Recommendation to Consider Providing Direction to City Staff to Draft Charter Amendment Related to Article 26 (Measure A).  (City Council Subcommittee)
Sorry. And we were doing a roll call vote. Would you like to vote? I yes. It's unanimous. Right. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. I love I love a happy ending. Okay. With that, we move on to item six B. Recommendation to consider providing direction to city staff to draft charter amendment related to Article 26. Measure A. So on this one council, I would like you to consider a vote. So Councilmember Odie and I are authored with able assistance from Andrew Thomas, who's just joined us there on the screen. We authored this staff report, which I would like to present with Councilmember Otis assistance and input from Mr. Thomas. But as currently configured, the Council rules, which Council member Goldie and I drafted. But we're going to amend because we didn't anticipate this situation when we're actually presenting a staff report. It still counts against our allocated 9 minutes. Vice-Chair Next, may. I move that we do not count the minutes of the presentation as a part of the 9 minutes to the council. Thank you. We have a motion to have a second. Looks like Councilmember Desai seconded me. We have a role covered. Any discussions? Keep this moving on. Okay. Um. Any discussion? Okay, maybe we have a real cover, please. Council members de sang. Hi. Not quite. Hi. Hi, Bella. I mayor as the Ashcraft. I. That carries by five eyes. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And I'm I'm still going to try to keep this moving along, because I do I am aware of the hour because we've had a lot of important items to discuss. And this item is no less crucial than everything we've discussed tonight. But I'll I'll try to just be my, you know, put my neutral hat on to discuss this. But first of all, I want to thank Councilmember Odie. Um, we always enjoy working together and I think we came up with a pretty good end product and. I also want to thank the others in the community who gave us their input to help us come to the conclusion that you see in the staff report before you. And one of the things I said on a call, I think, with the representatives of the Citizens Task Force, Mr. Paul Foreman and Alameda Architectural Preservation Society, Mr. Chris Buckley, we had a nice zoom call with Andrew Thomas and Councilman Brody and myself. The two gentlemen is that I find that it is more beneficial to talk with people who don't think like me, and we can all sit around and have a great conversation and reinforce the beliefs that we already hold. And there's there's a there's a place for that. But when it comes to items that can be controversial, that can be viewed a lot of different ways, it really makes a lot of sense to reach out and hear from people on the other side. Andrew Thomas Our planning building and transportation director has a longstanding history, probably as long as he's worked in the city working on Measure A or housing related issues, housing and zoning related issues. I first work with them on the planning board many years ago and but we also reached out to a longstanding housing champion and and one of her colleagues for a Thomas and Mr. Doyle Saylor to get their perspective and it just think it informed it informed this this staff report. So as you know there is in our city charter a measure that came to be known as Measure eight, because that was its title back in 1973 as a ballot measure. And there's two parts to item two, to measure A in the in the charter, there's Article 26 and specifically Article 26, one says. And almost precisely that there should be no multi-family housing anywhere in the city of Alameda. And then there is 20 6-3 that goes into a little more detail about what density level would be would be allowed the amount of square feet per unit. And this this is another consideration. So the these are among the charter amendments that a subcommittee came forward and said perhaps the council should take a look at this. So at a recent council meeting, Councilmember Odie and I were tasked with with being this subcommittee. And after many hours of discussion, deliberation, talking with Andrew Thomas, with our city attorney, Mr. Shen, and some drafts and re drafts, we came up with the staff report before you and the recommendation that you see. But I want to pause here and ask my colleague and coauthor Councilmember Odie to to share your thoughts or share your presentation about. The housing crisis. Because I was going to talk about something complimentary if you wanted to talk about the housing crisis. So I will be happy to talk briefly about the housing crisis. Do you want to go first with your issue or. I can let you. Tend to get tired of hearing my voice. Okay. So, um. Housing is a crisis. We have a housing crisis throughout our state. In the Bay Area Council, Vella and I sit on a statewide policy task force for the League of California Cities. In fact, we have a meeting this, this Friday and man, you should see the agenda. Councilmember Vella Well, I think you got it today. Lots of even though the legislature is streamlining the legislation, it's going to consider this term because of the COVID crisis. Housing is considered such a priority and such a crisis that we have a number of housing related bills that are being considered by the legislature this term. So we know that the reason we have a housing crisis that extends from people having to commute long distances to go to work to on the other end of the spectrum , being homeless, unsheltered, living under a freeway overpass in the bushes, even in California, the fifth largest economy in the world. It's it is a matter of supply and demand. And so this is now 20, 20, 47 years after Measure A was enacted by the voters in 1973, where there was a very different landscape and and different considerations and perhaps different values than we have today. So not only do this housing touch on so many different aspects, it it also has to do with our climate action plan. If people are having to commute from farther distances to and, you know, just generating more more fossil using more fossil fuel fuels and generating more greenhouse gases. But so there is there is definitely a housing crisis in our state. We say that the most effective way to address homelessness is not to let it begin in the first place. This council, I'm proud to say, has been very progressive in legislation we've enacted to protect renters, to keep people in their homes. We've I think we've done a fine job, but all of that is a drop in the bucket compared to the root cause of the problem, which is an imbalance in supply and demand. And so this is something that Measure A is attempting to address that, that the modifications that we're proposing are attempting to address. And now, Councilmember Ody, I'm going to turn the floor over to you. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I appreciate you sharing that lens on on this. And I just want to say that a lot of the legwork was done well by Andrew Thomas, but also our colleagues, the vice mayor and Mr. Nieto, as they had put this on the list of potential items and basically quickly to the genesis and I'll talk on the other lens, but I quickly honed in on the the bifurcation because one of the concerns I had was that modifying. 26, dash three or reappearing 26, dash three without people being able to weigh in on what the replacement would look like. I don't think people had enough time to do that. And this bifurcated process, I think, gives us that time. I we did kind of mull around some amendments, but in order to make everybody happy and keep things simple and then not have it weighed down, I think we came to the conclusion to defer that discussion until the community planning session. So we we honed in on the repeal of 2631 and I believe 2632 is kind of kind of with that. But I want to just, you know, share a different lens. And I'm going to tell a couple of stories real briefly on this book that I was made aware of, the color of law, Richard Rothstein, her story, it talks about a builder in 1955 that wanted to build a affordable housing development for Ford workers down in the South Bay. And then when his intent to sell to both black and white people became known, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors rezone the site from residential to industrial. So then he went to Mountain View and found a second plot. Well, those officials said they would never grant him the necessary approvals. Then he found another a third spot near the Ford plant. And then when that is where local officials found that the the development would not be segregated, they adopted a new zoning law, increasing the minimum lot size from 6000 to 8000 square feet, making the project basically unfeasible for working class buyers. And then when he found a fourth site, the seller canceled the option upon learning that the project would be integrated. And then at that point, he gave up. So continuing on, there's another story similar in the South Bay. You know, I didn't know this. Apparently there was a trader mobile factory that relocated from Berkeley down to Milpitas. And then right after they did that, the plant manager announced a change in hiring policy that the company would accept only new workers who live in the vicinity . And they were, because of reasons like I just went through, were almost exclusively white. And his rationale was black workers attempting to commute from the Oakland area were too likely to have car accidents from their long drives, leading to excessive absenteeism. So when that policy was put into place, the African-American workforce dropped from 6% to 6%. So the moral of the story and I'll just quote this because somebody else said something I can I'd rather just read what they say and then try to make it up. The Makita story illustrates the extraordinary creativity that government officials at all levels displayed when they were motivated to prevent the movement of African-Americans into white neighborhoods. It wasn't only the large scale federal programs of public housing and mortgage finance that created de jure segregation. Hundreds, if not thousands, of smaller acts of government contributed. Taken in isolation, we can easily dismiss such devices as aberrations. But when we consider them as a whole, we can see that they were part of a national system by which state and local government supplanted federal efforts to maintain the status of African-Americans as a lower caste with housing segregation, preserving the badges and incidents of slavery. So I think the lens I want to look at this through is we're all talking about institutional racism now. I was not here in 1973. I cannot judge the folks that put this on the ballot that voted for it. And I won't I can't say that they were racist. I can't even say they have racist intent and I never would. I know for a fact that those that support continuing measure A and don't want any changes in my mind in my conversation with them. I don't think they're racist either. But we can't ignore the result of this policy and hundreds of other policies like this that basically created this system of structural racism. And if we're going to start chipping away at it, which I think we need to do more than chip away at it, we need to just blow it up . I think this is this is one of the things we can do. This is a start. So I hope that we can look at these potential changes to measure a from the lens of what we can do as a city council, what we can do as a community to start dismantling the systematic, the systemic racism that has been built into, whether it be our zoning codes or any other codes or our housing policy. And so that that was the lens I wanted to add. So I think between the mayor's lens and this lens and the hard work of Andrew Thomas, those in the community and Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmember de Saag, I think we are ready to take the next step in in doing so. And I think the mayor, we're working with her and I always enjoyed doing some thank you. And as Councilmember O'Day and I said today, we had a quick phone call this afternoon that, you know, we could never have and. Dissipated. And I wish this weren't the backdrop, but the tragic events that unfolded in Minneapolis. But I am always inspired by the words of our former president Barack Obama. And I know I quoted from his his statement after the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, when he said that it falls on all of us, regardless of our race or station, to work together to create a new normal in which the legacy of bigotry and unequal treatment no longer affects, no longer infects our institutions or our hearts. And so I concur with my colleague, Councilmember Ody, that we're not attempting to assign bigoted motives to a previous electorate. But the the impact and outcome of that vote meant that nowhere in the city of Alameda could you build multi-family housing. And it still is a law on the books today. We will hear discussion, I'm sure, about the different work arounds, like the density bonus ordinance, but that also means that at the end of the day, the percentage of affordable housing that we require, a minimum of 15%, up to 25% at Alameda Point is reduced by by market rate housing because that's the bonus state law requires us to give to developers who build at a higher level of density because they can choose to follow the state law. So this, I think, is a time when each one of us needs to say, does this law have a place in 2020 in Alameda, California, that that is just as simple and basic a question that we are asking and saying needs to be answered. And as Councilmember Odie also alluded to, we do feel that there is a time and a place coming up in the next 18 months or so for a full and robust community process to look at what that looks like going forward with density greater than a duplex, which is currently all that's allowed. But now I think I would like to just ask Andrew Thomas, because he has been he is such an encyclopedia of knowledge, but also this conviction he has he has viewed this landscape through his very professional planning lens for decades. And Mr. Thomas, can you just give us your your view of of this item before us tonight? And thank you again for your help. Can you hear me? We sure can. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Ashcraft and Councilman Brody and members of the council. I obviously staff fully supports this committee's recommendation. We think it is time for the voters of Alameda to to really be given the opportunity to answer this question. I mean, do you want your city charter to essentially say, we do not want to build any multi-family housing for people who might who cannot afford to live in single family housing? I mean, it is essentially saying if you can't afford multifamily housing, we don't want you in our community. And like you said, Mayor, we've found many ways to sort of skirt around it. Big projects through state density bonus can find ways around it. It's really the the Alameda property owner, the smaller property owners in Alameda who just because of the way the state law is structured, don't get that benefit. So from just given your the council's affordable housing goals, given your climate action goals, given your transportation goals, our analysis found that this statement in your charter saying there shall be no multi-family housing runs completely contrary to everything that you and the community is trying to accomplish. As you look forward and as you said, this is not about was a good idea in 1973. It's about is it a good idea in 2020, given the challenges that we're facing in 2020 and the challenges that Alameda is going to need to address going forward? So I'm available to answer any questions. I think this is a issue that has been discussed during my eight years here in Alameda. This issue gets discussed by at the planning board and with every single housing project that comes through the system. So I think there's been quite a lot of conversation on the planning boards over the years. Even the planning board that you were on Maryland years ago spent a lot of time and effort talking about this issue and debating what this community should do to try to address it. So I think from staff perspective, we think it's not too soon. We think, you know, we wish we had been doing this ten years ago, but, you know, it's never too late to try to fix a problem. So better now than ever. So we fully support this. The the subcommittee's recommendation. We're here to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Thomas and Councilor Brody. Yeah. Good. Mr. Thomas? Yes. Could you please describe what, at least for all of us, because, you know, we all don't know this stuff like you do. As the mayor said, the practical impacts for A, affordable housing and B, other other neighborhoods of repealing 26, that's one. Yes. And 20 6-1 is in your city charter. So that's the issue tonight. 20 6-1 the multifamily prohibition is also now embedded throughout the city zoning ordinance. So if you put this on the ballot to repeal this from your charter and if the Alameda voters agree to remove it from the city charter, then nothing, nothing changes from a practical perspective until this planning board and the city council start taking actions to amend the zoning code where necessary and in the locations appropriate to allow multifamily housing. From a practical perspective, what is happening today because of state density bonus? If you have a large piece of property in Alameda, you can use state law to get around, measure a through a waiver, and then you get a density bonus. And those are all the issues. And that's the way that big developers in Alameda are able to build multi-family housing, where if you have a parcel of 10,000 square feet or less in Alameda and you might be in a multifamily zoning district, you might be an Alameda property owner with a parcel that's 6000 square feet, 7000 square feet, fairly large. You could be a 5000 square foot lot. And if you want to do anything larger than a duplex, you can't do that in Alameda today. You and there's no way around it. The only way around it is to go to the voters for your project. So I think in a practical sense, the kinds of things that we would want to start looking at as a community if the voters choose to remove this from the from the charter, this statement about multi-family housing being prohibited, well, we would start doing is looking in our looking in our multifamily zoning districts, looking in those areas and allowing people who might have, let's say, a large Victorian as a senior citizen who's whose family has moved on . We see this a lot, elderly Alameda who don't want to leave Alameda. They want to stay in their home and they would like to be able to create a second or third unit within their building so that they can create a unit that they can rent out. And those would be the kinds of zoning amendments that I could see us recommending to the Planning Board for consideration by the City Council. I think the other thing that we're going to see is we're going to see fewer density bonus projects going forward today in Alameda. If you if you are a buyer of a of a relatively large piece of property, over 10,000 square feet, and you want to develop housing on it. And it's on a site that we want housing developed wherever the city has said we want residential housing in these areas like the northern waterfront. Now, I made a point. You you are required. The only way to do multifamily housing today is to use the state density bonus process. So essentially every major project in Alameda up to this date has used the density bonus process as a way to get around the multifamily prohibition. So as a result, we've seen every single project get additional market rate units and the actual percentage of affordable units in the project go down as a result. So I think Measure eight has had this strange effect in Alameda over the last ten years where in an effort to get around the multifamily prohibition, developers are invoking state density bonus so that they can get the waiver from the multifamily prohibition. And then just by default, their projects are getting 20% larger because that comes with the density bonus process. So I think two things will happen. In summary, I think we'll start discussing zoning amendments for areas of Alameda where in the multifamily zoning districts and the mixed use districts, Park Street, Webster Street, where we might want to allow multi-family housing, where we currently prohibit it within the current density standards. And I think we will see a net just without doing anything. We'll start seeing fewer waiver density, bonus waiver requests. Okay. Thank you. It's also finally in the last thing I'll say is it's going to make a big difference in terms of our every eight years we have to work with the state of California to certify our housing element. For 20 years, we were unable to get a housing element certified because of Missouri in 2012, after a rather Herculean effort by the Planning Board and City Council, we got our first housing element certified in 2012 and it was really trying to get the state to understand that we had ways to get around. Measure Hey, this is going to put sort of get Alameda out of the state doghouse in terms of housing policy and then the state legislature is moving further and further in that direction. Now they've just a new set of guidelines. If you are asking for state grant money, you get extra points if you are a pro housing city. And what that means is you don't have discriminatory or restrictive housing policies. You know, it's that's hard for us to do with Measure eight on the books to explain that. So I think it's I think it's going to help the city in the long run, not only meet our local requirements and our local goals, but also compete effectively for state funds, for affordable housing, for open space, for transportation money . Thank you, Mr. Thomson. I was smiling when you were talking about getting extra grant money or the ability to get extra grant money, because it's one of the propositions that this committee that Councilmember Vela and I sit on, I'm actually the vice chair. We have long said to housing, to the legislators, don't give us some of these sticks. Give us some carrots if we're those communities trying to do the the right thing. I mean, I get that you're going to penalize those who don't. But anyway, we're getting a little far afield. So what we want to do right now is take any clarifying questions council has for Mr. Thomas or Mr. Odie and myself. And then I think we have some public speakers. So before we get to our public speakers, any clarifying questions? Council to move to our Councilmember Vela. How much time is needed for the Environmental Impact Review? Mr. Thomas. Do you know where the Environmental Impact Review would be required when you do your zoning amendments? That's the zoning amendments that change what you can do on individual pieces of property. So. And because the zoning is already in place that enforces measure A, the removal of Measure A from the charter does not change the environmental conditions. So as I said earlier, if the voters remove measure from the charter, it doesn't change anything in terms of what anybody can do on the property. The action that changes things that people can do will be the subsequent zoning amendments. And it's not like we're going to all of a sudden say multi-family housing is going to be allowed everywhere in the entire city. We will pick and choose the appropriate places. And it will be that those places and the proposal to allow multifamily in those zones such as Park Street and Webster Street and Alameda Point, that's what will be studied in the environmental review. A typical environmental review for something like that is 6 to 9 months. Thank you. Any further clarifying questions? So let's see. And then, um, uh. Let's see. Anybody any other councilmembers wanted to have any? I think they wanted to ask. Okay. Um. Madam Clerk, do we have some public speakers? I. Yes, we do. I have 15 comments to read into the record. And then if anybody who is on the zoom would like to make a public comment, if they could raise their hand now. It looks like we only have three on the zoom who would like to comment. So we will call those first and everybody. Since there's a total of 18, they'll get 2 minutes each. So it's over seven. All right. Thank you. Okay. So public speakers. Oh, okay. So the first public speaker I'm sorry, I've got the name here. Um, is Grover Wyman Brown. Right. Hello, Mr. Women. Hi, women. Hi. Hi. Thanks for having me. Um, I'm a resident of Alameda and also the communications manager at East Bay Housing Organizations. And we're asking you to place of full repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot. Um, Councilmember Ody, you referenced talking to residents and not, and not believing that people who are opposed to this amendment have a racist bone in their body. But I just want to highlight Ibrahim Kendi's book and point that how you measure something as racist as if the policies or process has a racist impact. And we believe that Article 26 and the ban on multifamily housing does. I submitted an email to each of you going into greater detail about the history of that and the way in which anti-black racism was part of what was happening all across the nation to pull out our social safety. Nets from our. Communities. But in particular, we just want to look that up that this policy is important in creating racial equity and economic equity in our community. And also. That, as. Andrew was referencing, al-Qaeda is very behind in building very low and low income housing relative to its own rent allocation. And so we ask that you put this on the ballot so the voters can do the right thing. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker, David Burton. Okay. Various. Welcome back, Mr. Burton. Thank you, sir. Good evening, Mr. Mayor. Ashcraft and members of the Council. My name is David Burt, now meter resident, 60,001. For seven years I served on the Alameda Planning Board through my planning board experience and being an architect involved in numerous projects in the city. I'm very familiar with Article 26 and its impact on residential development. I'm here to urge you to place on the file ballot amendments striking 20 6-1 and 20 6-3 from the charter. Be bold, simple and clear. There are three least three reasons for taking these actions. Number one, it's inappropriate to codify in a city charter something most appropriately placed in the zoning ordinance. Issues around residential densities grow and change as the city does. Cementing zoning in this charter was wrongheaded. Number two, Alameda in the state of california in the midst of a housing crisis that was decades in the making. Alameda must be part of the solution to this crisis. One of the most effective ways for our community to do this is to strike both articles from the charter and restore the city to the city and ability to adapt to changing times and circumstances with innovative and responsive zoning. Number three, our nation is in the midst of a tremendous turmoil, specifically around the issues of state violence against black citizens. This is part and parcel of a centuries long campaign of enslavement, intimidation and violence by the white community. Alameda has its own shameful history around this subject, including excluding black citizens from living in and owning property in our city through redlining covenants and city laws such as Article 26. Many of the present day supporters of Article 26 don't want to talk about how it is in part, an attempt to keep blacks and other nonwhite citizens from moving to Alameda. This is a terrible stain on our city's history. We must take this chance to strike out from the charter. These articles and ensure that we are a community where everyone belongs. Those opposing any change will claim that we can't proceed without extensive public engagement. I have been engaged in public discussions about this since 2007 13 years, and the discussion has been going on for many more years than that. Enough is enough. Amending the charter. That's your time. Your time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Burton. And our next speaker. Chris Buckley. Mr. Beckley, welcome. Christopher Buckley with the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. I'm going to go over a couple of points in the in the letter that we sent you. We agree with the subcommittee recommendation that, quote, the council discussed delaying asking voters to consider Article 26, Dash three until 2022, unquote. We urge the council to support this delay. The subcommittee's deferral strategy is similar to what APS has been recommending, which is that any revision of Article 26 should be part of a larger, well analyzed planning process to determine what changes, if any, are needed to the city's development rules to meet our overall goals. The current General Plan, Revision and upcoming housing element update appear to be good vehicles for this process. As we previously stated, we would be open to possible modification of Article 20 6-3 as part of this larger planning process. We would also be inclined to not oppose a repeal of Article 20 6-1 as recommended by the subcommittee as part of this planning process. Finally, it's been suggested that the general plan review process will be well along and possibly complete by the November 2020 election. But this observation has the process backwards. A general plan revision and housing element update needs to occur before any ballot measure in order to help define the ballot measure content. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Brickley. And so do we have more in-person speakers, so to speak, or are we going now to a written statement? We are moving on to written. All of the zoom have commented and so I'll be reading for a while here. The first one is Delores Keeler and Floyd Brown, who are Alameda residents in regard to Article 26 six of the City Council's June 2nd meeting agenda, we are once again requesting that the Council defer any further consideration of repeal or modification of Article 26 until after the restrictions related to COVID 19 are reduced sufficiently to allow for in-person attendance at City Council meeting, so to ensure full public participation as concerned homeowners and long standing members of the Alameda Preservation Society. We also continue to request that any consideration of changes to measure a be deferred until it can be part of the city's comprehensive planning process referred to in the subcommittee's report. Next we have. You got it. Elizabeth Tuckwell, Alameda resident Please reschedule discussion of changes to measure a so that concerned citizens can address council in person. Measure. Measure is among the important elements that create the homey atmosphere of Alameda. The pandemic has actually heightened the importance of Measure eight and possible revisions to it. The overall concept of population density is being reconsidered at all levels nationwide, with the emphasis on social distancing. With the announcement of two options by the newly formed subcommittee, including the mayor and councilman. Each option deserves the full consideration that requires imperfect sharing of ideas. Since Governor Newsom has already started to ease the shelter in place, it seems likely that city council meetings might soon again be held at City Hall with social distancing in place . As I'm sure you know, there has been a curfew imposed in the city of Alameda from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m., June 1st and second. There has also been a curfew imposed in Alameda County for the same hours, but not ending until June 5th. The city of Alameda is, of course, subject to a countywide curfew. Such major disruptions as coronavirus and curfews will undoubtedly limit the breadth and depth of discussion regarding the future of measure. M The robust discussion and broad based community input that should proceed any policy action by City Council regarding Measure A will not be possible under present circumstances. Thank you for your consideration. Next we have Karen Lithgow from Alameda. Our Architectural Preservation Society Apse agrees with the City Council's subcommittee recommendation that the Council discuss delaying asking voters to consider Article 2063 until 2022 and urges the Council to support this delay. As noted in the subcommittee report, such deferral will allow the council and the community to have the benefits of having complete community citywide planning and environmental review process to inform their decisions before crafting a ballot measure to amend or repeal Article 26 statutory. The report also notes that the question of Article 20 6-3 is complex. The report's community wide planning and environmental review process appears to refer to the general plan revision that is currently underway and the upcoming housing element update. The subcommittee's deferral strategy is similar to what AARP, the U.S. has been recommending. We continue to believe that any revision of Article 26 should be part of a larger, well analyzed planning process with ample opportunities for public participation of what changes, if any, are needed to the city's development rules to meet Almeida's overall goals and objectives. Therefore, we would open be open to considering modification of Article 26 three as part of this larger planning process. We would also be inclined to not oppose repeal of Article 20 6-1 if a recommendation for repeal as a result of the same planning process. Although the Subcommittee recommends that the repeal of Article 20 6-1 be placed on the November 2020 ballot, we continue to believe that asking the voters to consider repealing Article 20 6-1 this coming November is premature pending completion of the planning process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Next we have Elizabeth Green, alameda, resident madam mayor and council members. I urge you to delay an election on a charter amendment to eliminate article 26 of the city charter. Since we are in the midst of a pandemic, the likes of which we have not seen in 100 years, civil unrest and the most serious economic downturn since the Great Depression. Now is not the time to tinker with the city charter. Article 26 formally measures to move forward with this effort. Oops. Sorry. Lastly, please do move forward with whoever will be seen as cold blooded attempt to sneak legislation through while the public's attention is understandably distracted as this proposed charter amendment could affect Almeida's housing stock for a generation or more. This is too significant an issue to move forward with out considered public attention and open public discussion at city council meeting, which citizens can attend to voice their opinions. Next, we have Maria Perales from Alameda. All of us in Alameda are very concerned about Mayor Ashcraft and councilman, a relentless effort in removing Measure eight Articles 26 one and 2663 from the City Charter. Measure eight stands as the only control we have to control Alameda Density and congestion problems. But Mayor Ashcraft, who served for six years in the planning department, along with current planning director Andrew Thomas, seemed to be addicted to development tax dollars and insists on adding more housing, more completely disregarding population density and its effect on our quality of life. And they do absolutely nothing for infrastructure in their lofty plans to remove the constraints they feel feel by measure a they continue to ignore the old bridges and tunnel with the City Council's 2012 new housing element that approved the construction of over 4500 new units, including multiple and affordable. They're effectively adding close to 15,000 new people to the island without addressing the obvious. Access and egress. It is not about public transit. It is about our safety. Is about traffic congestion and density. It's not about standard state mandates. It's the fact that out of the 36,000 zip codes in the United States, Alameda is 944501 is ranked in the top 1000. In regards to population density, what is the limit? Mayor Alameda is an island and we don't need more people. We need a council that cares about our safety, about our history, about our quality of life. Preserve alameda keep measure m. Next we have pat lamborn, alameda resident Dear Mayor Ashcroft, Vice Mayor Knox White and Councilmembers Odie Vela and De Saag. I am writing to ask that you not take action on revising Article 26 tomorrow night, June 2nd, 2020. The issues are complex and it is just not possible to have a truly dynamic meeting at this time due to both the shelter in place orders and other issues impacting participation. There is multi-family development underway in Alameda and our city has a housing element certified by the state as appropriate to meet our housing needs until 2023. That's the revision of Article 26 is not time sensitive. Article 26 is a complex issue which should be submitted to a comprehensive and transparent general plan revision process with robust public participation rather than rushed on the ballot in November 2020. We should also consider the impact of changes to the economy. I am disturbed by the thousands of square feet of empty office space not temporarily vacant, but permanently vacant in Alameda. We have to find balance once again, once we can evaluate the impact of this epidemic and the economic depression. If eliminating Article 26 contribute contributed to the destruction of older multi-family housing stock. The new developments would not be subject to rent control. You could be making matters worse. Certainly not welcome at a time like this in our country or community. Next we have Gretchen Labonte Alameda resident Tamara as mayor ashcroft and members of the alameda city council. I wish to weigh in on the issue concerning measure eight. If there ever was a time to pause and exercise patience, it is now. Don't we want the public citizens to be part of the discussion we see as part of our public duty to involve the members of our community? Let us be prudent, thoughtful and democratic. Let us wait until the virus and the rebellion outside our door has calmed down so we can engage in civic civil discussions. This matter is too important to rush it to conclusion. Next we have Steve ASID East members of the City Council. It is inappropriate to ask the citizens of Alameda to consider changes to the current development guidelines without presenting them with a thorough review and public discussion of the impact and consequences these changes will have on the existing character of our town, its traffic and the city's ability to provide its current level of public services, emergency response, city staffing, etc.. Consideration of these changes does not have to be completed immediately. Please postpone any decisions on these matters to a time when in-person attendance at council meetings is appropriate. Thank you. Next, we have Laura Thomas from Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Dear Madame Mayor and esteemed Council members, the removal of Article 26 in its entirety from our city charter is long overdue. It may have protected the city's Victorian architecture heritage, architectural heritage, but it also blocked the city from allowing a sensible, flexible and diverse housing stock to be built to house the many different types of people who should have been able to call Alameda home all these years for the last 20 years. Renewed hope housing advocates have spoken against this restriction and its discriminatory effect. Both state and federal housing agencies have agreed with us. It's another one of those seemingly colorblind local laws that instead contributes to the work of institutionalized racism in housing in our community. We believe it is time to be done with it once and for all. Otherwise, calling Alameda a welcoming community or a place where Black Lives Matter is a rank hypocrisy. We believe Alameda INS are ready to acknowledge this reality. Condemn the historical injustice proposed by Article 26 and will support its removal. Please consider putting both Article 20 6-1 and 26 statutory before the voters this November. Next we have Anna Quintal regarding measure a our fear in this rushing to do this now is to stop the citizens of Alameda to properly voice their opinions on this landmark decision. We don't need to rush this, but it seems that you people of the staff and city council are doing this now because of COVID 19 and now all the rioting of cities being torn apart. So no one is paying attention to staff and city council. Well, we are and do not want changes to this measure. It seems you all want as many tricky, tacky box buildings in Alameda as you can. This is charming town and you are all making it ugly. Have you looked at the entrance to the base? I guess not. How much money from developers are you all getting to create this mess with many more houses that we don't need? You seem to forget we are an island and the water table is rising, as you tell us all. Then why, for God's sake? Well, why do you keep building? We have enough traffic for two cities and can't get out of town in a hurry if we had to. Why is it that Andrew Thomas's wife, who works? I don't think we read those type of comments. I am sorry. And then how much money from developers are you all getting anyway? Also, Vela and Oti should have been gone over the city manager fiasco. Why are they still on the council? And I guess since you live in a Victorian you don't really care what anybody builds. Maybe could have a vision. You should all go to Mira Island and see how beautiful it is there because someone took their time to have a plan preserving the history there. Unlike Alameda, please do not let any changes happen to measure it and also do not allow this to be on the ballot in November 2020. Too much rush. Next, we have Patsy Becker. Good evening, Mayor and council members. I am asking you to delay discussion and decision on Article 26 until the election of 2022. During this time of pandemic, the voters can't engage with others in public discourse, and this is too important an issue to exclude the public input. The city has met our state housing element quota until 2023, so there shouldn't be a rush to make such a permanent decision now in our city charter. Thank you. Next is Bridget Evans, Alameda Resident Mayor Ashcraft and City Council. Please postpone an election on a charter amendment to eliminate Article 26 of the City Charter until such time as a full and robust discussion about not only the future of Measure A, but about the future of our island can be openly conducted and a complete course of action can be agreed upon by a majority of residents and voters. This is the wrong time to be addressing this fragment of this issue. Due to the events of the past three months, we are all riding a roller coaster, sitting here, poised at the top of the hill, holding our breaths about to plunge downward. While much of the future is still murky. It is clear that both housing prices and rents are about to take a drastic tumble. Many people will have mortgages that are underwater. Others will not be able to repay back rent, even with the generous six months negotiating period passed by this council. Jobs will not be coming back sooner fully. Many people will be forced to leave the Bay Area, and the fate of the tens of thousands of new units under construction in East Bay is uncertain. Will they be completed? Will they sit empty? Many of the assumptions in January's an evaluation of city charter article measure by city staff either are not or will no longer be valid. The assumption that building large multi-unit buildings such as the beautiful stark properties shown in the evaluation with the per acre equivalents San Antonio Avenue, 68 units per acre will bring . The public transportation that we need is wishful thinking at best. How many historic houses would have to be purchased and demolish their clear heart? Redwood beams consigned to landfills in order to construct a 68 unit apartment building. How high would it be? 50 feet. 80 feet looming over the surrounding neighborhood. How long would the neighbors have to live in the construction zone? Two years after all of that. Would the units be affordable? The evaluation states that the average price of a multifamily unit in Alameda in August 2019 was 742,000 or 30% less than that. Okay. Thank you. The next comment. Yes. Let me get to it here. Okay. And the next one is Zack BOLLING. I'm strongly in favor of putting on the ballot a measure to remove Article 26 from the charter on the November ballot. Article 26 of the charter is in conflict with state law and regional housing objectives. It creates a mess for city staff to improve our general plan and how do we zone to meet our housing and density requirements? Given that conflict, almost none of the additional protections we have currently in place to protect historic homes existed when this amendment was added in 1970 273. But now historic homes are protected. So I believe this charter amendment has far outlasted its usefulness in 2020. We should stop binding city staff in the planning boards so that they can adapt within reasonable limits to come up with real solutions to this housing crisis. All housing policy, as a rule, should only exist in the Alameda Municipal Code and never in the charter. Next, Jonas Coughlin, an Alameda resident. Madam Mayor and council members. I'm a 20 year resident of Alameda and I am a homeowner. I support the council moving forward with asking staff to draft ballot measures to repeal Articles 2061 and 2063. Now is the time. Now is the time because so many of our neighbors have been hit hard with economic uncertainty, and this comes on top of an unprecedented housing crisis. Now is the time. Because we must eliminate racial injustice, and racial injustice cannot be remedied without creating more affordable housing. Now is the time, because there has been plenty of process and we can have plenty more public participation in the coming five months. Now is the time because the Council is not changing the charter tonight. The Council is merely moving the conversation along and opening the door to more public participation. There is nothing more democratic than finally bringing the issue to the voters. And now is the time. Because in November, progressive voters will come to the polls in unprecedented numbers, ready for change and ready to seek justice. So please do the compassionate, forward thinking and just think and move us closer to eliminating the blunt instrument of Article 26. Our architecture and the character of our community will be preserved and enhanced by our zoning laws, our boards and commissions, and our elected officials being held accountable by voters. Finally, COVID 19 is not a reason to postpone. COVID 19 is the reason to act now. Thank you. And then our final speaker is Jim Strelow, Alameda resident. What if you build it and no one comes? The city's policies tend to not be business friendly removing parking, taxing businesses for public transportation, narrowing lanes that can lead to more accidents and injuries. Getting rid of traffic. By the magic year 2035, etc. If the jobs are in Fremont, San Jose, Mountain View, etc., the businesses are not going to move to Alameda. Move the Tesla plan to Alameda. Not going to happen. Move Bank of America headquarters to Alameda. Not going to happen unless you make alameda business friendly when it comes to having housing closer to where businesses are locating treasure. Measure changing measure A in the long run is not going to achieve your desired end goal. And that is the final one. And at this time it is also 1052. So. Oh, okay. Council wants to before moving on, get into a quick vote about whether they want to consider six B, C, D and 9aa were on six. I mean, so CD nine. Okay. So council it is it's almost 11:00. I have a very strong feeling about ending a meeting the same night we began it, but I would entertain a motion to continue this meeting until and I think it also gives this incentive to move things along. And who wants to make a motion to hear the remaining items in council? Really, whether you guys. Like to make that motion, to hear the remaining items 60, 60 and 98. And finish before midnight this evening. Let's hope so. Well, you'd get my support if that were the case. I. I will talk as little as I can. Yes. Yes. I will second that with a commitment to get us out of here by midnight. Okay, so we will stop at 1155. Can we do that? Yeah. Let's. Okay. Okay. So we have a motion, if I'm understanding correctly, to hear the remaining items until and get that all done by 1155. Okay. It's been moved. It's been seconded. Maybe we have a real colloquy. Council member doesn't know next by. I Bodi? Hi. Vella. I may or as the Ashcroft. I that carries by five eyes. Thank you. Okay. And there are no no one else is waiting in the wings to speak. And we have no further public comment. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. All right, then I am going to close public comment and we will move to council deliberation. I just want to clarify for the audience that may have gotten confused by some of the comments. What was in this the staff report and what Councilmember Odie and I are proposing is not that we change the charter to remove anything but that it simply be put to the voters. And so I that's that's all we're saying. That's it's not it's not even within our power as a council. This would have to go to the voters. Okay. So, um, who wants to start? Well, I guess I can start. All right. Council member Desiree. Well, great. Well, thank you very much. Let me begin by saying to the residents, as well as to the and to my colleagues and and city staff, that above all, let's not kid each other, measure a especially 20 6-1 and 20 6-3. Measure A is urban planning by sledgehammer. It's not pretty. It's not city planning by the surgeon's scalpel. But when we look into the history of things, we see why Measure A came about. And we continue to see why the necessity of something like Measure A, as ugly as it might seem, uh, is still needed. We all know that Measure A came about because of an explosion in housing that was planned for what ultimately turned out to be horribly ill. That was one of the key impetuses for a measure for all the residents gathering together. Measure also came about because of a loss of a lot of charming Victorians to, quite frankly, very ugly, ticky tack apartments. It wasn't just a loss of charming Victorians, but it was the utter destruction of those Victorians. So Measure A was that urban planning tool that was basically a sledgehammer that the residents had put together in an effort to take control of their own built environment. And as we think about Measure A and why it's even needed today. Let's let let's let's talk about some things. Let's talk about, for example, diversity. Even with Measure A, the city of Alameda has become an incredible, diverse place, even more so than before Measure A was put into place. I came here to Alameda in 1974 and it's just not a Western phenomenon. But I just know that throughout all of Alameda, we are a heck of a lot more culturally diverse, racially diverse than ever before. And I think some data really we need to talk about. For example, in 1970, African-Americans were 2.6% of the city of Alameda. And then Measure eight came about in 1973. Right. In 1980, African-Americans were 4.2% of Alameda. In 1990, African-Americans were 6.7% of Alameda. In 2000. African-Americans were 6.2% of Alameda. There was a slight drop because of the closure of the base. In 2010, African-Americans were 6.4% of the city of Alameda. And in 2020, African-Americans are estimated to be 7.1% of Alameda. So the amount of African-Americans in all this time with measures that have been in place has increased by 200% over the past 50 years. While the city of Alameda over that same time has grown by 10.6%. Could we have more Latino Americans? Could we have more Asian-Americans? Could we have more African-Americans in Alameda? Sure. But let's put to rest the argument that Measure A somehow has stopped the increase of racial and ethnic minorities, particularly African-Americans. Truth be told, we have more African-Americans in the city of Alameda as a percentage of our population. Then our neighbor across the bay is city of San Francisco, where 6% of the population is African-American. So think about that. Even with Measure A, we have continued to become that great diversity that we are. And I will say that even with Measure A. Remember that we're still building apartments, even with Missouri. Granted, I will be the first one to agree that in building apartments in the measure, we have to do it in a manner that reminds us of a pretzel. But maybe that's the trade off to building an island like Alameda. And even with misery. After 20 years as our planning director had said, the state of California finally certified our housing element. So I would argue that. We should focus on keeping measure a both 20 6-1 and 20 6-3. In an effort to preserve our history. And to build wisely for the future. And I want to end by saying this. It's not a simple thing of just city council tonight putting 20 6-1 or two success story to the ballot this coming November. It's not as simple as that because especially 420 6-1. That was an effort by the people of Alameda. They went about and took the time and made the effort and did the fight to gather the signatures to put 20 6-1 onto the ballot at the people who had subsequently voted for. So I would say if you want to change 26 one or if you want to change 26, that's three. Then by all means, go out and gather the signatures. But I would say it is an abuse of power. For the city council. To then say, well, you know what, we're not going to require the residents to go out and gather signatures to make the to do the same level of effort that that residents did back in back in the days. We're just going to put it on. We know we're going to undo 2061 by putting it onto the onto the ballot. Now, I would say if you want a change, 26, dash one, go gather the signatures. So let me end by saying this. Even with Measure eight, the city of Alameda has become a stronger, more diverse place than ever before. And the data bears that out. Even with measuring, we are right now building apartments. So there's no reason to have to undo measure a and I will grant you that Measure A is is a sledgehammer when it comes to controlling our built environment. I think when you're on an island like Alameda with limited ingress and egress and inadequate street infrastructure, maybe you need a sledgehammer like something like Measure eight. I appreciate all the effort that, you know, we all did. And I think this is a very valuable discussion that the city of Alameda has to engage in. And I know that we have and we will continue to do so in a deliberate, thoughtful manner, representing various perspectives on the measure. So I just want to say thank you for letting me give you my perspective. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember De said Councilmember Odie. I'll be quick, as I said a lot earlier. I mean, it's important to not impugn anyone's motives, you know, and try to keep a cool discourse. But there's two things that kind of disturb me about the last comment. One, it's pretty much impossible to circulate petitions now. I mean, we've heard that from people that want to circulate them on things we agree with or don't agree with. And, you know, preserving heritage is the battle cry of the Confederate flag people. So let's just be careful with their rhetoric. I mean, with COVID, you remember when we had this meeting as a concern the first time because of the short notice, because of the COVID and because of the special meeting. So we we made an endeavor to get this on a regular agenda with a regular notice and a full staff report. And I think we've done that. One other things that I've tried to do during this crisis is try to empathize with others. And I think it's helped. And I appreciate the meetings with Mr. Foreman and Mr. Buckley, and I hope to continue that. And the one thing I got from them is that there's not a lot of trust. So what this proposal does is it allows this council to build that trust. So if we could repeal 2063 tomorrow, we still have to go through a long planning process. So why don't we go through that planning process, establish the trust, come up with something we all agree with, and then we put that to the ballot. And in my ideal world, everyone loves it and then it passes. I do think, though, there's still time. This is just the the the meeting to ask the staff to bring back ballot language. So we're going to have that agenda item to discuss it and then we're going to also have the election. So if anyone has an issue with the policy of repealing 26 one, I'd like to hear those arguments because you still have time to make those. And I appreciate Mr. Thomas's comments about I think there's a fundamental unfairness where someone lives in a Victorian that maybe they purchased after 73 and someone lives in one next door that before 73 they put multiple units in there and that Alameda homeowner can either live in their unit and age in place or generate more revenue or rent it out to somebody else. And like somebody said, these are new units. So I don't know if they will be subject to rent control. And then I think our affordable housing percentage will actually increase if we don't have 26. That's one more thing I'd like to see before the election too. Also, health and gender trust is that we come up with some guidelines as staff goes forward with the with the planning process. I do want to make one last comment. I mean, when I worked for the assembly and we represented Oakland in Alameda and San Leandro, we were always told by people that, you know, stop linking race and poverty. So while I think this had a disparate racial impact, the the intent, I think, was to reduce economic diversity. And because of institutional racism, you know, that that does kind of correlate to race. But, you know, just to say that, you know, all different people have this race or that race, you know, are all poor . I think I think misses the whole picture. What we're missing a lot of is economic diversity. And I think we lost that with with multifamily. And I think we lost that with with the rent crisis. So I have slowly come around to this this recommendation, and I hope that we can do this in a civil and a open and a fair way where we can engender trust and and we don't have divisions because we have way too many divisions right now in this country. And we don't this is a path this recommendation that our subcommittee come up with is a path to minimize those divisions and work together on a common solution that we all can be proud of. Thank you. King. Yeah, I. I don't know if anybody can hear me, but. Can you just dial it in? Welcome to Zoom. Enter your meeting ID followed by LB. Good. I have. Video. Okay. So. So put on the zoo. You could hear her. So people who are attending via the zoo can can could hear you. But unfortunately, the broadcast was completely down because I, I my fingers closed when I hit the timer, I hit and Colin's dead. I'm so sorry. So can I. Can I? Of course we. Anyway, your timer. I hadn't started the timer. Yeah, sorry. Oh, I didn't even notice that. Okay. Apologies, counselor. Novella. I was taking notes if you want me to come back. No, no. In many ways, this makes my point. I just. I want to know what the plan is for. For asking a meaningful community engagement where we can have these conversations. We've had a number of difficulties with technology. We have a number of residents for whom the digital divide is real. Information is not getting to them. They don't know. Madam Mayor, they didn't know about your town hall. I know that if you're on social media and you're following the city of Alameda Web page, you probably know about that. But for many of our community members, they have no idea that we're doing these things on Zoom on these other platforms. I don't think that 20 6-1 is controversial. I think that there's many people across the board on both sides of the issue that don't have a problem with 20 6-1. And I think that where a lot of work needs to be done is on 20 6-3. And I feel very strongly that whatever we do needs to be done above board in a manner that is engaging and welcoming and in a manner that we actually can get information out to people to let them know that this conversation is happening. So I've heard a lot of conversation about, you know, communities of color and doing all these things. You know, a lot of the people that are not do not know about our town halls, do not know about our meetings, do not know about our special meetings, our members of our community that are people of color. And we are not hearing their voices, whatever those voices are, however you feel about the substance of the issue. So it's really I think it's really simple to say we're going to have a process where we do this, this and this. I had asked the question about the timeline. You know, I do think that the environmental impact conversation needs to come up. I want to understand what challenges, legal or otherwise, could happen if we put a ballot at either of these, whether it's one or both on. I think those are decisions that we need to look at. If it's a city sponsored ballot initiative and we're getting legal challenges, I'd like to understand what the cost of defending it is, what the what the legal implications are, what the analysis is. And I also want to understand and make sure that whatever we're putting on there is going to stand up to at least superficial challenges. And that, you know, it's something that we at least tried to get coalition support on. And so that's where I'm coming from. I think having any sort of conversation about charter amendments at special meetings, especially when we had an opportunity to give more notice and especially when we had a robust conversation, I thought, and that we had, you know, your own statements out in there about making sure that we had a lot of transparency and that we set aside we would have a conversation on this if I thought that was going to be the conversation about setting aside meetings to have these robust discussions. And so I appreciate the work of two subcommittees, which is the four of you, but I'm the I'm the one council member that really didn't get to take part in the subcommittee or talk to anybody else. So it's nice that you all got to do that. But I also think that there's, you know, the short turnaround from the last four from that council meeting and again, where we had majority people voting. And if there was any lack of clarity about that vote, I would have hoped that somebody would have come back to us and gotten clarity or, you know, if if we were going to schedule a special meeting that we we got advance notice for that. So I think, you know, I'm I'm also not trusting about what this process is going to look like. I'd like to know what the plan is. When are the meetings going to take place? Who's going to be involved? I know that we involved certain groups. We didn't. And there's lots of different groups in Alameda. How are we reaching out to everybody? How are we informing voters about the process and the decisions? The fact that there is a lack of clarity of what council is even deciding tonight, all of that concerns me and I'd like to know what the process is, because I think when we change our charter. It's important. And right now we're in the middle of the pandemic. Everyone keeps talking about unprecedented times. I think most Americans would be set back on their heels if all of a sudden Congress decided to start contemplating DC statehood. In the midst of all this, we'd say, Yeah, we've been talking about this for a long time, but is now really the time and what's the process for actually considering it? That's an extreme example, but we're talking about changing our charter. You know, I'm a process person and I want to talk about what that process looks like in that timeline. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Vela, Vice Mayor Knox White. Are you ready? Yeah, sure. Um, thank you. And I would like to thank the subcommittee for their work. Um, the color of light. So I have read the books that I've read. I have. I've seen a lot of excerpts of it and whatever else. Thank you for bringing that. Councilmember Ody. You know, tonight I was very appreciative of the comments we received. I also, like our city planner Andrew Thomas, have been engaged in this conversation for about 18 years now and have formed a lot of relationships on both sides of this issue and heard from many of those people. Now, the same people 18 years later, sending us emails. You know, I know that it's it's it seems we shouldn't talk about things people don't want to talk about because of COVID. But in my day job, I am I have been spending the last two and a half months helping move unsheltered people from the streets into shelter . This pandemic is not just it's a public health thing, a public health epidemic, but it is a public health epidemic that has a housing connection. And, you know, I just I can't I can't buy in to the idea that somehow everything is going to be fine for a while and we can just kick the can down the road. It's quite honestly, reading a number of the the letters that we've received say it does seem to suggest that we should just wait until housing is a problem again. Then we should start working on whether there's a solution. We have many of us on this council have been talking about how this specific issue is an issue that needs to be addressed and fixed for for many, many years. We have an opportunity to put it before what could possibly be one of the largest city voting blocks in Alameda history in November 2020. And I can't see anything that would be less anything more transparent than making sure that as many people as possible get to get to weigh in on this issue. We will be choosing presidents. We will be choosing city council members. We will be making many, many very important decisions in these in this election. I you know, I yes, as I believe it was Councilmember Odie mentioned, you know, the recommendation from the subcommittee is one of the four options that came forward with the original proposal. And, you know, actually listening to to him, you know, read from The Color of law this this evening, it struck me that one of the one of the highlights was about the density and the use of density to really impact housing and who could live in certain places. It should not it should not pass the Senate that if we only repealed 26.1 and not 26.3, we are leaving in place the piece of the law that was actually put in place in order to tighten the screws and make it even harder to build housing in Alameda, I would think that it probably is almost more important for us to repeal 26.3 to impact housing in Alameda than it would be for 26.1. You know, I think that I appreciate and have thought a lot and tried to find a way to get myself to kind of, you know, wait and plan, put a plan. But at the end of the day, I don't think any of us so well, I won't speak for anybody else. I'm not willing to support spot zoning in our in our charter. I don't want to have the voters having to change the zoning for the island every two years and quite honestly, an 18 month planning process that it basically says, well, here's the plan. Now we're just going to go over and remove 26.3 because there's a plan that anybody can change at any time, isn't going to isn't going to have moved the issue forward at all. I think that a better planning would be to join most cities in the Bay Area, most cities in the state, and remove the zoning, these kind of the zoning sledgehammer that Councilmember de SAC highlighted from our charter and then engage in the broad public planning process that cities across the state do. So tonight, I would like to see our council consider putting on the ballot to a full repeal of Article 26 items one, two and three. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Excuse me. Vice Mayor Knox White. Um, I want to just, um. I was looking for something in the charter handbook, but as a council handbook, we're going to consider. But let me just address all of you, and I think all of you have have added value to this discussion. What I would like to see is for, if not five votes to move forward and do something that I think is very important and. My preference is to move forward now with removing 20 6-1 because it's hard to imagine that we cannot have agreement with the premise that an outright ban on multi-family housing anywhere in the city of Alameda does not belong in the charter. I don't disagree with the finer grained arguments the vice mayor is making, but I'm also mindful of the points that Councilmember Vela is making about the need for a robust discussion. I don't know that it needs a robust discussion anymore than has been had for almost two decades. Well, probably longer. I've been working at this for two decades, but, um, you know, ever since 1973, do we really need to have an outright ban on multi-family housing pandemic or no pandemic? And I'm with the vice mayor. This pandemic has only pulled aside the curtain to see just how horrendous this situation is. We were tasked by the governor with thinning out the populations of our homeless shelters, and not homeless shelters are homeless encampments, so they would not become breeding grounds for COVID 19. But I want to address some things that my colleagues have said and in maybe circular fashion, because I have to make notes in my margin as they went along. Councilmember Desai We, um, you know, we perceive things that are said and I swallowed hard when you referenced an abuse of power. I don't believe that that's what anyone on this council is attempting to do by suggesting that a law needs to be taken to the voters to simply decide. Um, but if I thought about that a little longer, I might say it's a matter of perception and one person's abuse of power might be another's dereliction of duty. I take my role as the mayor of this city and as the vice chair of a statewide policy committee on Housing, Community and Economic Development very seriously. And I will do everything I can to let the voters, let the residents who live here, many of whom have been seriously impacted by the housing crisis, by the availability, by the affordability, by slipping through the cracks and slipping into sleeping in their car and even into homelessness. So I didn't run for office to just sit in a chair and pass feel good legislation. I ran for office to make a difference and we are finding ourselves at a very pivotal time in history. We could look at this and seize this moment in a lot of different ways. We could say, let's just wait till this all passes and then, you know, we'll take this up again. But I don't know, is is that the response we wanted to have to the travesty that happened in Minneapolis? Do we not all have the power to do something? The analogy about statehood for D.C. in the midst of a pandemic, I, I don't see it that way. Every time I walk by or see people in tents, living in the shadows and families, school children living with their families out of cars. We we can do better people. We can do so much better. And so what? And and the assertion that was made in some of the comments and of course, everyone is welcome to make their comments. And, you know, the argument that this just isn't the time to have this discussion because people just don't have a chance to come out and really share their views with us. These are pretty much the same comments we've heard year after year after year. But to say that this isn't time sensitive, I beg to differ. I think it is. I believe that housing is a human right. And I believe that what the voters did 47 years ago was misguided, whether intentionally or not it has had an impact on our city. And so what I would ask is not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If we want to consider modifications to both 20 6-1 and 20 6-3, I would ask that we bifurcate them and I I'm a that. And of more than a few political campaigns. And I do think that you need to make the message simple and straightforward. But I also think that people I mean, I and I'm out and about in the community, and this is a big deal to people. And but if it's not if everyone feels that this isn't the time, let this just wait. They can tell us that in November. But why would we not give them the opportunity to vote on whether there should be an outright citywide ban on multi-family housing in Alameda? Why would we not give them that opportunity? That the rest of it the you know how it should look, where it should go. I mean, I've talked to Andrew Thomas about I, I we will get to a point where we can have at least socially distanced outside walking tours and what have you. And there there's time in the next 18 months to, to do that discussion of what would it look like to, to take 26 statutory out of the charter altogether? I agree with that. But what would it be replaced with in zoning ordinances? And that is not an overnight process. Those of us who have been on the planning board know I mean, that's that's a process with lots of public input. But right now, I think we have a pivotal issue before us. Does 20 6-1 an outright ban on multi-family housing anywhere in the city that we represent? Does that belong in our city charter? The Constitution of our city? I think the answer is no. With that, I would like to hear a motion to go forward. And again, as I think Councilmember Odie pointed out, what we are presumably doing if we get four votes to do it, is directing staff to come back with us to us with potential ballot language. I would like to hear a proposal for a measure first looking at 20 6-1 and then whatever anyone else wants to wants to propose. Councilmember Odie. I will make that motion. But I do want to point out that I appreciated your your comments. And I don't particularly believe what some of the worst comments that were said about you in public comment are true. But if someone does believe them, the fact that you just gave that speech, I think should give them pause and and know that you are thoughtful and you can consider different ideas. And I just want to let you know. I appreciate that. Thank you for your kind words. Councilmember Etienne. I'll just repeat my mantra for serving in public office. Thick skinned. Sense of humor. Backbone. You need all three. Vice Mayor Knox White. I will. Second Councilmember Otis Motion. Thank you. Any discussion. All right. We've had emotion. We've had a second. We have a roll call. Vote. Councilmember desire. No, not quite. Hi. Yes. Vela. Yes. Mayor, as the Ashcroft. Yes. That carries by for one. Thank you. Okay. Do we have a second motion? I will put one out there, but I'm going to just ask don't second it if we're not going to move forward. Okay. I will I will move that. We give staff direction to remove. I'm going to say actually articles 26.2 and Article 20 6s3, because there's no point in having Article 26 to if there is no. 26 three from the city charter. So do we want it seconded to have some discussion in a motion to be withdrawn or what. It's you're the maker of the motion. I'll remove the motion. That's right. I committed to trying to help get us out of here by 1155. All right, then. Well, then, if I'm hearing no further motions, what we have done is directed staff then to come back to us with ballot language on placing Article 20 6-1 before the people in November of 2020 2020. All right. Thank you all. Councilman Brody. Do we need 26 days to if we repeal 20 6-1? Because I thought too related to one, not two three but I could be like. I'm having brain freeze can remind me what 26 test two is. That was the exact replacement. Housing. Wait, wait, wait. Tony, I wait. Okay. I'm sorry. No, counselor, is Mr. Thomas. Oh, Mr. Thomas. I believe it exempted the housing authority from 20 6-1, but I could have it backwards. In instances of replacement housing. So I'll tell you what. We are directing staff. Are you there, Mr. Thomas? Yes, sir, I am. I am trying to earn. We could hear you. Sorry about that. Commuting problems. Well, I think you were about to say what I was about to say. When when staff comes back, we will we will advise the council on whether 20 6-2 should stay or not. Sitting here today without having a I think it should stay. If you're going to keep 20 6-3. But we will we will analyze that further. And when we come back to the language, give you better advice on that. You've given us plenty of great advice up until now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, colleagues. I appreciate the discussion. I appreciate your votes. Okay. Thank you all. Thank you. All right. We got to keep moving with all deliberate speed. So, Madam Clerk, will you please introduce item 26 Dash? Where are we? I mean, 26 might be talking about it. It could be.