From: Dawn Jaeger
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; John Knox White Cc: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] December 6, 2022 - Agenda Item 5V - Cityside Zoning Map - Letter of comment.
Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 4:34:36 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Ltr to Alameda City Council with Chart - CHBIOA.pdf
Importance: High
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Agenda Item 5V: Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of Alameda Municipal Code Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and the Citywide Zoning Map to Implement the Housing Element, as Recommended by the Planning Board.
Attached please find a written letter of comment on the above referenced item.
Thank you and Best Regards,
DAWN JAEGER
Executive Director
CHBIOA, Inc.
Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association, Inc.
www.HarborBay.org
3195 Mecartney Road
Alameda, CA 94502
(510) 865-3363 Ext. 340
From: Edward Sing
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 4:28:14 PM
City Council Members:
I am writing to agree with Ms. Reyla Graber's comments on Item 5-V of tonight's agenda.
Let's not destroy our beautiful neighborhoods! Our goal should be reasonable development!
Thank you,
Ed Sing
Alameda Resident 25 years
----- Forwarded 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]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 02:14:49 PM PST
Subject: Fwd: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers Dear Mayor and City Council,
Below is a copy of Paul Foreman's excellent email which he sent to you today about unlimited density at shopping centers.
And I want to voice my concerns about unlimited density at Shopping Centers, and in particular I do object to the prospect of high density at the HB Shopping Center very near where I live.
The zoning amendment as written, clearly states that the HB Center will have"...at least 300 units".
This" at least..." phrase had not come to my attention until very recently. I find this wording objectionable along with
Paul Foreman's conclusion that the all over zoning amendment allows for unlimited density.
The HB shopping Center is adjacent to our beautiful and unique Bay water lagoon.
It may be the only "natural" type lagoon in all of California. Yes, Foster City has lagoons but there is nothing "natural" about them. Foster City lagoons are urban in comparison to our lagoon.
Instead, our HB lagoon harbors all kinds of wildlife including rare migratory birds throughout the year.
And indeed, we have a colony of egrets that have "lived" for many years approx 100 ft from the lagoon and 300 feet from the shopping center. We also have raccoons, skunks, squirrels and the occasional fox or muskrat that is attracted to the "natural" environment surround our lagoon.
If you build "high rise" buildings right along the current shopping Center you will be surely impacting the wild life negatively. And you will also negatively impact the wonderful sense of peace and calm that everyone enjoys when quietly enjoying the walking paths and bicycle paths and observing and enjoying the birdlife and the trees and the relatively fresh air.
Please do not permanently harm the wonderful environment that has existed there for 40 years or so.
If we are going to build some residential units on this property, then build the new buildings along Island Dr. or along MeCartney. That way you get your buildings without destroying the peace and tranquility and harmony of the lagoon and much that is special and meaningful about it. is that likely more expensive for a developer? Yes, but if he or she is the right kind of developer for us, then I think they will agree that moving the buildings away from the lagoon is environmentally the best decision for all.
Sincerely,
Reyla Graber
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: 'Gretchen Lipow' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Gibson' <[email protected]>; 'MARK GREENSIDE' <[email protected]>; 'Jay' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Dorothy Freeman' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; 'Reyla Graber' <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2022 11:17 am
Subject: FW: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers
For your information.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Marilyn Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Andrew Thomas' <[email protected]>; 'Allen Tai' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Yibin Shen' <[email protected]>; 'Celena Chen' <[email protected]>; 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, Council Members Knox-White, Spencer & Daysog:
In my previous emails to you I have concentrated on protecting the residential zoning districts and historical structures and have neglected to study the upzoning of the South Shore, Alameda Landing, and Harbor Bay shopping centers. In the past few days I have learned that the MF Overlay is proposed for amendment to provide for a minimum density of 30 du/acre with no maximum and is being extended to these shopping centers. Thus, the owners of these properties will be allowed unlimited density. This represents a complete abandonment of any real limitation on development of these sites and needs to be seriously reconsidered.
As an example, South Shore (47 acres) is minimally limited by liberal height and bulk requirements and with no minimum parking requirements and the likelihood of major big box tenants eventually leaving you are giving the owner carte blanche to build as many units of whatever size desired. There are 47 acres of land which could house thousands of units as a matter of right
.
Even if you believe that thousands of units at these sites would be appropriate, do you really want to abandon any effective standards to govern such development? I am not suggesting that the shopping centers should be limited to 30 du/acre, but strongly suggest that a reasonable density maximum be provided in order to provide the City with some control over the development of these large sites.
Although, placing a density limitation on the MF Overlay conflicts with Program 2 of the Mousing Element, I do not see HCD having a problem with a reasonable density limitation.
It does not in any way impact the legitimacy of the unit projections for these sites. In fact, with regard to lower income units it actually enhances those projections because unlimited density eliminates the major incentive for achieving lower income housing in excess of our inclusionary ordinance, as a developer can build as many units as he wishes without a density bonus.
Sincerely,
Paul Foreman
From: Edward Sing
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Alameda City Council Meeting 12/06/2022 - Housing Element Zoning Amendments( ITEM 5V) Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 4:24:13 PM
City Council Members:
I agree with Paul Foreman's comments, below, on the Housing Element Zoning Amendments, specifically this concern:
"I am not suggesting that the shopping centers should be limited to 30 du/acre, but strongly suggest that a reasonable density maximum be provided in order to provide the City with some control over the development of these large sites."
Let's not be in a rush to OVERDEVELOP!
Specifically for Harbor Bay Shopping Center, the neighbor's expectations has been no more than 300 new housing units at this location. Any more than this number would be way out of the character of the neighborhood and introduce infrastructure issues that cannot be addressed by what's there now.
Thank you for your consideration of the above.
Ed Sing
Alameda Resident 25 years
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Marilyn Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Andrew Thomas' <[email protected]>; 'Allen Tai' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 'Yibin Shen' <[email protected]>; 'Celena Chen' <[email protected]>; 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, Council Members Knox-White, Spencer & Daysog:
In my previous emails to you I have concentrated on protecting the residential zoning districts and historical structures and have neglected to study the upzoning of the South Shore, Alameda Landing, and Harbor Bay shopping centers. In the past few days I have learned that the MF Overlay is proposed for amendment to provide for a minimum density of 30 du/acre with no maximum and is being extended to these shopping centers. Thus, the owners of these properties will be allowed unlimited density. This represents a complete abandonment of any real limitation on development of these sites and needs to be seriously reconsidered.
As an example, South Shore (47 acres) is minimally limited by liberal height and bulk requirements and with no minimum parking requirements and the likelihood of major big box tenants eventually leaving you are giving the owner carte blanche to build as many units of whatever size desired. There are 47 acres of land which could house thousands of units as a matter of right .
Even if you believe that thousands of units at these sites would be appropriate, do you really want to abandon any effective standards to govern such development? I am not suggesting that the shopping centers should be limited to 30 du/acre, but strongly suggest that a reasonable density maximum be provided in order to provide the City with some control over the development of these large sites.
Although, placing a density limitation on the MF Overlay conflicts with Program 2 of the Mousing Element, I do not see HCD having a problem with a reasonable density limitation. It does not in any way impact the legitimacy of the unit projections for these sites. In fact, with regard to lower income units it actually enhances those projections because unlimited density eliminates the major incentive for achieving lower income housing in excess of our inclusionary ordinance, as a developer can build as many units as he wishes without a density bonus.
Sincerely,
Paul Foreman
From: Reyla Graber
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; [email protected]; Yibin Shen; Celena Chen; Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fwd: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 2:14:52 PM
Dear Mayor and City Council,
Below is a copy of Paul Foreman's excellent email which he sent to you today about unlimited density at shopping centers.
And I want to voice my concerns about unlimited density at Shopping Centers, and in particular I do object to the prospect of high density at the HB Shopping Center very near where I live.
The zoning amendment as written, clearly states that the HB Center will have"...at least 300 units".
This" at least..." phrase had not come to my attention until very recently. I find this wording objectionable along with
Paul Foreman's conclusion that the all over zoning amendment allows for unlimited density.
The HB shopping Center is adjacent to our beautiful and unique Bay water lagoon.
It may be the only "natural" type lagoon in all of California. Yes, Foster City has lagoons but there is nothing "natural" about them. Foster City lagoons are urban in comparison to our lagoon.
Instead, our HB lagoon harbors all kinds of wildlife including rare migratory birds throughout the year.
And indeed, we have a colony of egrets that have "lived" for many years approx 100 ft from the lagoon and 300 feet from the shopping center. We also have raccoons, skunks, squirrels and the occasional fox or muskrat that is attracted to the "natural" environment surround our lagoon.
If you build "high rise" buildings right along the current shopping Center you will be surely impacting the wild life negatively. And you will also negatively impact the wonderful sense of peace and calm that everyone enjoys when quietly enjoying the walking paths and bicycle paths and observing and enjoying the birdlife and the trees and the relatively fresh air.
Please do not permanently harm the wonderful environment that has existed there for 40 years or so.
If we are going to build some residential units on this property, then build the new buildings along Island Dr. or along MeCartney. That way you get your buildings without destroying the peace and tranquility and harmony of the lagoon and much that is special and meaningful about it. is that likely more expensive for a developer? Yes, but if he or she is the right kind of developer for us, then I think they will agree that moving the buildings away from the lagoon is environmentally the best decision for all.
Sincerely,
Reyla Graber
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
To: 'Gretchen Lipow' <[email protected]>; 'Janet Gibson' <[email protected]>; 'MARK GREENSIDE' <[email protected]>; 'Jay' <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Dorothy Freeman' <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; 'Reyla Graber' <[email protected]> Sent: Tue, Dec 6, 2022 11:17 am
Subject: FW: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers
For your information.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Marilyn Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; Tony Daysog <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Andrew Thomas' <[email protected]>; 'Allen Tai' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]'
<[email protected]>; 'Yibin Shen' <[email protected]>; 'Celena Chen' <[email protected]>; 'City Clerk' <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments- Shopping Centers
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, Council Members Knox-White, Spencer & Daysog:
In my previous emails to you I have concentrated on protecting the residential zoning districts and historical structures and have neglected to study the upzoning of the South Shore, Alameda Landing, and Harbor Bay shopping centers. In the past few days I have learned that the MF Overlay is proposed for amendment to provide for a minimum density of 30 du/acre with no maximum and is being extended to these shopping centers. Thus, the owners of these properties will be allowed unlimited density. This represents a complete abandonment of any real limitation on development of these sites and needs to be seriously reconsidered.
As an example, South Shore (47 acres) is minimally limited by liberal height and bulk requirements and with no minimum parking requirements and the likelihood of major big box tenants eventually leaving you are giving the owner carte blanche to build as many units of whatever size desired. There are 47 acres of land which could house thousands of units as a matter of right .
Even if you believe that thousands of units at these sites would be appropriate, do you really want to abandon any effective standards to govern such development? I am not suggesting that the shopping centers should be limited to 30 du/acre, but strongly suggest that a reasonable density maximum be provided in order to provide the City with some control over the development of these large sites.
Although, placing a density limitation on the MF Overlay conflicts with Program 2 of the Mousing Element, I do not see HCD having a problem with a reasonable density limitation. It does not in any way impact the legitimacy of the unit projections for these sites. In fact, with regard to lower income units it actually enhances those projections because unlimited density eliminates the major incentive for achieving lower income housing in excess of our inclusionary ordinance, as a developer can build as many units as he wishes without a density bonus.
Sincerely,
Paul Foreman
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; Manager Manager; Yibin Shen; Celena Chen; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments-Shopping Centers Date: Tuesday, December 6, 2022 11:12:50 AM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, Council Members Knox-White, Spencer & Daysog:
In my previous emails to you I have concentrated on protecting the residential zoning districts and historical structures and have neglected to study the upzoning of the South Shore, Alameda Landing, and Harbor Bay shopping centers. In the past few days I have learned that the MF Overlay is proposed for amendment to provide for a minimum density of 30 du/acre with no maximum and is being extended to these shopping centers. Thus, the owners of these properties will be allowed unlimited density. This represents a complete abandonment of any real limitation on development of these sites and needs to be seriously reconsidered.
As an example, South Shore (47 acres) is minimally limited by liberal height and bulk requirements and with no minimum parking requirements and the likelihood of major big box tenants eventually leaving you are giving the owner carte blanche to build as many units of whatever size desired. There are 47 acres of land which could house thousands of units as a matter of right .
Even if you believe that thousands of units at these sites would be appropriate, do you really want to abandon any effective standards to govern such development? I am not suggesting that the shopping centers should be limited to 30 du/acre, but strongly suggest that a reasonable density maximum be provided in order to provide the City with some control over the development of these large sites.
Although, placing a density limitation on the MF Overlay conflicts with Program 2 of the Mousing Element, I do not see HCD having a problem with a reasonable density limitation. It does not in any way impact the legitimacy of the unit projections for these sites. In fact, with regard to lower income units it actually enhances those projections because unlimited density eliminates the major incentive for achieving lower income housing in excess of our inclusionary ordinance, as a developer can build as many units as he wishes without a density bonus.
Sincerely,
Paul Foreman
From: Christopher Buckley
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; John Knox White; Trish Spencer Cc: Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; Asheshh Saheba; Teresa Ruiz; Ronald Curtis; Alan Teague; Xiomara Cisneros; Hanson Hom; Diana Ariza; Manager Manager; Lara Weisiger; [email protected]; claire.sullivan- [email protected]; Nancy McPeak; Erin Garcia
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Housing Element Zoning Amendments - -Item 5-V on City Council’s 12-6-22 Agenda Date: Monday, December 5, 2022 11:12:31 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg 2022-12-5HsngElmntZngAmndmntsCtyCncl--AAPS CmntsFnlMerged.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) plans to present the attached comments at the City Council’s 12-6-22 meeting. 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
From: [email protected]
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; Manager Manager; Yibin Shen; Celena Chen; City Clerk Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 5-V Dec. 6, 2022 City Council Agenda-Zoning Amendments Date: Saturday, December 3, 2022 3:54:58 PM
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella, Council Members Knox-White, Spencer & Daysog:
I have written to you personally and on behalf of ACT several times during the course of the drafting of our new Housing Element (HE) expressing strong objections to the upzoning of all of our residential zoning districts. Now you are taking the final step of adopting the zoning ordinance amendments required to implement the same. I will not repeat my objections, but I do need to provide some additional information pertaining to the tenant displacement that will occur if the amendments have their intended effect of producing new rental housing in these districts.
I have previously informed you that our review of the city rental registration records reveals that over 4000 tenants currently reside in these districts. I asserted that the only tenants guaranteed replacement housing were those in the lower income categories (up to 80% of the Alameda County median income). I based my conclusion on HE Program 14. However, after reading Program 14 more closely I must sadly admit error.
HE Program 14 states that it will require replacement housing units for displaced lower income households subject to the requirements of Government Code, Section 65915 (c) (3). However, that section does not require replacement housing, but only prohibits a density bonus if a developer fails to provide affordable housing to replace affordable units demolished. Program 14 identifies no city ordinances, regulations, procedures, or physical sites to provide replacement housing. Thus, I must revise my conclusion. The HE provides no guarantee of replacement housing for displaced tenants in any income category.
I want to illustrate with real world numbers how this lack of guaranteed replacement housing will impact displaced tenants.
Our current Rent Control Ordinance guarantees no support to displaced tenants other than dislocation payments, leaving it to the displaced tenants to fend for themselves in a very tight rental market. The Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission recently reported that there are 14 applications for every East Bay rental vacancy.
https://blog.bayareametro.gov/posts/report-paints-picture-bay-area-rental-market
The relocation payment differs based on various factors. A studio gets you a maximum payment of $7,758, a one bedroom $8,859, and a two bedroom $10,408. (the maximums only apply in limited situations) See: https://www.alamedarentprogram.org/FAQs/Permanent-Relocation-Schedule
In order to get a sense of what these tenants are most likely paying now here is a link to the Gallagher and Lindsey current daily rental list: https://alamedarentals.com/rental-property-list/ You will see that the top rate for a studio is $1900, for a one bedroom, 2350, and a two bedroom, $3000.
Market value rentals at the new Del Monte Project, now known as Alta Star Harbor, are:
studio-$3000, one bedroom, $3500, two bedroom, $3800
State law exempts vacancy rentals and new construction (for 15 years) from rent control. Thus, these innocent tenants will be fully subject to market rate rents. Many will leave Alameda. They will be replaced by new tenants able to pay the higher cost of the new units, thus gentrifying these neighborhoods. This is as perverse an impact of “fair housing” as one could imagine. I do not know how many tenants will suffer this fate, but regardless of how small or large the number, the risk is very real and unconscionable.
I am not so naïve as to believe that a City Council majority will change course and avoid the above result. It is more likely you will accept our Planning Department’s minimalization, if not total disregard of the issue. However, I wanted to put the real life data on the record so that you will be casting your vote with full knowledge of the same.
Sincerely,
Paul Foreman