allow up to five units on an existing R-1 lot (two regular units plus three

ADUs) rather than the SB9 minimum of four units (in various combinations of regular units and

ADUs). Other communities, such as San Francisco
are pursuing this strategy.

Please take serious consideration as once you commit your community, your constituents to this ill regarded plan, there is little chance of going back.

Respectfully Submitted,
Catherine Bierwith, VERY Concerned Citizen

Catherine Bierwith, CRS
| REALTOR®
DRE #01414751
Windermere Bay Area Properties | Alameda
————————————————————
1700 Park Street Suite 220
Alameda CA 94501
OFFICE 510.865.1111
CELL 510.418.3731

windermere.com / Windermere Foundation

Working by referral, Thank you!

This email communication, its contents and attachments may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information which is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s), and the information contained herein shall not be forwarded, copied, printed, or otherwise used without the permission of the sender.

Additionally, unauthorized interception, review, dissemination, downloading, or disclosure is strictly prohibited and may violate applicable law, including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately notify the sender by reply email, delete the communication, and destroy all copies. I have not verified or investigated, nor will I verify or investigate, information supplied by third parties.

From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Meeting- Agenda Item 7-C Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:32:02 PM
Attachments: petition_signatures_jobs_32975009_20220419213226.csv Please see attached Petition for Agenda Item 7-C and add to correspondence regarding the Housing Element:

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Councilmembers,
It has recently come to our attention that the City Planning Department is proposing radical changes that would permanently affect Alameda's small-town character and livability.

•We strongly object to the proposed "unlimited density" of ALL of Alameda's residential neighborhoods, allowing for runaway growth without adding infrastructure to the island. It is irresponsible and unnecessary to propose blanket upzoning to meet the Regional Housing Number Allocation (RHNA) gap of 198 units. The Planning Department should concentrate on allocating those units at Alameda Point where there is substantial available acreage. We do not need to add thousands of units as a "buffer".

•We ask that you maintain height limits along Park St., Webster St. and the historic

"Stations" along Lincoln Ave., Encinal, Ave and Central Ave. to no more than 35', in harmony with existing Victorian commercial buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

•We remind you that over 60% of Alameda's voted to uphold Measure A.

Signed by over 100+ Residents.

Alameda Citizens Task Force
Name City State Postal CodeCountry Signed On
John S CuelHayward CA 94541 US 4/10/2022
Patsy Baer Alameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Patricia GanAlameda CA 94502 US 4/10/2022
Elizabeth K Alameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Raymond S Alameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Catherine BAlameda CA 94502 US 4/10/2022
Dorothy FreAlameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
margie siegAlameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Edward Sin Alameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Rob HalfordAlameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Lois FrancisAlameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Thomas PaySan Francis CA 94133 US 4/10/2022
Donna Flet Alameda CA 94502 US 4/10/2022
Claire YeatoAlameda CA 94501 US 4/10/2022
Suzanne LinAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Zach KaplanAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Susan Natt Alameda CA 94502 US 4/11/2022
Sandra MarAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Emily OlsonAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Fran Folkm Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Alla Bottler Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Jean Zartle Oakland CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Agnes Wu Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Daniel Alex Navarre 32566 US 4/11/2022
Lynn Cunni SacramentoCA 95828 US 4/11/2022
Ilias BenhadHouston 77083 US 4/11/2022
Robert Wu Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Jeannine H Pacifica CA 94044 US 4/11/2022
Andre McMNew York PA 10004 US 4/11/2022
Cameron B Alameda CA 94502 US 4/11/2022
Aliyah CukaHampton Bays 11946 US 4/11/2022
Vulture BonBrooklyn NY US 4/11/2022
Gail EricksoCastro ValleCA 94546 US 4/11/2022
Falcon KnigBrooklyn NY 11226 US 4/11/2022
Zed Hawk Brooklyn NY US 4/11/2022
ANN LEVY Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Mark SchaeAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Cynthia La Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Tony DevenAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Susan Drisc Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Marijo Cue Hayward CA 94541 US 4/11/2022
Cicely Doyl Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
James ThamAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Sharon AndAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Suzan KaplaAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Lorraine La Alameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Patricia FerAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Elizabeth JeAlameda CA 94501 US 4/11/2022
Tim GoodmAlameda CA 94501 US 4/12/2022
Thomas KryAlameda CA 94501 US 4/12/2022
MICHAEL K Alameda CA 94501 US 4/12/2022
Katerina Tc Brooklyn 11234 US 4/12/2022
Joanne Bru Alameda CA 94501 US 4/12/2022
Annalyssa SSan Juan 78589 US 4/12/2022
Mary CoussHayward CA 94541 US 4/13/2022
Nicole BaptUnion 7083 US 4/13/2022
John Platt Alameda CA 94501 US 4/13/2022
Joshua CurpPeterborough PE7 US 4/13/2022
Linda E. EarAlameda CA 94501 US 4/14/2022
Eric Smiler Alameda CA 94501 US 4/14/2022
LOUISE WAAlameda CA 94501 US 4/15/2022
John LeongAlameda CA 94501 US 4/15/2022
Peter Conn Alameda CA 94501 US 4/15/2022
Ralph AppeAlameda CA 94501 US 4/15/2022
James HudkAlameda CA 94501 US 4/15/2022
Carly KapusMarlton 8053 US 4/15/2022
janice pem grosse pointe shores 48236 US 4/16/2022
Marguerite Alameda CA 94501 US 4/16/2022
Michael All Alameda CA 94501 US 4/16/2022
Carmen Re Alameda CA 94501 US 4/16/2022
Michael MaAlameda CA 94501 US 4/16/2022
Jose CastroOakland CA 94606 US 4/16/2022
Zed Trick Brooklyn NY US 4/16/2022
Stephen SlaAlameda CA 94501 US 4/16/2022
Milt FriedmAlameda CA 94501 US 4/16/2022
Jay Garfink Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Joe LoParo Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Penelope S Alameda CA 94502 US 4/17/2022
Alexander SAlameda CA 94502 US 4/17/2022
Katie BruunAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Karen MilleAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Maria Pera Pleasanton CA 94566 US 4/17/2022
Sylvia GibsoAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Paula Ange Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Selinda AntAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Nermina TeSan Leandr CA 94577 US 4/17/2022
Victoria RyaAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Brian Trem Alameda CA 94502 US 4/17/2022
Gig Codiga Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Marie KaneAlameda CA 94502 US 4/17/2022
Kurt Phillip Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Adam KalubBurleson 76028 US 4/17/2022
Janet Libby Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Danielle BeAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Van WilliamAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Alexandra PAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Ben Miller Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
aracely a Phoenix 85035 US 4/17/2022
Jamie MinaAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Lola Brown Alameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Matthew MAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
gabii de leoMiami 33180 US 4/17/2022
Ted McGavAlameda CA 94501 US 4/17/2022
Nicole C. Rocklin CA 95677 US 4/18/2022
Nic Lee Alameda CA 94502 US 4/18/2022
Helen SimpUnion City CA 94587 US 4/18/2022
Sophie BarnAlameda CA 94501 US 4/18/2022
Margaret HAlameda CA 94501 US 4/18/2022
Manuele La Alameda CA 94501 US 4/18/2022
Catherine HAlameda CA 94501 US 4/18/2022
Tom Pavao Alameda CA 94501 US 4/18/2022
Jenny Sui Alameda CA 94501 US 4/18/2022
KC Egan Alameda CA 94501 US 4/18/2022
David Ivy Alameda CA 94501 US 4/19/2022
George DerAlameda CA 94501 US 4/19/2022
Nancy McK Alameda CA 94501 US 4/19/2022
Courtney JoBloomfield Hills 48302 US 4/19/2022
Lisa Tang Alameda CA 94501 US 4/19/2022
Michael Ca San Leandr CA 94577 US 4/19/2022
From: Cathy Leong
To: City Clerk
Cc: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element April 10 2022 Submission for discusson Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 3:17:30 PM
As our elected representatives please stand up for the majority of Alameda residents who definitely are concerned about drastic change to our City's neighborhoods.

This evening, I urge you to voice your opposition to this upzoning proposal and ask for it to be removed from the draft Housing Element.

I support the suggestions made by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Committee (some notes will
be found below). I also
object to the overlay of allowing for unlimited density in a quarter of the transit areas--this would drastically affect a majority of central neighborhoods with hundreds of historical buildings in Alameda, while creating a visual disruption of the character of Alameda, as well as increased density at levels inappropriate for these residential areas.

Delete the proposed massive upzoning of the residential areas from the overall proposal.

The Draft
Housing Element and various staff reports state that the upzoning is necessary to obtain 270

non-
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) RHNA units in the residential zones by 2031 (an average of

34 units per
year). Such a drastic and wholesale upzoning of the residential areas to obtain

only 270 units is
unnecessary and overkill. It is especially reckless since it is much harder to downzone than to upzone if it is later determined that the upzoning was a mistake. In addition, staff increased the 5353 RHNA-required units by 1060 units (about 20%) for a total of 6413 units

in order to
provide a “buffer“ based on HCD guidelines, in case the City has difficulty over the

2023–31 Housing
Element period to produce 5353 units. Without the buffer and without the 270 units, the staff estimate of total units would still EXCEED the 5353 RHNA units by 790

units.

Moreover, the Draft Housing Element’s, March 14 Planning Board staff report and April

19 City Council
staff report’s respective estimates of 50 to 70 ADUs per year, are all

too low. 79 ADU permits were issued
in 2021, well above the 39 in 2020 and continuing an

upward trajectory. In addition, the February 15,
2022 SB 9 City Council staff report estimated that

nine additional SB9 units will be produced per year in
the R-1 Zone, which, when added to the 79

ADUs, results in a total of 88 additional RHNA units per year in the residential zones, or 704
units for the eight year RHNA period, 224 units more than the 400 and 480 estimated in the

Draft Housing
Element and March 14 Planning Board staff report, respectively, and reduces

the 270 units that the Draft
Housing Element estimates are needed for the residential

districts to 26 (slightly more than three units per
year). The City should monitor monthly ADU and SB 9 production in 2022 and adjust the

estimates (likely
upward) as the Housing Element progresses based on the actual production.

An especially troubling aspect of the upzoning is that the proposed residential density

increases in the R-
3 through R-6 zoning districts and in all areas covered by the Transit

Overlay will allow State Density
Bonus Law (SDBL) projects on about one-third of the lots

in R-3 through R-6 and on ALL of the lots within
the Transit Overlay, allowing developers to

demand the relaxation of zoning standards, such as height limits, lot coverage, setbacks and
universal design requirements. On record, repeatedly stated concerns about the impact of the SDBL

relative to upzonings and asked for a staff analysis of the interplay between the proposed

upzonings and the SDBL in Alameda’s built-up residential and historic commercial areas, but this analysis is yet to be provided.

In addition, the Transit Overlay’s reliance on bus lines as a basis for upzoning (although

currently popular
with some City planners) is unwise. Bus routes can be easily changed or

eliminated and the high
frequency service that is critical to a “quality” transit route can be easily

reduced. It is irresponsible to
base long-term and not easily reversed massive upzonings on

something as ephemeral as a bus route.

Planning for transit-oriented development is more

appropriately based on more permanent transit
infrastructure, such as fixed rail.

Ironically, the proposed upzoning could threaten the existing stock of relatively low-cost

privately owned
rental units by encouraging developers to buy up these buildings and expand and/or renovate them to create more units at higher rents, especially if using the State Density Bonus Law. There is an increasingly worrisome trend for large institutional

investors to do this. Although density bonus projects
are based on providing affordable units as

part of the project, the number of affordable units in many cases will be insufficient to offset the
loss of the pre-existing affordable units.

Staff may be concerned that HCD, in its review of the first HCD Housing Element draft, will

question
reliance on ADUs and SB9 units to obtain enough units in the residential zones by 2031.

But the City should not prematurely assume that HCD will reject this approach and should not preemptively include such extensive upzonings in the first HCD Housing Element draft. If HCD in its first review rejects the ADU/SB9 approach, the City can

present
alternative strategies in the second HCD draft that could include, if necessary, residential

area upzonings
that are more targeted than currently proposed. In addition, once the Housing

Element was adopted, if
after a specified period of time (perhaps two or three years), the City is

falling short in meeting the RHNA,
further targeted upzonings and/or other development
incentives could be considered. We understand that HCD is open to this kind of phased approach.

In addition, consider changing the R-1 Zone to R-2. This will eliminate the complications

presented by
SB9 and allow up to five units on an existing R-1 lot (two regular units plus three

ADUs) rather than the
SB9 minimum of four units (in various combinations of regular units and

ADUs). Other communities, such
as San Francisco are pursuing this strategy.

Please take serious consideration as once you commit your community, your constituents to this ill regarded plan, there is little chance of going back.

Respectfully Submitted, Cathy Leong

35 year concerned resident of Alameda
From: [email protected]
To: Andrew Thomas; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:56:56 PM
Mr. Thomas,

I have quoted the relevant sections of the Government Code on three different communications. We have a difference of opinion that will have to be resolved by the City Attorney or HCD. However, regardless of what the law requires, there is nothing odd in having the city’s draft of what it considers to be a proper and compliant housing element endorsed by a majority vote of Council before submission.

Without that it demonstrates only the will of the Planning Department, not the local governing body.

Once the draft goes to HCD and is reviewed and commented on by HCD any opportunity to add or delete anything beyond the scope of HCD’s response will very limited, making this draft an extremely important statement for City Council, the Planning Board and the public.

Paul Foreman

From:

Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:08 PM
To: [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas

Mr. Forman.

Tonight is a workshop to provide direction to staff.

Of course the Council can give direction.

If the
direction is not supported by at least 3 council members, then staff will not consider it “council direction”.

I will let you debate the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance with the City Attorney.

I have full
confidence that the City Attorney will advise the Council on what they can and cannot do tonight when providing “direction” or “comments”.

I will be fine with whatever he says.

I see nothing in any government code sections that says the City Council must “pre-approve” a draft Housing Element before the community or HCD has finished reviewing it.

Seems like an odd
interpretation, if you ask me.

The City Council has the ultimate authority at the end of the process to adopt the Housing Element or not. The Council gets to wait until they have heard from everyone, including HCD. There is nothing in State Law that says the Council must first approve a housing element BEFORE it is reviewed by the State for conformance with State Law.

Andrew

From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas

Mr. Thomas,

I am in full agreement with the first paragraph of your letter below. The 30 day comment review period provided by Govt. Code Sec. 65585 (b) (1) expires on May 9. The section also requires that the city wait for at least 10 business days thereafter to consider and incorporate public comments into the draft before submitting it to HCD for review. Thus, your target date for submission of the draft to HCD during the week of May 23 is a reasonable one.

The second paragraph of your letter asserts that at this evening’s meeting a Council majority “can direct staff to make any needed changes” to the Housing Element before it is submission to HCD.

However agenda item 7-C is noticed as “Public Hearing to Review and Comment”.

I believe that
having a vote to approve changes would be beyond the scope of the agenda notice and would violate both the Brown Act and our Sunshine Ordinance. Even if the City Attorney might think otherwise and allow a vote, the second problem is that the vote would be premature in being done before the thirty day public comment period and subsequent 10 business days.

I also take issue with your statement later in the same paragraph, that, “If the Council wishes to review another draft before staff submits to HCD, it may direct staff to do so.” In

my view Sec.
65585 (b) (1) & (2) of the Government Code makes it mandatory, not optional, that Council, after expiration of the 10 business day waiting period, have a properly noticed formal vote approving the submission.

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman

From: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:19 PM
To: [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas

Mr. Forman,

Per state law, the City Council cannot adopt the draft Housing Element until AFTER it has received comments from HCD and AFTER it has received a final recommendation from the Planning Board.

Neither of these two actions have occurred yet.

At the April 19, 2022 Council meeting, the city council will be reviewing a current draft of the Housing element and may direct staff to make any needed changes to the draft Housing element before it is sent to HCD for review.

If a majority of the council agrees that a change should be made to the draft, staff will make that change before sending it to HCD for HCD review.

If the Council
wishes to review another draft before staff submits to HCD, it may direct staff to do so.

Staff is
planning to send the draft to HCD the week of May 23rd.

After the City receives comments back from HCD, the Planning Board will be able to hold additional public hearings to hear from the Public and consider the HCD requested changes and make a final recommendation to the City Council.

Staff is working to make this possible in October.

Once that has happened, the City Council can then hold additional public hearings to hear from the public, consider the comments from HCD, and consider the recommendations of the Planning Board,

and then vote to adopt the draft housing element.

Staff is working to make this possible in
November or December.

Once the City Council takes action to adopt the Housing Element, HCD will decide whether the city has complied with state housing law and adopted an adequate Housing Element.

Sincerely,

Andrew Thomas, Planning Director

From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2022 3:33 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas

Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:

The correspondence file for Item 7-C on tomorrow’s Council agenda includes two letters, from Alan Tai and Andrew Thomas responding to citizens who are asking Council to have a vote approving the draft of the Housing Element before submitting it to HCD for review. The letters contain the following identical language,

“The Housing Element will not be considered until November or December 2022 for final City Council action, so there will be many opportunities between now and then, both at the City Council and at the Planning Board for consideration of public comments and suggestions.”

On April 11 I wrote to you on behalf of Alameda Citizens Task force asserting that state law (Govt.

Code Sec 65585 (b) (1) and (2)) and common sense require Council approval of this draft prior to submission to HCD for review.

These sections do not refer final draft of the HE to be presented in November or December. My April 11 letter quotes only the first sentence of 65585 (b)(1). An immediately subsequent sentence states:

“The local government of the planning agency shall make the first draft revision of a housing element
available for public comment for at least 30 days and, if any comments are received, the local government shall take at least 10 business days after the 30-day public comment period to consider and incorporate public comments into the draft revision prior to submitting it to the department.

“
(The bolding is mine)

It is very clear that this section applies to where we are now in the process, not the final submission later this year. The following section, Sec. 65585 (b) (2)” states, “The planning agency staff shall collect and compile the public comments regarding the housing element received by the city, county, or city and county, and provide these comments to each member of the legislative body before it adopts the housing element.”

I believe these two sections clearly require a Council vote approving the HE draft before in goes to HCD for review.

As for the common sense element, the draft is presented as the city's determination that the document meets the requirements for certification and should include the assurance that it is fully approved by City Council with every Council Member’s vote on the record.

I would also point out that the assurances from Mr. Tai and Mr. Thomas that there will be many opportunities for City Council, the Planning Board and the public to weigh in after the May submission of the draft to HCD is specious. Once the draft is received by HCD the subsequent local

input will primarily be in response to any HCD requirements emanating from their review, not expressing fresh ideas.

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman

From: Peter Conn
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C - April 19 City Council Agenda- Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:56:44 PM
Dear City Council Members:

Regarding the Draft Housing Element, I am writing to urge you not to increase the density of our existing R-2 through R-6 zoning districts, and to limit building heights to 40 feet in the historic parts of Park and Webster Streets.

Residential upzoning is not in the best interest of the residents of Alameda, and neither is it a requirement of state law.

There is no legal justification for upzoning
these districts.

Historic areas of Park and Webster streets should be kept to a height limit that will maintain harmony with the existing buildings.

We can meet our housing obligations
without destroying the beauty of our city.

Additionally, I ask that the city council continue consideration of the Draft Housing Element until after the May 5 Historical Advisory Board meeting, the May 9 Planning Board meeting and May 9 public comment deadline, and approve the Draft prior to submitting for HCD review.

Sincerely,
Peter Conn
From: Reyla Graber
To: John Knox White; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Height Standards Item 7C--Please reject as proposed.

Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:39:36 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
Under Item 7 C I understand there is a proposal to raise the ceiling height along Park St and Webster to 50 (or 60 feet) ft.

If this is in the historic areas, I am totally against it and I know most Alameda residents would be against this.

We do want to retain the very unique character of our main streets if we are going to continue to exist as Alameda and not just some modern outdoor shopping mall.

As reference please check out Pasadena downtown. In Pasadena, they have built up Colorado St.

downtown area

(and that

street is far wider than our main streets) and Pasadena has made these buildings step back after 1 and 2 stories. As a result, when walking or driving down Colorado Street you do not feel overwhelmed by the buildings above the more historic one

and 2 story buildings.

Please check out

downtown Pasadena and I believe you will agree that this also unique city looks about as good as one could re design for a main street area.

It certainly is far superior than relatively no design standards, like here in Alameda and what is being proposed now. We can do better than this proposal!!
Please reject this height limits proposal

and send it back to the drawing board.

Thank you,
Reyla Graber

From: g b
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C CC meeting 4-19-22
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:38:54 PM
Dear City Counsil.

LET US PROTECT OUR ALAMEDA NEIGHBORHOODS FOR NOW AND FOR THE FUTURE.

We have successfully met our required RHNA housing figures of 5,340 units. Enough is enough.

SAY NO TO ANY UPZONING. This is just another tactic to destroy Article 26 (Measure A)
It is very tiring, to have to fight again and again the efforts of this council to go behind voters back and increase density without offering any additional infrastructure or proposal to mitigate the increased traffic.

In November of 2020, Measure Z was put on the ballot by Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers Oddie, Knox-White and Vella with the express purpose of repealing Article 26 (Measure A) of the City Charter that limits maximum residential density to 21 units per acre.

60% of Alameda voters rejected Measure Z, so Article 26 remains the law today and that should be the end of the story, but, sadly, it is not.

The new proposal asks to massively increase the density of R-2 thru R-6 residential neighborhoods by asserting that state fair housing law requires every zoning district in the city to be densified to allow lower income units to be developed.

THERE IS NOTHING IN
THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT!

City Planning Director Andrew Thomas has consistently supported repeal of Article 26 for several years. Having failed to repeal the Article with Measure Z, he now seeks to eradicate it without voter approval.

1. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UPZONING OF OUR R—2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

2. CONVENE A FINAL PUBLIC REVUE IN MAY AND APPROVE THE FINAL DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED TO HCD.

3. ENFORCE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVMENTS FOR ANY LARGE SCALE DEVELOPMENT.

Thank you,
Gabriele Bungardt

From: Vicki Newton
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:08:31 PM
April 19, 2022
Dear Members of the Alameda City Council,
I respectfully suggest it is not prudent at this time to mandate upzoning to accommodate increased housing development in Alameda. This decision should be withheld until the next RHNA cycle of 8 years is closer and the impact of the already large increases in traffic, lack of neighborhood parking, required additional utilities, impacted K-12 schools and the myriad other infrastructure needs that will have resulted from the present 5,340 units in production can be assessed.

Please protect our Alameda neighborhoods and say NO to any upzoning now and in the foreseeable future.

With hope for responsible leadership,
Vicki Newton
Alameda homeowner since 1971
From: Andrew Thomas
To: [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:08:12 PM
Mr. Forman.

Tonight is a workshop to provide direction to staff.

Of course the Council can give direction.

If the
direction is not supported by at least 3 council members, then staff will not consider it “council direction”.

I will let you debate the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance with the City Attorney.

I have full
confidence that the City Attorney will advise the Council on what they can and cannot do tonight when providing “direction” or “comments”.

I will be fine with whatever he says.

I see nothing in any government code sections that says the City Council must “pre-approve” a draft Housing Element before the community or HCD has finished reviewing it.

Seems like an odd
interpretation, if you ask me.

The City Council has the ultimate authority at the end of the process to adopt the Housing Element or not.

The Council

gets to wait until they have heard from everyone, including HCD.

There is
nothing in State Law that says the Council must first approve a housing element BEFORE it is reviewed by the State for conformance with State Law.

- Andrew
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 1:23 PM
To: Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas

Mr. Thomas,

However agenda item 7-C is noticed as “Public Hearing to Review and Comment”.

I also take issue with your statement later in the same paragraph, that, “If the Council wishes to review another draft before staff submits to HCD, it may direct staff to do so.” In

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman

From:

Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:19 PM
To: [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Yibin Shen <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas

Mr. Forman,

Per state law, the City Council cannot adopt the draft Housing Element until AFTER it has received comments from HCD and AFTER it has received a final recommendation from the Planning Board.

Neither of these two actions have occurred yet.

If a majority of the council agrees that a change should be made to the draft, staff will make that change before sending it to HCD for HCD review.

If the Council
wishes to review another draft before staff submits to HCD, it may direct staff to do so.

Staff is
planning to send the draft to HCD the week of May 23rd.

Once that has happened, the City Council can then hold additional public hearings to hear from the public, consider the comments from HCD, and consider the recommendations of the Planning Board,

and then vote to adopt the draft housing element.

Staff is working to make this possible in
November or December.

Once the City Council takes action to adopt the Housing Element, HCD will decide whether the city has complied with state housing law and adopted an adequate Housing Element.

Sincerely,

Andrew Thomas, Planning Director

Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:

On April 11 I wrote to you on behalf of Alameda Citizens Task force asserting that state law (Govt.

Code Sec 65585 (b) (1) and (2)) and common sense require Council approval of this draft prior to submission to HCD for review.

I believe these two sections clearly require a Council vote approving the HE draft before in goes to HCD for review.

input will primarily be in response to any HCD requirements emanating from their review, not expressing fresh ideas.

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman

From: Christopher Buckley
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; John Knox White; Trish Spencer Cc: Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; "Thomas Saxby"; "Norman Sanchez"; "Lynn Jones"; "Jenn Heflin"; [email protected]; Asheshh Saheba; Teresa Ruiz; Ronald Curtis; Rona Rothenberg; Alan Teague; Xiomara Cisneros; Hanson Hom; Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Housing Element - -Meyers Nave letter confirming legal viability of AAPS ADU strategy as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law projects
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 2:06:56 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg 2022-4-19 MeyersNave Ltr re Alameda Housing Element Update and Related Density Bonus Issues.pdf Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers:

The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) retained the law firm of Meyers/Nave to assist us in developing alternatives to State Density Bonus Law projects as well as other Housing Element issues. Meyers/Nave has extensive expertise concerning the State Density Bonus Law as well as Housing Planning law in general.

Their letter essentially confirms the legal viability of the ADU strategy as an alternative to State Density Bonus Law projects described in the last paragraph of Page 4 in the AAPS letter attached to my email below.

Please contact me at (510) 523-0411 or [email protected] if you have questions or would like to discuss the letter.

Christopher Buckley, Chair
AAPS Preservation Action Committee
On Tuesday, April 19, 2022, 02:29:49 AM PDT, Christopher Buckley <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Councilmembers:

The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) plans to present the attached comments at the City Council’s 4-19-22 meeting. The comments are mostly based on comments previously submitted to the Planning Board.

Please contact me at (510) 523-0411 or [email protected] if you have questions or would like to
discuss these comments.

Christopher Buckley, Chair
AAPS Preservation Action Committee

1 1999 Harrison Street, 9th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
tel (510) 808-2000
fax (510) 444-1108
***.meyersnave.com
Steven T. Mattas
[email protected]

April 19, 2022

Via Electronic Mail

Christopher Buckley, Chair
Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
Preservation Action Committee
P.O. Box 1677
Alameda, CA 94501
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Alameda Housing Element Update and Related Density Bonus Issues Dear Chris:

You have asked us to discuss the proposal of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) that the City of Alameda maintain its relatively low by-right density standards and offer valuable development benefits to multifamily housing projects to incentivize their construction in compliance with the City’s existing height limits. AAPS understands that multifamily developers may seek to exceed those height limits through requests for a waiver or modification of the standard under state density bonus law, and proposes that the City reward multifamily housing developments that adhere to City height limits by allowing a significant or even unlimited number of ADUs to be built in such projects.

We believe that Alameda could adopt a program that would incentivize applicants for new multifamily housing projects to design those projects in a manner that does not exceed City height standards. This “carrot” type of approach is similar to the programs adopted by other cities that reward development projects which provide community benefits such as public infrastructure improvements, public and private open space, upscale hotels, child care centers, neighborhood grocery stores and other amenities that serve the public. In return for providing these community benefits, these programs provide the applicant benefits such as additional density or FAR, reduced setbacks and open space requirements, fee waivers, etc. We believe that the City of Alameda could take this approach to provide additional ADU rights to multifamily project applicants, conditioned upon their projects not exceeding City height limit requirements.

With respect to the specific benefit you propose, a large or unlimited number of ADUs, we believe that the City would be authorized to provide this type of benefit to developers of new multifamily housing projects. The City is not required by state ADU law to do so, as the state ADU law is silent on a local agency’s obligation to approve ADUs in a new multifamily

2 dwelling (See Government Code §65852.2). However, it is equally clear that the state ADU law does not prevent a city from approving ADUs in new multifamily dwellings if it chooses to do so as a matter of local policy. This conclusion is supported by Government Code §65852.2(g), which states that “This section [the state ADU statute] does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.” This view is echoed in the HCD’s ADU Handbook, which states that “ADU law is the statutory minimum requirement. Local governments may elect to go beyond this statutory minimum and further the creation of ADUs” (p. 9). Moreover, to the extent that the right to build extra ADUs is characterized as additional project density, this would also be consistent with state density bonus law, which provides that “nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city from granting a density bonus greater than what is described in this section for a development that meets the requirements of this section” (Government Code §65915(n)).

Please note, however, that adoption of a voluntary program as described above, or some other form of community benefits program that may provide authority for additional units under set circumstances, including compliance with the applicable height limit in Alameda, would not limit the ability of development applicants to otherwise avail themselves of the provisions of state density bonus law if their projects would comply with minimum requirements of Government Code §65915, et seq. Compliance with state density bonus law is mandatory on cities, and cities can only disapprove applicant requests for incentives and concessions, and waiver or modification of development standards, under certain limited circumstances.

We hope this has been helpful in your analysis of the AAPS approval. We would be happy to discuss these concepts further with you if you would like, as well as be of assistance in the design of an incentives program that would meet AAPS’s land use objectives.

Sinerely,

Steven T. Mattas
Senior Principal

5094959.1
From: Milt Friedman
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 1:53:15 PM
We oppose blanket rezoning in Alameda neighborhoods without further citizen involvement.

Alameda is a unique community and deserves a more nuanced program of development. The recommendations of the planning department appear to make no attempt to preserve community values.

Be good to our home.

Milt Friedman and Michelle Minor
2626

Santa Clara Ave, Alameda, CA 94501
From: [email protected]
To: Andrew Thomas; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 1:23:53 PM
Mr. Thomas,

However agenda item 7-C is noticed as “Public Hearing to Review and Comment”.

I also take issue with your statement later in the same paragraph, that, “If the Council wishes to review another draft before staff submits to HCD, it may direct staff to do so.” In

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman

From:

Mr. Forman,

Per state law, the City Council cannot adopt the draft Housing Element until AFTER it has received comments from HCD and AFTER it has received a final recommendation from the Planning Board.

Neither of these two actions have occurred yet.

If a majority of the council agrees that a change should be made to the draft, staff will make that change before sending it to HCD for HCD review.

If the Council
wishes to review another draft before staff submits to HCD, it may direct staff to do so.

Staff is
planning to send the draft to HCD the week of May 23rd.

Staff is working to make this possible in October.

Once that has happened, the City Council can then hold additional public hearings to hear from the public, consider the comments from HCD, and consider the recommendations of the Planning Board,

and then vote to adopt the draft housing element.

Staff is working to make this possible in
November or December.

Once the City Council takes action to adopt the Housing Element, HCD will decide whether the city has complied with state housing law and adopted an adequate Housing Element.

Sincerely,

Andrew Thomas, Planning Director

Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:

On April 11 I wrote to you on behalf of Alameda Citizens Task force asserting that state law (Govt.

Code Sec 65585 (b) (1) and (2)) and common sense require Council approval of this draft prior to submission to HCD for review.

“
(The bolding is mine)

I believe these two sections clearly require a Council vote approving the HE draft before in goes to HCD for review.

input will primarily be in response to any HCD requirements emanating from their review, not expressing fresh ideas.

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman

From: margie
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:55:15 PM
I OPPOSE ANY UPZONING OF R—2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS (1) There is no legal or policy justification for upzoning (2) People are moving out of the Bay Area due to congestion and gridlock. More housing without increased infrastructure with exacerbate the reasons why people are moving (3) TREES are essential to quality of life, clean air, and resisting climate change. Tall buildings cut off light to trees and air to their roots. More building = fewer places trees can grow. 19 April 2022
To:Mayor Ashcraft ; Malia Vella, John KnoxWhite,Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog, cc: LARA WEISIGER
Re Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda - Housing Element To Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
I urge you to decline the proposal by the planning department to up-zone residential districts, R2-R6.

It is a disruption to existing neighborhoods to arbitrarily increase the density from a max of 21 units/acre to 30 units/acre . Existing zoning provides some assurance of neighborhood stability. While increased density threatens to degrade all neighborhoods, lower income areas have less capacity to absorb the negative impacts. Personally, I would hate to have a new multi-story structure preventing my use of the backyard through shade and loss of privacy. Public goods such as street parking are already limited in our higher density neighborhoods.

How many additional units would be obtained by this manuevering? The exhibit 2, pg E11, “Infill- Residential Sites” gives 270 over 8 years but it has been alternatively suggested as less than 100 units. .

Are such small estimates worth introducing anxious uncertainty into every “For Sale” sign in our neighborhood? Given the uncertainty of benefit of this upzoning, wouldn't it be prudent to have a public review of the draft Housing Element in May prior to submittal to the state? Please consider giving the state Department of Housing and Community Development the opportunity to approve Alameda's plan without the arbitrary upzoning. This would be in better keeping with the 2020 voter rejection of Measure Z.

Sincerely,
Roberta Hough
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Housing Element Item C
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:47:51 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Patricia Gannon <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 19, 2022 12:37 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Housing Element Item C
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Eric Levitt <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,John Knox White <[email protected]> Cc:

Dear Mayor Ashcraft, City Council Members, City Staff
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the u
pzoning proposal under Item C.. It is
totally unnecessary legally.

The PlanningDepartment did an excellent job in locating enough

spaces to fulfill

the RYNA requirement of

over 5,000 units

at all income levels.

If all are
developed

that will create unmanageable stress on our infrastructure and we know that in the future Alameda will be asked to do even more.

Please support the majority of Alamedans

who rejected Measure Z 2 years ago clearly
affirming their support for reasonable growth.

Item C repudiates the vote of Alameda citizens.

Thank you.

Patricia M. Gannon
1019 Tobago Lane
Alameda, CA

94502
[email protected]
From: Patricia Gannon
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Andrew Thomas; Trish Spencer; Eric Levitt; Malia Vella; John Knox White Subject: [EXTERNAL] Housing Element Item C
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:37:43 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, City Council Members, City Staff
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the upzoning proposal under Item C.. It is totally unnecessary legally.

The PlanningDepartment did an excellent job in locating enough

spaces to fulfill

the RYNA requirement of

over 5,000 units

at all income levels.

If all are
developed

that will create unmanageable stress on our infrastructure and we know that in the future Alameda will be asked to do even more.

Please support the majority of Alamedans

who rejected Measure Z 2 years ago clearly
affirming their support for reasonable growth.

Item C repudiates the vote of Alameda citizens.

Thank you.

Patricia M. Gannon
1019 Tobago Lane
Alameda, CA

94502
[email protected]
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Draft Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:34:31 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Susan Dunn <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 15, 2022 2:00 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Draft Housing Element To: CityCouncil-List <[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,John Knox White <[email protected]>
Cc:

Dear Mayor and City Council,
We are residents of Alameda on Bay Farm Island, at 36 Sunny Cove Circle and wish to state our views on the residential up zoning issue below.

We have read the email below and want to submit to your attention that we agree with this position of the Alameda Citizens Task Force.

In summary, that the Council should
NOT

proceed with a plan to create a buffer in the R2-R6 zoning districts and that they should be left at their current density.

We ask that the city acknowledge:

1. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UPZONING OF OUR R— 2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 2. CONVENE A FINAL PUBLIC REVUE

IN MAY AND APPROVE THE FINAL DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED TO HCD.

Susan and Jeff Dunn
36 Sunny Cove Circle
Alameda, CA 94502
Re: April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Draft Housing Element Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog.:

The April draft of the Housing Element (HE) expands the residential upzoning to include the R-2 zoning district with no explanation as to the need for the same. It also, for the first time, displays the Planning Department’s (PD) draft housing site inventory with a breakdown of each parcel’s projected realistic capacity in each of the four income categories. The R-1 thru R-6 zoning districts are labeled “Infill Residential District Sites”. (Appendix Page E-4). Our comments on the same follow.

City Charter Article 26:

ACT has consistently supported the position that the
Article 26 density limitation of 21 units/acre is superseded by the state Housing Element Law
to the extent necessary
to meet our lower income categories
RHNA. In both of those categories the inventory reveals that there will be surplus units in excess of our RHNA, even if the R-2 thru R-6 zoning districts are left at their current density. Therefore, in terms of achieving our 2239-unit lower income categories RHNA there is no legal basis for upzoning these sites.

At the last Planning Board meeting Mr. Thomas cited the provision in HCD Housing Element Guidebook which states at page 22, “… it is
recommended

the

jurisdiction
create

buffer

the

housing

element

inventory

least

15 to

30 percent

more
capacity

than

required,

especially

for

capacity

accommodate

the

lower

income
RHNA.” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing- element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf
However, this is a “recommendation”, not a requirement for a certified HE. While the current inventory does not quite meet the suggested percentage in the very low- income category, it meets it in the low-income category.

Moreover, the current inventory significantly understates the realistic capacity for ADUs at item 15(a) at only 400 units. In the report attached to Agenda Item 7-C the realistic capacity is corrected to 560 units, thus adding 160 units to the buffer, spread over all categories. However, even this correction is too conservative. 79 permits for ADUs were issued in 2021, well above the 39 that were issued in 2020 and continuing an upward trajectory. Therefore, a projection of at least 79 new units per year is reasonable, thus raising the eight year total to 632. This increase would also create a buffer to cover a possible rejection of our SB-9 projection discussed below, inasmuch as SB-9 is not currently attracting development here or statewide.

The same report modifies Item 15 (b) of the inventory “infill residential sites”, reducing the projection from 270 units to 238 units with no explanation. The report also makes a 72-unit projection of SB-9 units as if it were a separate item from Item 15 (b) However both Item 15 (a) and (b) include the R-1 district. Therefore the 72 SB-9 units are part of Item (15 (b). After deducting those 72 units from the 238, it must be concluded that the massive upzoning of R-2 thru R-6 is being proposed to gain only 166 units,

none of which are needed to meet our RHNA in any
income category. Increasing our ADU realistic capacity as suggested in the preceding paragraph reduces that number to only 94 units.

There is simply
nothing in the Housing Element Law or in HCD requirements that supports this claim.

Here again the Guidebook informs us. At page 8 this
requirement is applied to the housing element inventory as follows:
“For

purposes

the

housing

element

site

inventory,

this

means

that

sites

identified
to

accommodate

the

lower-income

need

are

not

concentrated

low-resourced
areas

(lack

access

high

performing

schools,

proximity

jobs,

location
disproportionately exposed to pollution or other health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty. Instead, sites identified to accommodate

the

lower

income

RHNA

must

distributed

throughout

the
community

manner

that

affirmatively

furthers

fair

housing.”
The combination of Alameda’s inclusionary ordinance requiring 11% of residential building projects to be in the lower income categories and the Density Bonus Law has resulted in most of the thousands of units approved for construction during the current HE cycle to contain mixed income housing, with all income categories constructed within each project area. Thus, areas that were lower resourced are now growing areas of market rate housing and will inevitably become high resource areas. There is no reason why projects constructed in the future will not achieve the same result.

The TCAC/HCD Resource Map at Appendix D, page 6 does not demonstrate all of these upgradings of resources because, “even the most recent publicly available datasets typically lag by two years, meaning they may not adequately capture conditions in areas undergoing rapid
change.”

https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2022/2022-hcd- methodology.pdf at page 1.

We also assert that upzoning our R-2 thru R-6 neighborhoods will actually conflict with the fair housing requirements. These neighborhoods are already the source of some of the lowest rent housing in the city, so that any new development will necessarily result in major displacement. Increasing the density will significantly increase the land value of development sites. This, along with high construction costs will inevitably result in higher rents that current residents will be unable to pay. Instead of creating affordable housing the result will be gentrification.

Conclusions:

All of the above demonstrates that there is no legal or policy basis for upzoning our R-2 to R-6 zoning districts.

Obviously, the Planning Department (PD) is of a different view. We are of the opinion that their conclusions are not driven by a neutral application of available data but by the desire for repeal Article 26 consistently expressed by their Director over the past several years. However, the repeal of Article 26 was rejected by a resounding majority of the voters in November of 2020. Therefore, it is a law of the City of Alameda which you are bound to honor to the extent not superseded by state law.

There is an easy way to test whether our conclusions or that of the PD are correct.

That is to submit a draft of the HE to HCD that deletes the R-2 thru R-6 zoning districts from the lower income categories and the upzoning proposal and abandons its conclusion that the law requires the upzoning of every residential district in the city. If the HCD approves the draft or if they instead require the upzoning of all residential districts, the issue, as a practical matter will be resolved.

With regard to the submission suggested above we remind you of our email to you of April 11, 2022, wherein we stated the legal and policy necessity for you to take a formal vote adopting the draft to be submitted to HCD in May and the need to delay that vote until after the Planning Board’s final review of the draft on May 9.

There is also a practical reason for this approach. Presenting a draft which excludes the upzoning of these districts, if approved by HCD, will give us the space to expand our housing for the next RHNA cycle eight years from now. The maximal approach of the PD will lead to a future RHNA where the only available space is vertical in the extreme.

Finally, while we have chosen to limit this letter to opposition to upzoning of the R-2 to R-6 zoning districts, we strongly support the position of AAPS concerning height restrictions in our commercial zones.

Sincerely,
Paul Foreman,
Authorized Board Member of Alameda Citizens Task Force.

From: Andrew Thomas
To: [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas
Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:19:30 PM
Mr. Forman,

Per state law, the City Council cannot adopt the draft Housing Element until AFTER it has received comments from HCD and AFTER it has received a final recommendation from the Planning Board.

Neither of these two actions have occurred yet.

If a majority of the council agrees that a change should be made to the draft, staff will make that change before sending it to HCD for HCD review.

If the Council
wishes to review another draft before staff submits to HCD, it may direct staff to do so.

Staff is
planning to send the draft to HCD the week of May 23rd.

Staff is working to make this possible in October.

Once that has happened, the City Council can then hold additional public hearings to hear from the public, consider the comments from HCD, and consider the recommendations of the Planning Board,

and then vote to adopt the draft housing element.

Staff is working to make this possible in
November or December.

Once the City Council takes action to adopt the Housing Element, HCD will decide whether the city has complied with state housing law and adopted an adequate Housing Element.

Sincerely,

Andrew Thomas, Planning Director

Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:

On April 11 I wrote to you on behalf of Alameda Citizens Task force asserting that state law (Govt.

Code Sec 65585 (b) (1) and (2)) and common sense require Council approval of this draft prior to submission to HCD for review.

“
(The bolding is mine)

I believe these two sections clearly require a Council vote approving the HE draft before in goes to HCD for review.

input will primarily be in response to any HCD requirements emanating from their review, not expressing fresh ideas.

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 12:14:35 PM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Emily Olson <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 16, 2022 12:34 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,John Knox White <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]> Cc:

1. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UPZONING OF OUR R—2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 2. CONVENE A FINAL PUBLIC REVUE IN

MAY AND APPROVE THE FINAL DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED TO HCD.

Emily and Charles Olson
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:50:10 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jenny Sui <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 18, 2022 2:31 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,John Knox White <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc:

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members:

In regards to Item 7-C Housing element on the April 19 City Council agenda, please take the following into consideration:

1. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UPZONING OF OUR R—2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. 2. CONVENE A FINAL PUBLIC REVUE IN MAY 9 AND APPROVE THE FINAL DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED TO HCD.

Thank you!
Jenny Sui
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: ITEM 7-C-HOUSING ELEMENT - 4/19/22 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 11:31:54 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeannie Graham <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 19, 2022 11:24 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] ITEM 7-C-HOUSING ELEMENT - 4/19/22 City Council Meeting To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,John Knox White <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,Tony Daysong <[email protected]> Cc:

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members,
Greetings! Moving on major housing elements that will dramatically change Alameda need to be investigated and proven to be optimal and beneficial prior to approving them. Please note:

There

legal

policy

justification

for

the

upzoning

our

R-2

through

R-6

Residential

Zoning

Districts.

The

City

needs

convene a

final

public

review

ASAP

and

approve

the

Final Draft

the

Housing

Element

prior

submitting

the

HCD.

Thank you for your time and attention. I will be ZOOMing into the City Council Meeting this PM.

Sincerely,
Jeannie Graham
[email protected] | 510.769.9287

From: theinfoguy
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 10:22:58 AM
I most strenuously object to proposed upzoning of our Alameda neighborhoods as recommended in the draft Housing Element that would increase housing density in Alameda's A2 through A6 neighborhoods.

This detestable proposal stands to permanently damage the beautiful atmosphere and character of our city and must not be accepted.

I strongly urge you to oppose any attempt at this residential upzoning.

David Foote
[email protected]
2534 Lincoln Ave

Alameda CA 94501
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone April 18, 2022 (By electronic transmission)
Members of the City Council, City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 Subject: Draft Housing Element Update ‐ ‐April 19 City Council Agenda Item7‐C Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Council members:

On behalf of the West Alameda Business Association Board of Directors, please review our comments for the April 19th City Council Agenda: Sandy Russell, Fireside Lounge; Marie Ortega, Feathered Outlaw; Tanoa Stewart, A Town Agency; Connie Garcia, Alameda Menagerie, Pia Barton, Malayan Botanicals; Tina Vasconcellos, College of Alameda; Daniel Hoy, Daniel Hoy Architect; Ann Moore, Back to Life Wellness Center; Chris Vovrosky, Golden Gate Sothebys Int.

Realty; John Lipp, Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter, Carrie Madarang, West End Resident;

1. For clarification, WABA is unwavering in our support for housing development and in particular, more affordable housing, within our district.

2. We support creative, innovative ideas with no density limits and have found a solution that helps the City bring in even more housing than required, while preserving the charm and feel of the Historic Webster Street District between Central and Lincoln.

3. By stepping up height limits beyond Lincoln and not limiting density with three story buildings in the historic core, we can build several hundred new housing units and a vibrant and diverse Western Alameda neighborhood that benefits everyone. The five stories proposed in the Housing Element and related zoning amendments is inconsistent with City’s Webster Street Vision Plan.

4. We find the 171 units estimated for Webster Street on Housing Element Page E‐10 are too conservative for what can actually be built on these properties, since the estimate assumes only 30 units per acre. We believe that significantly higher densities are possible and have developed strategies that would increase both the number of total units and affordable units within the district.

5. We ask that the Draft Housing Element return to Council for final review after the May 9 comment deadline and May 9 Planning Board before it is sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development.

We look forward to your support in bringing much needed housing to our District and contributing to its growth. Linda
Linda Asbury
Executive Director West Alameda Business Association
[email protected] 510.523.5955
Cc: Planning Board
Andrew Thomas, Allen Tai
WABA Board of Directors
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: Do oppose the upzoning proposal before you under Item 7C Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 7:12:32 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Reyla Graber <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 18, 2022 10:42 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Do oppose the upzoning proposal before you under Item 7C To: John Knox White <[email protected]>,Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]> Cc:

Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
There is a recently added proposal in the draft Housing Element to upzone all A2 through A 6

zoning neighborhoods in Alameda.

I am shocked at this upzoning proposal by the Planning Department as it is not necessary, either legally or otherwise.

It is not necessary

because the Planning Dept. did do a fine job of finding sufficient housing unit spaces to fulfill the RHNA requirement of over 5,000 units in all income levels. If all are developed, that in itself will increase by 10 to 15,000 the population together with more cars, and stress on infrastructure.

We know that after 8 years, the State will be requiring the City to fulfill another huge outlay of RHNA units.

So why would we open up Alameda now ahead of time to more development than is necessary or legally required.

As you know, Alameda voters

2 years ago clearly said at the ballot box that they wanted slow growth as

far as possible under the law.

Right now, we are within both our City law and State law.

As our elected representatives please stand up for the majority of Alameda residents who definitely want stability for our City's neighborhoods.

This evening,
I urge you to voice your opposition to this upzoning proposal and ask for it's removal from the draft Housing Element.

Sincerely,
Reyla Graber
Alameda resident

From: Donna Fletcher
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; John Knox White Cc: Eric Levitt; Allen Tai; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 7-C Housing Element Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:43:08 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, and Council Members Daysog, Knox-White, and Herrera Spencer,
Unintended Consequences of Upzoning
I am writing to ask you to please consider the negative impacts of the excessive upzoning currently proposed in Alameda's draft Housing Element. The

increases range from 40% to
275% and are

over-and-above State mandated upzoning required in Senate Bill 9. Why is this necessary?

I understand that the HCD encourages cities to "create a buffer of at least 15% to 30% more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income."

However, I'm very concerned that rather than providing more affordable housing options for Alamedans, upzoning R-2 to R-6 neighborhoods will have the exact opposite effect, as increased density increases land value, and higher construction costs result in higher rents.

No-Brainer Buffer
If staff want to include a buffer in our RHNA, (which I understand is optional) the most reasonable source of surplus units over the 8-year time span of the RHNA exists at Alameda Point.

Page 22 ends

Constraints: work with the US Navy to expedite the remediation and conveyance of lands generally located in Site A Phase 3 to allow for additional housing development during the Housing Element cycle and
ensure that any existing US Navy financial constraints on new housing construction to accommodate the City’s RHNA are lifted." Where are we in our negotiations to lift the Navy cap on residential development at Alameda Point? If we are confident in the course of these negotiations, it seems reasonable to factor in
projections of additional housing units being added to our RHNA over the 8-year term for compliance.

This in turn could take the pressure off of some of our calculations for site capacity in the current draft of the Housing Element.

Way to Maximize Affordable Housing
But more than creating excess capacity that can be applied as needed to the RHNA, housing on
Alameda Point requires an allocation of 25% affordable housing, which is where there is the most need in our community.

Preserve

Scale on our "Main Streets" and Stations
I am also asking the Council to consider the thoughtful recommendations of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) for height limits and density on the Park Street and Webster corridors, and in the C-1 District "Stations."
The proposed 5-story/60' amendments are out of scale with Alameda's "main street" character, and our charming neighborhood commercial stations. (We would not have realized the impact of the proposed increases if AAPS hadn't provided the simulation of a 60' tall building on the 1600 block of Park Street in its March 27 commentary to the Board, and other graphic examples iof buildings in Jack London Square.)
Council Needs to Hear Public Comment before Approving
My final request relates to the opportunity for the Council's final review and approval of the draft Housing

Element before it is submitted to the HCD. Please continue the public hearing to a date after May 9 so that the Council can consider public comments received by the May 9 deadline, as well as comments from the Historical Advisory Board's May 5 meeting and he Planning Board's meeting

Thank you for the opportunity to comment!

SIncerely,
Donna Fletcher
112 Centre Court

Alameda
END
From: Sharon Martinez
To: John Knox White; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] “Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element” Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 9:18:07 PM

The April draft clearly identifies sufficient parcels of land to meet the state determined number of units needed in all income categories without increasing the 21 units per acre density in our residential neighborhoods. 60% of Alameda voters rejected Measure Z, so Article 26 remains the law today and that should be the end of the story, City Planning Director Andrew Thomas has consistently supported repeal of Article 26 for several years. Having failed to repeal the Article with Measure Z, he now seeks to eradicate it without voter approval.

THERE IS NO LEGAL OR POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UPZONING OF OUR R—2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

Concerned Citizen of Alameda
Sharon Martinez
From: Karin Sidwell
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 7-C (Housing Element) Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 4:29:22 PM
Please:

1. Delete the massive, indiscriminate and unnecessary residential upzonings;

2. Limit the height in the historic parts of Park and Webster Streets to 40 feet.

The
changes will greatly increase the probability of State Density Bonus Law projects, which can exceed normal height limits, are exempt from the City’s Design Review Manual and don’t require public notice or review.;
and

3. Continue the public hearing to a date after May 9, so that the Council can consider public comments received by the May 9 deadline as well as comments from the Historical Advisory Board’s May 5 meeting and the Planning Board’s May 9 meeting and approve the final draft Housing Element before it is submitted to HCD.

This upzoned draft is inappropriate and unnecessary as the April draft clearly identifies sufficient parcels of land to meet the state determined number of units needed in all income categories without increasing the 21 units per acre density in our residential neighborhoods (known as R-2 thru R-6 zoning districts).

It will be

difficult for the City
to scale back the proposed upzonings in the Housing Element’s final version or the future.

Thank you,
Karin Sidwell
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Response to Correspondence File Letters tfrom Alan Tile & Andrew Thomas
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 3:33:32 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:

On April 11 I wrote to you on behalf of Alameda Citizens Task force asserting that state law (Govt.

Code Sec 65585 (b) (1) and (2)) and common sense require Council approval of this draft prior to submission to HCD for review.

“
(The bolding is mine)

I believe these two sections clearly require a Council vote approving the HE draft before in goes to HCD for review.

input will primarily be in response to any HCD requirements emanating from their review, not expressing fresh ideas.

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman

From: PAM JOYCE
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; [email protected]; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Cc: Alameda Magazine Judy Gallman, Editor; Eric Kos Alameda Sun; Dennis Evanosky Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C - April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:55:43 PM
To Mayor Ashcraft and Alameda City Council
From residents of Alameda since 1981

LET US PROTECT OUR ALAMEDA NEIGHBORHOODS FOR NOW AND FOR THE FUTURE.

We have successfully met our required RHNA housing figures of 5,340 units. Enough is enough.

SAY NO TO ANY UPZONING. This is just another tactic to destroy Article 26 (Measure A) Listen to the people of Alameda. You are supposed to Protect them and the Alameda Community
Please step up to your responsibilities

PAM & FRED JOYCE
150 Basinside Way, Alameda, CA
In case you don’t know the issue, here it is
From Alameda Citizen's Task Force:

60% of Alameda voters rejected Measure Z, so Article 26 remains the law today and that should be the end of the story, but, sadly, it is not.

On April 19 at 7 p.m. the regular City Council agenda Item 7-C will include the Planning Department’s (PD) proposed draft of our 2023-2031 Housing Element. This is very important draft because in May the PD intends to submit a draft for review by the State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD), the agency which makes the final determination on the document’s compliance with state law. April 19 may be the last time City Council provides input, although Alameda Citizens Task Force (ACT) has requested that City Council do a final review in May and vote to approve the final draft before submission to HCD.

The April draft clearly identifies sufficient parcels of land to meet the state determined number of units needed in all income categories without increasing the 21 units per acre density in our residential neighborhoods (known as R-2 thru R-6 zoning districts).

Nevertheless, they
propose to massively increase the density of these neighborhoods by asserting that state fair housing law requires every zoning district in the city to be densified to allow lower income units to be developed.

THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LAW THAT SAYS THAT!

PROTECT YOUR VOTE AND ALAMEDA NEIGHBORHOODS! ON APRIL 19 TELL COUNCIL IN PERSON AND EMAIL:

1. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UPZONING OF OUR R—2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.

2. CONVENE A FINAL PUBLIC REVUE IN MAY AND APPROVE THE
FINAL DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED TO HCD.

From: Jim and Mandy Tham
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] “Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element” Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 2:41:39 PM
April 18, 2022

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Alameda City Council Members,
I am writing today to protest the continued, excessive and

rampant housing expansion in our
wonderful city.

When I drive around our town and see the huge multiple dwelling units that will be completed this year and next I would say we have done more than enough if not too much to ease the housing crisis.

At what cost to our city and current citizens do we need to continue down this disastrous path?

Not only is this type of development harmful to the life style we enjoy

but

also unnecessary.

No one would argue that our quality of life has decreased in the past 10 years due to congestion and more recently the uptick in serious crime.

I have lived in Alameda for over fifty years and see the housing boom take a serious toll on our quality of life.

I am sure many have reminded you of our limited ingress and egress (4 bridges and one tube).

I know some would say that we have sought exemptions from the State and other regulatory agencies against mandatory housing development.

I would say we
haven’t tried hard enough, and this issue should be revisited by a city manager and development director who are passionate about maintaining Alameda as the city we moved here to enjoy and not cater to the developers who want to build, build, build and then go away and leave us with the congestion we all oppose and abhor.

As a final note if certain city officials and employees do not want to uphold the will of the voters then those city staff members should and must be replaced.

We should not have to
continue and repeatedly

fight against city officials who will not do their absolute, dedicated best to uphold the will and desires of those who live here and want their future generations to live here and enjoy the unique lifestyle we have created over generations.

Sincerely,
James and Mandy Tham
From: Dorothy Freeman
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Lara Weisiger; Manager Manager Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Agenda April 19, 2022 Item 7-C Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 1:50:36 PM
April 18, 2022
Alameda City Council Agenda

April 19, 2022

Item 7-C

Public Hearing to Review and Comment on Annual Report on the General Plan and Draft Housing Element Update. (Planning, Building
and Transportation 20962710
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Spencer, Daysog, and Knox- White;
I am writing in support of the letter you received from the Alameda Citizens Task Force.

Andrew Thomas's plan to submit Alameda's 2023-2031 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) without a proper review by Council and the public is shortsighted.

His plan to submit the Housing Element for Council's
approval of the draft on April 19 will cut in half the 30 day legal review time, resulting in shortening the public's right to comment.

The draft Housing Element has several issues that still need to be addressed.

The massive,
indiscriminate and unnecessary residential upzonings will leave our neighborhoods open to unbelievable density growth that is not needed to satisfy the required RHNA numbers.

Allowing the height in the historic parts of Park and Webster Streets to go beyond 40 feet is also not necessary and will leave the feeling of traveling through a tunnel on these two streets.

Scheduled meetings of the Historical Advisory Board on May 5th and the Planning Board on May 9th will add valuable information you need to make an informed decision.

I am
requesting the Council remove this item from the April 19 agenda as soon as possible and reschedule it for a date after May 9th. Alternately, scheduling a special Council meeting would allow time and access for the public to be able to address this issue properly before the Council approves the final draft Housing Element for submission to HCD.

Respectfully,
Dorothy Freeman
cc; City Manager,

City Clerk
Virus-free. www.avast.com
From: Allen Tai
To: [email protected]; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Cc: [email protected]; Andrew Thomas; Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] AGENDA ITEM 7-C........................NO Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:57:52 AM
Dear Ms. Mariani,

The Housing Element will not be considered until November or December 2022 for final City Council action, so there will be many opportunities between now and then, both at the City Council and at the Planning Board for consideration of public comments and suggestions.

The April 19th City
Council agenda item is a workshop, not a decision date.

You should also be aware that the City Council is required by State law to ensure that Alameda's zoning regulations allow for at least 5,353 housing units to be constructed in the next 8 years, so the City Council must identify where those units should go.

That being said, the City also has a separate
historic preservation ordinance and demolition controls, so allowing more housing does not directly result in Victorians demolished.

For more information on the draft Housing Element, you can review the document at www.alameda2040.org
.

Allen Tai, AICP
- City Planner
City of Alameda
Planning, Building and Transportation Department
2263 Santa Clara Ave Rm 190
510-747-6888

From:
[email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, April 16, 2022 11:46 AM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; Allen Tai <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AGENDA ITEM 7-C........................NO

NO!....just drive down Central Avenue...when I was working for Dr Paul Anders (RIP)...he purchased 3 beautiful victorians and proceeded to demolish them for the structures that are there today...3 apartment buildings!!! 3 in a row...

NO ON AGENDA ITEM 7-C!
CONCERNCED NATIVE AND REGISTERD VOTER....

Wendy A. Mariani
510.523.9908/510.846.3414
Never Limit Your Dreams. ..

From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Andrew Thomas; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Errata and Supplement to 4/14 Letter to City Council-April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C:

Draft Housing Element
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:23:41 AM
ACT
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Vigilance, Truth, Civility
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Spencer Herrera, and Daysog:

The third paragraph of the Fair Housing discussion in our letter to you of April 14 erroneously states that the city inclusionary ordinance requires 11% of a housing project to provide housing for the lower income categories. The ordinance requires 8% (4% for very low and 4% for low-income categories).

The density bonus projects provide a somewhat larger
percentage to qualify for the bonus.

In the fourth paragraph of the Fair Housing discussion, we comment on the TCAC/HCD Resource Map at Appendix D, page 6 of the April draft of the Housing Element.

We add that
the map demonstrates that the sites proposed in the HE land inventory are located throughout the city including many in areas of highest, high and moderate resources or bordering on the same. This supports our view that no upzoning of the R-2 to R-6 zoning districts is required to meet the HCD fair housing standards.

Sincerely
Paul Foreman
Authorized Board Member of Alameda Citizens Task Force.

From: Dodi Kelleher
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 7-C (Housing Element) Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 10:11:58 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council,

AAPS and other concerned citizens have continued, in good faith, to make very specific proposals toward meeting the RHNA in order to mitigate the need for significant across the board density increases and upzoning, especially in our established residential areas which contain Alameda’s historic homes and buildings. We believed that the Housing Element finally contained sufficient numbers in sufficient areas to meet the RHNA without opening the door to undue density increases in these areas. Instead the goal posts appear to have been moved by Planning’s proposed overly broad by-right upzoning across much of Alameda. Not only do the proposed changes essential void Article 26 but greatly increase the probability of developers building State Density Bonus Law projects in residential zones, which can exceed normal height limits, are exempt from the City’s Design Review Manual and don’t require public notice or review.

I urge the Mayor and City Council to eliminate the indiscriminate and unnecessary upzoning in residential areas, including the overly broad transit overlay map. Neither option is necessary to meet the RHNA. I also urge height limitations in historic portions of Park and Webster St., as well as in the “Stations”, with added concern to mitigate against the possibility of outsized Density Bonus projects here.

In addition, please continue your public hearing and any final approval of the draft Housing Element that is to be sent to HCD until after the May 5
th HAB and May 9th Planning Board meeting, and when
broader public comments will be available to Council. I direct you to the AAPS letter for a more detailed response to this latest draft Housing Element.

In closing, I once wrote to you that I believe that there should be a collaborative effort to do the work necessary to both honor the will of the voters to preserve the unique character of our city and also to fulfill our community obligations and that it is best done in a classic democratic compromise in which each side gains by winning some of what is deemed important to them, while sacrificing something to the other, and together serving the common good. I still believe this can happen in this instance with your considered actions.

I request these comments be made part of the Meeting record.

Sincerely,

Dolores Kelleher

From: Marie Kane
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Trish Spencer; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog Cc: Lara Weisiger; Andrew Thomas
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Please keep upzoning of our city to the minimum requirements Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 9:57:04 AM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Please do not make it easy for developers to profit while causing the loss of the current character of our residential neighborhoods.

Our residential neighborhoods are the reason people flock to buy in Alameda.

Please keep upzoning to the minimal requirements.

Thanks for listening.

Marie Kane

Sent from my iPhone
From: Andrew Thomas
To: Patricia Baer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C
Date: Monday, April 18, 2022 8:32:21 AM
Dear Ms Baer,

The April 19th City Council agenda item is a workshop, not a decision date.

The height limit on Park Street is already 5 stories (60 feet).

The height limit on Webster
Street is 3 stories (40 feet).

The current proposal is to allow 5 story buildings on both streets.

These two streets
have the best transit in the entire city and are walking distance to shopping and services.

For more information on the draft Housing Element, you can review the document at www.alameda2040.org.

Or
from the city website at www.alamedaca.gov.
-----Original Message-----
From: Patricia Baer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2022 1:17 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]>
Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; Gerry Beaudin <[email protected]>; Andrew Thomas <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; Allen Tai <[email protected]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C
Councilmembers,
I strongly urge you not to make the proposed, huge residential upzoning changes. The existing residential neighborhoods should not be forced into this unwanted density, nor should Park and Webster streets be turned into caverns of high-rise.

Please wait until the May 9 deadline so that there is time for all public comments.

Thank you,
Patsy Baer
From: T Krysiak
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Mtg April 19 Item 7-C Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 7:04:57 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Alameda City Council Members:

I voted, as did 60% of Alameda voters, to reject Measure Z and I'm very concerned that the Council's efforts to undermine the will of your Alameda constituents is about to happen.

It appears that there is no legal or policy justification for upzoning our City’s R-2 thru R-6 residential districts.

And it is necessary that the Alameda City Council convene a final public review on May 9 to approve the final draft of the housing element before it is submitted to the California State Housing & Community Development agency.

It’s obvious that this is a critical and locally sensitive issue that will increase traffic and seriously impact our city’s quality of life.

I’m one of many of
your HBI citizens who demand that you uphold the overwhelming mandate of your citizens. Please stand with us. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Thomas Krysiak

Sweet Road
Sent Via My iPhone
From: David La Piana
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 3:59:28 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
image008.png
Dear Mayor Ashcroft and Council:

I write to urge you not to override the clearly expressed will of the voters on Measure Z. The April draft of the Housing Element identifies sufficient parcels of land to meet the state determined number of units needed in all income categories without increasing the 21 units per acre density in our residential neighborhoods. State fair housing law does not require every zoning district in the
city to be densified to allow lower income units to be developed. It is counterproductive to encourage and require single family neighborhoods to place multiple units in their backyards (or tear down their houses to build fourplexes, when Alameda is blessed with so much developable open space. Given the economics of building in the Bay Area, it is unlikely truly low-income housing will be developed at scale in the next ten years absent a direct public subsidy. If we want to achieve more low-income housing, we should pull together on that goal rather than this divisive feel-good policy of enabling more density in residential areas where the only new units to be built will be expensive.

Your proposed policy will benefit developers and a few greedy homeowners who want to cash in, not the low-income residents it purports to house.

Respectfully,

David La Piana
Gibbons Drive

David La Piana (he/him)
Managing Partner
510.239.4766
[email protected]
www.lapiana.org

From: Patricia Baer
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 1:16:57 PM
Councilmembers,
I strongly urge you not to make the proposed, huge residential upzoning changes. The existing residential neighborhoods should not be forced into this unwanted density, nor should Park and Webster streets be turned into caverns of high-rise.

Please wait until the May 9 deadline so that there is time for all public comments.

Thank you,
Patsy Baer
From: Karen MIller
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; John Knox White Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7 C April 19 Council meeting
Date: Sunday, April 17, 2022 12:34:13 PM
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I agree with ACT that:

1. THERE IS NO LEGAL OR POLICY JUSTIFICATION FOR THE UPZONING OF OUR R—2 THRU R-6 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
and that you

2. CONVENE A FINAL PUBLIC REVUE IN MAY 9 AND APPROVE THE FINAL DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT BEFORE IT IS SUBMITTED TO HCD.

The citizens of Alameda voted overwhelmingly to keep Measure A and what you are proposing is another assault on the will of the electorate. Thank you.

Regards,
Karen Miller

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. www.avast.com
From: jane peal
To: Gerry Beaudin
Cc: Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai
Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 7-C (Housing Element) Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 2:28:51 PM
I’m writing to urge you to please:

1. Delete the massive, indiscriminate and unnecessary residential upzonings;

2. Limit the height in the historic parts of Park and Webster Streets to 40 feet; and

3. Continue the public hearing to a date after May 9, so that the Council can consider public comments received by the May 9 deadline as well as comments from the Historical Advisory Board’s May 5 meeting and the Planning Board’s May 9 meeting
and approve the final draft Housing
Element before it is submitted to HCD.

Thank you, Jane Peal
Jane Peal, MFT
Integral Counseling for

Individuals,

Couples, & Adult Adoptees
Alameda Office

http://www.janepeal.com
[email protected]
415.902.5761
Notice of Confidentiality: This

email, and any attachments, is

intended only for use by the
addressee(s) and may contain

privileged or confidential

information. Any distribution,
reading, copying or use of this

communication and any

attachments by anyone other

than the
addressee, is strictly

prohibited and may be

unlawful. If you have received

this email in error,
please

immediately notify me by

email (by replying to this

message), and permanently

destroy
or delete the original

and any copies or printouts of

this email and any attachments.

From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AGENDA ITEM 7-C........................NO Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 11:46:01 AM
NO!....just drive down Central Avenue...when I was working for Dr Paul Anders (RIP)...he purchased 3 beautiful victorians and proceeded to demolish them for the structures that are there today...3 apartment buildings!!! 3 in a row...

NO ON AGENDA ITEM 7-C!
CONCERNCED NATIVE AND REGISTERD VOTER....

Wendy A. Mariani
510.523.9908/510.846.3414
Never Limit Your Dreams. ..

From: [email protected]
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] FW: Item 7-C - April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 10:56:33 AM

Adding housing w/o garages throughout Alameda where people already have parking issues doesn’t seem logical.

And since traffic is sometimes frustrating, we shouldn’t do any more than required.

I like what San Jose is doing with a nice housing section where people can walk to stores but will also have a garage.

Changing what we’ve already voted for doesn’t seem right.

And if the logic for spreading is that a section of Alameda has more crime, the police are hiring and will be working to make all areas of Alameda a desirable place to live. https://www.pulte.com/homes/california/bay-area/san-jose/gateway-at-central- 210895
Are we required to spread new housing throughout Alameda?

Bev Zia
Alameda CA
Virus-free. www.avg.com
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] April 19, 2022 City Council Agenda Item 7-C (Housing Element) Date: Saturday, April 16, 2022 10:55:24 AM
Dear City Council,
I agree with AAPS’ requests to

maintain and preserve Alameda as a manageable city
to live and work in. I ask you to please,

1. Delete the massive, indiscriminate and unnecessary residential upzonings;

2. Limit the height in the historic parts of Park and Webster Streets to 40 feet; and

3. Continue the public hearing to a date after May 9, so that the Council can consider public comments received by the May 9 deadline as well as comments from the Historical Advisory Board’s May 5 meeting and the Planning Board’s May 9 meeting
and approve the final draft Housing
Element before it is submitted to HCD.

Sincerely,

Maria Perales
Alameda resident since 2003
From: Tony Devencenzi
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-C – April 19 City Council Agenda-Housing Element Date: Friday, April 15, 2022 12:02:05 PM
Dear City Council Members,
We strongly urge you to reconsider the current version of the 202-2031 Housing Element draft and specifically the proposed upzoning of R-2 thru R6

districts. Current
law does not require the massive increase in density of these areas and with no policy or legal justification, the current proposal is overkill and not in character with Alamedas rich and diverse architectural history.

The current law requires lower income residents not be isolated in low opportunity areas of the city and the much needed goal of providing these opportunities is not mutually exclusive with obtaining a certified housing element.

I strongly urge you to

convene a final public revue in May regarding this topic and ensure we get the word out to a larger group of citizens, as most are not aware of the current plan.

I do see that the city now often sends a press release to our citizens on a variety of topics/events and to include a May meeting in a press release would be an appropriate opportunity to request/receive additional feedback.

Sincerely,
Tony Devencenzi
Cathy Jefferson
Caroline Street
Alameda
From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Andrew Thomas; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: April 19. 2022 City Council Agenda-Item 7-C: Draft Housing Element Date: Thursday, April 14, 2022 11:46:33 AM
ACT
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Vigilance, Truth, Civility

Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog.:

City Charter Article 26: ACT has consistently supported the position that the Article 26 density limitation of 21 units/acre is superseded by the state Housing Element Law to the extent necessary to meet our lower income categories RHNA.

In both of those categories the
inventory reveals that there will be surplus units in excess of our RHNA, even if the R-2 thru R-6 zoning districts are left at their current density. Therefore, in terms of achieving our 2239-unit lower income categories RHNA there is no legal basis for upzoning these sites.

At the last Planning Board meeting Mr. Thomas cited the provision in HCD Housing Element Guidebook which states at page 22, “…it
is recommended the jurisdiction create a buffer in
the housing element inventory of at least 15 to 30 percent more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA.”

https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-
element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf
However, this is a “recommendation”, not a requirement for a certified HE. While the current inventory does not quite meet the suggested percentage in the very low-income category, it meets it in the low-income category.

However, even this correction is too conservative. 79 permits for ADUs were issued in 2021, well above the 39 that were issued in 2020 and continuing an upward trajectory. Therefore, a projection of at least 79 new units per year is reasonable, thus raising the eight year total to 632. This increase would also create a buffer to cover a possible rejection of our SB-9 projection discussed below, inasmuch as SB-9 is not currently attracting development here or statewide.

Fair Housing: The draft HE posits that fair housing law requires that every neighborhood in the city be upzoned for the two lower income categories, thus necessitating the upzoning of these districts. There is simply nothing in the Housing Element Law or in HCD requirements that supports this claim.

Here again the Guidebook informs us. At page 8 this
requirement is applied to the housing element inventory as follows:

“For purposes of the housing element site inventory, this means that sites identified to accommodate the lower-income need are not concentrated in low-resourced areas (lack of access to high performing schools, proximity to jobs, location disproportionately exposed to pollution or other health impacts) or areas of segregation and concentrations of poverty.

Instead, sites identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.”

The combination of Alameda’s inclusionary ordinance requiring 11% of residential building projects to be in the lower income categories and the Density Bonus Law has resulted in most of the thousands of units approved for construction during the current HE cycle to contain mixed income housing, with all income categories constructed within each project area. Thus, areas that were lower resourced are now growing areas of market rate housing and will inevitably become high resource areas. There is no reason why projects constructed in the future will not achieve the same result.

Conclusions: All of the above demonstrates that there is no legal or policy basis for upzoning our R-2 to R-6 zoning districts.

However, the repeal of Article 26 was rejected by a resounding majority of the voters in November of 2020. Therefore, it is a law of the City of Alameda which you are bound to honor to the extent not superseded by state law.

There is an easy way to test whether our conclusions or that of the PD are correct. That is to submit a draft of the HE to HCD that deletes the R-2 thru R-6 zoning districts from the lower income categories and the upzoning proposal and abandons its conclusion that the law requires the upzoning of every residential district in the city. If the HCD approves the draft or if they instead require the upzoning of all residential districts, the issue, as a practical matter will be resolved.

Sincerely,

Paul Foreman,
Authorized Board Member of Alameda Citizens Task Force.

From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony_Daysog Cc: Eric Levitt; Andrew Thomas; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] Request For Postponement of Item 7-C on City Council April 19 Agenda Date: Monday, April 11, 2022 10:47:23 AM
ACT
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Vigilance, Truth, Civility
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Hererra Spencer and Daysog:

As you know, we are currently in the midst of a 30-day public comment period on the April revision of our 2023-2031 Housing Element. It will expire on May 9. Mr. Thomas's written report attached to the April 11 Planning Board Agenda indicates that the last time City Council will be reviewing this draft prior to its submission to HCD for review is April 19.

According to
the schedule, The Planning Board will again review the document on May 9 after which the Planning Department will submit the draft to HCD for review.

We have great concern about
this schedule on both a legal and practical level.

The April 19 agenda Item 7-C does not contain any provision for a formal vote of Council authorizing the submission of the draft to HCD. Mr. Thomas has made it clear as recently as last week's meeting of the HAB that he will not be seeking a vote of Council.

Here is the Govt. Code Sec 65585 (b) that requires submission of a draft HE to HCD.

(b)(1)
At least 90 days prior to adoption of its housing element, or at least 60 days prior to the adoption of an amendment to this element, the planning agency shall submit a draft element or draft amendment to the department.

(2)
The planning agency staff shall collect and compile the public comments regarding the housing element received by the city, county, or city and county, and provide these comments to each member of the legislative body before it adopts the housing element.

The “it”

in Sec. (b) (2) clearly refers to the “legislative body” thus requiring that the draft HE be adopted by Council before submission and that the adoption should not occur until after the comment period which expires on May 9.

The practicality of this process is evident. The
draft is presented as the city's determination that the document meets the requirements for certification and should include the assurance that it is fully approved by City Council whose vote of final adoption will occur toward the end of this year. Also, the 30-day comment period is cut in half if Council's approval of the draft occurs on April 19.

We urge you to pull this item from the April 19 agenda as soon as possible and reschedule it for the earliest available date after May. 9. The earliest regular Council meeting would be May 17, but we suggest that an item as important as this should be scheduled as a special meeting dedicated to the subject rather than included in a crowded regular agenda.

Sincerely,
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Paul Foreman Authorized Board Member
From: Drew Dara-Abrams
To: John Knox White; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Xiomara Cisneros; Ronald Curtis; Hanson Hom; Rona Rothenberg; Teresa Ruiz; Asheshh Saheba; Alan Teague; Andrew Thomas Cc: City Clerk; Nancy McPeak
Subject: [EXTERNAL] feedback on April draft of Housing Element (PB 4/11 Item 7-C and CC 4/19 Item 7-C) Date: Sunday, April 10, 2022 10:37:15 PM
Dear Planning Board members, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, and Director Thomas, I'd like to offer some feedback for you all regarding the April draft of the Housing Element to be heard 4/11 at PB and 4/19 at Council:

First, thanks to staff, Planning Board, and a majority of City Council for making a good faith effort to submit a compliant Housing Element to the state. This isn't true for all cities, especially more affluent ones, in the Bay Area. It's both good that Alameda is doing the right thing, as a matter of principle, and good that Alameda is doing the right thing proactively, so as to find creative compromises to better serve more stakeholders.

Throughout this months-long process, one of the most contentious questions you all have been asked to consider is how much should be asked of the R-1 zone. The R-1 zone encompasses the largest land area of all the residential zones, the largest number of parcels, and many of Alameda's neighborhoods best served by public services. My family and I are pleased to live in a single-family home that we own in one of the well-resourced R-1 neighborhoods of the East End. More should be able to enjoy these neighborhoods (including the parks, walkable business districts, and schools) in a much wider variety and price-points of housing units.

The state has, through SB9, forced the city to provide some more room for change in R-1. Is the one additional modification that the Housing Element will apply to R-1 the Residential Transit Overlay District? (Note that the HE draft does not list R-1 as part of Program 4 on p. 16; however, the draft zoning amendments does include R-1 on p. 50.) At a minimum, please ensure that the Residential Transit Overlay District will apply to R-1. Beyond that, I do think Planning Board and City Council should spend some more time discussing how little of R-1 is asked to participate in this Housing Element: little to none of Fernside, little to none of Bay Farm, only select portions of the southeastern quadrant of main island. Maybe it's the most effective political compromise to make on this Housing Element. Emphasis on "this" because if city leaders can't figure out how to productively engage its largest residential zone in the Housing Element process, then we may all find ourselves facing the same questions again come the next HE cycle.

To this longer term view, it's great to see staff's proposals to help educate residents, current and future, about the nature of the local housing market and also its history (Goal 1, H- 9, p. 10).

I grew up in the Bay Area, but it was only when buying a house that I was actually asked to read and sign my name to important local policies like the ban on using a wood- burning fireplace on Spare the Air Days. Learning more about the history and nature of local real estate could similarly help residents and property owners to understand their rights and responsibilities. Likewise with homelessness, where we can find both a more compassionate and more effective approach by understanding how an overheating real-estate market leads to couch surfing, families living in motels, people living in cars, people living on streets, and so on (Goal 3, H-26). Learning more about the regional realities of our housing problems — along with our powerful regional economy that creates so many jobs and opportunities — can, I hope, also help temper some fears. A few too many comments during this HE process have been framed in near apocalyptic tones. Perhaps ongoing outreach to both newcomers and existing residents can help to provide more grounding for future housing debates and decisions.

Regarding Alameda Point, it's good to see that this Housing Element does not treat it as the primary or only location for new housing, but rather uses the city's ownership of land to promote an even wider range of housing types and price points than may be built by private land-owners elsewhere in the city (H-5, p. 8). I don't know the odds of state-wide social housing legislation and financing, or about the odds of a local bond measure, but it's good for the city to work to be ready for those possibilities.

Re Program 20: Environmental Health, please consider mentioning the I-580 truck ban and how this increases emissions on the I-880 corridor. Caltrans, Alameda County, and other stakeholders are starting to engage on this issue and it would be great for the city to take a more active role in one of the largest local sources of particulate matter. If you are not already aware about this issue, please see https://www.kqed.org/news/11879641/trucks-are-banned- on-oaklands-i-580-these-sixth-graders-wondered-why
Finally, the thorniest issue in California: how housing intersects with public schools. The draft HE proposes to "encourage AUSD to allow open enrollment, for students to choose to attend any school in the district rather than their local neighborhood school" (p. D-40). This isn't necessarily a poor policy, but it's just proposing to pass a "hot potato" from the City (which appears to be admitting defeat to enable more housing, more socioeconomic diversity, and more racial diversity near well-resourced schools in R-1 zones) over to AUSD. And then AUSD will just have to pass the "hot potato" to parents to decide whether they have the means to shlep their children across town every day.

Instead of asking AUSD and parents to solely take on the burden of undoing patterns of residential segregation, the city and its elected leaders should work to: upzone for more housing in well-resourced neighborhoods, encourage school/parent groups to pool a portion of their funds across the entire city, support the school district's efforts to pass bond and parcel tax measures, lobby Sacramento for more K-12 funding, and support ballot measures to undo the unfair legacy of Proposition 13. This list goes well beyond the scope of the Housing Element, but it's worth acknowledging that part of Alameda's appeal and a fair amount of a housing unit's value in this city is due to the quality of the public schools. Increasing the "size of the pie" in terms of both housing availability and school resources can be compatible and complementary goals.

Thanks for your time,
Drew Dara-Abrams
Calhoun St
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] Statements about Court Usage, Tennis Demand in Alameda Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:41:56 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Stacey <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 3, 2022 9:53 PM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Statements about Court Usage, Tennis Demand in Alameda To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,John Knox White <[email protected]>,Xiomara Cisneros <[email protected]>,Ronald Curtis <[email protected]>,Hanson Hom <[email protected]>,Rona Rothenberg <[email protected]>,Teresa Ruiz <[email protected]>,Asheshh Saheba <[email protected]>,Alan Teague <[email protected]>,Andrew Thomas <[email protected]> Cc:

Dear City Council and Planning Board Committee,
I am writing today to comment on the usage of Harbor Bay Club.

We are members of the club who enjoy using it for recreation and child camps.

I visited today with my daughter to use the pool and outside area.

In the roughly 2.5 hours we were there, all
swimming lanes were fully used. We saw lots of people and families using the club facilities, both indoors and outdoors.

Our family also uses the tennis courts , and we always see many other people using the tennis courts on a regular basis.

The tennis courts also are used during after-school and summer camps when there are large groups of children on site.

Many families with young children depend on these programs.

We are active in the tennis community and we have seen the surge in tennis participation , especially with the younger players.

It would be a shame to lose any of these tennis courts.

Please protect the land for its intended use of recreation for our families.

Sincerely,
The Szymanski family
From: Trish Spencer
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: Fwd: [EXTERNAL] preserve the recreational space of the Harbor Bay Club Date: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:39:14 AM
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cathy Leong <[email protected]>
Date: Apr 4, 2022 9:28 AM
Subject: [EXTERNAL] preserve the recreational space of the Harbor Bay Club To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>,Malia Vella <[email protected]>,Tony Daysog <[email protected]>,Trish Spencer <[email protected]>,John Knox White <[email protected]>,Xiomara Cisneros <[email protected]>,Ronald Curtis <[email protected]>,Hanson Hom <[email protected]>,Rona Rothenberg <[email protected]>,Teresa Ruiz <[email protected]>,Asheshh Saheba <[email protected]>,Alan Teague <[email protected]>,Andrew Thomas <[email protected]> Cc:

Dear City Council, Planning Board Committee & Staff,
I am writing today to implore you to preserve the recreational space of the Harbor Bay Club.

As Planning Board member Ronald Curtis said himself during the Planning Board meeting on 9/13/21:

When the city of Alameda first negotiated for the Harbor Bay Club in the late 1970s, the city "made a promise to both the condominiums next to the club and to the club, that this club would be there in perpetuity to serve the people of Harbor Bay Isle."
I cannot fathom how the city could even consider walking back their own promise made to its own community—not to mention to the surrounding home owners who paid the reclamation fee because they trusted the city's word that the club would always be there for them.

If the city turned around and broke that promise because a multi-million-dollar developer wants to build housing on that parcel, the city and members of the City Council and Planning Board would lose all credibility and trust of the Alamedan people.

This cannot be in the interest of this council and committee. That's why I implore you to stay true to and keep the city's promise, and to vote your conscience to end this debate once and for all. It's the trust of the people of Alameda that's at stake here.

A concerned citizen of Alameda/Harbor Bay since 1987
Cathy Leong

48 Kara Road Alameda

Alameda City CouncilMay 3, 2022

Alameda City Council
May 3, 2022