From: Shelby S
To: Manager Manager; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; City Clerk; Tracy Jensen Subject: [EXTERNAL] item 5d 2023-2790 on 2/19/23 Agenda--also for public comment Date: Friday, February 17, 2023 2:53:04 PM
Ms Ott-
I have read your endorsement of the Staff report and recommendation to City Council to approve the addition of another house as a “Fourth Emergency Housing Unit” in the Navy Historic District.
Based on the information in the Staff report, it is almost understandable why you would recommend the motion. However, since you have been involved with Alameda Point for quite a long time, I am surprised that you endorse this project, as you should already be aware of the many issues involved.
This Staff report omits the significant background with this Historic neighborhood and ignores the very real issues with the housing, including substandard conditions, intricacies between the revenues for the Base Reuse v the City as a whole, the Historic character of the neighborhood, and the validity of the zoning and CEQA assertions from the City itself.
As I describe below, and as you should already know, most important to the addition of yet another Unit for this project are: (1) the poor condition and management of the Historic homes, (2) the saturation of the neighborhood, (3) the impact on Base revenues, (4) project costs, and (5) the hasty barrelling forward with this project without proper review.
1. Substandard Conditions in the Big Whites
Every single one of the Big Whites is in substandard, dilapidated condition. In addition, there are many other substantial building code violations. Let us not forget that these are Historic homes that are owned by the City and are supposed to be kept in very good condition.
Let us also not fail to remember that these homes are a revenue source (not a tax-funded City facility) and the City profits over a million dollars per year after costs. Yet none of that profit makes it back into maintenance, which is supposed to be top priority.
The City has chronically refused to address the maintenance needs of these homes, and only recently (and inadequately) began to address the long-known lead hazards. Homes with known lead hazards are categorically “substandard”, yet the City continues to request and receive rent from these homes, despite the fact that it is illegal to do so. Given that the City Manager is the de facto landlord, one would think that the City Manager would make sure the homes do not contain any building code violations, and that substandard condition complaints are immediately resolved.
However, over the years, residents have made many code enforcement complaints about the lead and other issues, but the City has yet to inspect or enforce any reported violations.
To wit, I received an email from a City staffer last October stating that- while they are aware of the complaints- it was not a “priority” [to inspect for violations], and would send an inspector “in due course, depending on work load and priorities”. However, according to California law, substandard complaints are supposed to be inspected “promptly”.
As for the current project’s Big White, it is no exception. By outward appearance alone, it is obvious it continues to be in substandard condition for continuing lead paint hazards from the unfinished lead abatement--Currently, there are patches of exposed lead primer paint on the exterior, and windows continue to generate hazardous lead dust. All you have to do is go look at it to see it.
Therefore, the only excuse for claiming the house is in occupiable condition is either from willful ignorance or intentional obfuscation.
How can this happen you ask? Obviously it is a conflict of interest. These are City-owned properties, and it is the City who is responsible for building code enforcement- thereby allowing them to subvert the very protections that they are charged with enforcing.
So, instead of inspecting and repairing these homes, the City is proposing to put the most vulnerable population in these substandard homes and claim heroics for doing so. In this way, it is much easier for the City to continue to neglect their duty. I guess in that scenario, the plan makes sense.
2. Families being driven out.
Due to the lack of maintenance and the City’s slumlord antics, renters who have lived here for years are leaving. A total of five of the 18 Big Whites are currently vacant—one since June 2021—and have not been put on the market. All continue to suffer from lead hazards. Other issues in common include roof leaks, excessive dampness, extensive mold, and the inability to get major maintenance issues addressed over a number of years. Former renters cite the number one reason for flight is the amount of rent they pay given the poor condition of the housing. And as you know, there is a substantial continuous loss of Base Reuse revenue with each vacant home. And the losses and change in neighborhood characteristics continue.
Regarding the Emergency Housing, the City has made it clear this project is situated here “because they can”. However, each house that is off the market or taken over by shelter project removes about $50,000 annually from the Base Reuse coffers, and further limits the Base to pay for itself. The per-house operating and maintenance costs increase as each house is left unrented. That makes no fiscal sense.
3. Saturation.
It is well-known that the Point has more than its fair-share of supportive housing, that is also compounded by the large homeless population on Main Street directly adjacent to the Historic neighborhood. The first project that was proposed in 2021 in this neighborhood, was problematic, in part, because of the huge increase in program individuals in an already-saturated residential neighborhood.
As for the current project, John Knox-White did a little “Switch-a-roo” right before the Council vote, without allowing any public input, to ADD a fourth Unit “in abeyance” if the first phase was “Successful”. This house was added despite previous assurances to the public that three units would be the limit.
Even worse, the location of the Units currently in use for the shelter project changed from the initial project. With the addition of this fourth house, 3 of the 4 houses are on the same block, with the other also in close proximity. There are only 5 other homes on same block, so the block is intensively oversaturated by the project. Additionally, considering that each of Unit homes are populated by at least 6 people, the shelter population on that block would be equal or greater to the total number of people in the rest of the Big Whites, and is at least double the number of renters on that block alone. Even if on different blocks but in the same neighborhood, the population in those four homes would be greater than or equal to the number of people in the rest of the Big Whites! That is unreasonable.
Along with intentionally keeping vacant homes off the market, the addition of the 4 th Unit
contributes to the suspicion the City wants to drive renters out and “takeover” the neighborhood, even though the Navy EDC requires that the homes be available for ALL Alamedans for rental.
4. Costs
According to Exhibit 3, the City is offering an additional $200,000 to Certa Zein’s residential management contract for “Administrative” costs to operate the 4 homes. However, these homes are ALREADY included in their current residential contract! And there is nothing being performed in at least five of them. There is no rationale for increasing their “Administrative” costs to perform on a contract that already includes these costs. It’s just plain double dipping.
As for the Village of Love, this motion would award at least $30,000 additional per month for their management of one extra house. The economies of scale make this amount outrageous as well.
One wonders who are the true beneficiaries of this project, and who is being exploited.
5. “Success” metrics.
Last, the Staff report claims the project is successful based on nebulous, unsubstantiated metrics and is after only a few months. In addition, the residents have still not been informed or consulted and the information in the staff report does not reflect any direct communication with renters. The renters have been patiently waiting for information.
Basically, the City moved people in in secret and neighbors only discovered these homes were up and running after the fact, and only by word of mouth, despite assurance the City actions would be transparent.
Just as important, and there has been no input from neighbors about the addition of another home to the neighborhood. Therefore, there is insufficient time, evidence, and input to allow adding another Unit to this project.
Summary
The decision to add an additional Unit to the project shows that the City is completely out of touch and totally self-serving. The speed and recklessness of which it is being implemented displays complete indifference to the public at large as well as individuals living within the Emergency Housing Project.
More importantly, the City has exploited the renters in the neighborhod for years, who are living in dilapidated conditions while the City collects rent and reaps profit because the City wont violate themselves. I have been alerting City officials of this fact for years, so plausible deniability is not an option. In fact, it is the City Manager's your fiduciary duty to have followed up on these complaints, yet instead, contrary to municipal and California law, you have failed to do so, because it is “not a priority”.
I have no doubt that neither mine nor any other comments will be given any consideration in the Council votes, as it is obvious this vote is a foregone conclusion. However, I invite you. as the City Manager, to direct City staff to perform code enforcement inspections in all of the houses-maybe by an independent inspector given the conflict of interest.
I look forward to your follow up.
Regards,
Shelby Sheehan
.
--
Shelby
510-435-9263
From: GWYN JOHNSON
To: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Public comment for 2-21-2023 City Council meeting, Item 5D Date: Thursday, February 16, 2023 11:22:32 AM
Please include the following comments for the subject item at the City Council meeting being held on February 21, 2023.
Although I am supportive of the efforts being made by the City to assist currently unhoused residents, Item 5D raises several concerns.
The homes owned by the City at Alameda Point have not received regular maintenance for 25+ years. There are significant maintenance issues in every house. I applaud the use of these homes to provide housing for unhoused individuals/families, but if the homes are not brought up to proper standards the City cannot claim that they are providing quality housing to the unhoused. Most of the homes have windows that lack glazing and significant dry rot in the wooden window frames allowing wind and weather in and making the homes difficult to heat. Most of the homes have persistent mold in at least some rooms due to failed exterior paint and cracked exterior plaster. Although many unhoused people may find having shelter is a better option than not, if we are truly interested in affording them dignity, the quality of the housing matters.
I would be thrilled to hear that the above issues were resolved in the homes being used for shelters. However, those same issues plague the homes with tenants paying the City millions of dollars in rent each year. These issues have been documented by tenants and independent building inspectors with little responsiveness, acknowledgement or efforts to address them on the part of the City.
City staff has stated that none of the conditions impact habitability.
Responsiblities listed in the "Repair Maintenance/Operations Program" portion of the contract have always been a part of contracts between the City and property managers. Some of these responsibilities have never been fulfilled. There has never been regular inspections noting deficiencies and proper corrective action, the buildings have not been maintained to assure the aesthetic appeal and state of repair are maintained, and there is no preventative maintenance and inspection program.
The time has come for the City, as landlord, to ensure contract provisions are actually performed and to commit to maintaining these homes rather than refusing to allocate funds to their maintenance; both for the shelters and the rent paying tenants. To be fair, a written maintenance plan has been promised by City no later than March 16, 2023. This will be the first such plan in 25+ years. It remains to be seen if this is a capital maintenance plan or just a list of what the City has planned regardless of documented maintenance issues impacting habitability.
Finally, at both listening sessions held by the Community Development Department regarding this project, residents of the neighborhood were assured of regular, transparent communication. At both Council meetings addressing this project all Council members and the Mayor agreed that clear communication with residents was essential. At the last listening session, residents were informed that three homes were to be used as shelters. At a later Council meeting, that number was changed to four. At no time was a communication made to residents about this change. The most recent communication, dated January 31, 2023, from City staff to those impacted by this project failed to mention a fourth shelter. It isn't the existence of a fourth shelter that causes frustration on the part of neighborhood residents; it's the complete lack of respect for the neighborhood residents evidenced through communication that is lacking in both timeliness and transparency.
This could be a wonderful project if only someone were more interested in the actual details rather than just claiming a victory. The Alameda Point neighborhood could be a fantastic place if only the landlord was invested in the care of the properties.