Adoption of Resolution Authorizing the Submission of an Application for Senate Bill 2 Funding from the State Department of Housing and Community Development Under the Permanent Local Housing Program (PLHA) and Affirming the City Council’s Adoption of a Five-Year Permanent Local Housing Allocation Plan; and Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications. (Community Development)
Thank you. And then we move to item five G, which is a very important and also timely item. I think it has a lot of potential good news and so for our city. And so that's why I ask that it be pulled. And so that council and the public can just hear some of the things we're doing to address a very real crisis in our city, in our county or state homelessness, housing issues. So, um, we have our community development director Debbie Potter with us who's going to give us a brief overview and of the item and answer any questions. Miss Potter, welcome. Thank you. Are you unmuted, Miss Potter? It's funny. I don't see the microphone icon, but I'm not hearing her. Still not. Hearing. Okay. I think as city attorney, did you hand it? Yes. Yes, I do. If I may ask the city clerk to announce the item, is the public. Take you before the. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Thank you. I need all the help I can get sometime. Thank you. Madam Clerk. Adoption? A resolution ordering the submission of an application for Senate bill. I'm sorry. I'm trying to do two things at once here. We're trying to figure out if Debbie needs to be let in in a different way. You know, I'm happy. Well, you figure that out. I can all introduce the idea. Okay. Sure. So what this is, is we are voting on a resolution to authorize the submission of an application for Senate bill to funding from the State Department of Housing, Community and Economic Development under the Permanent Local Housing Program, and affirming the City Council's adoption of a five year permanent local housing allocation plan. And also to to recommend that we authorize city manager to negotiate and execute related documents. So did I give you enough time to let this putter in? Yes. I can. Yeah. Sorry about that. Now, thank you. But evening, Mayor and members of the Council, I started to say that I actually have the easy part of this presentation, which is to introduce Lisa Fitts from the Housing Authority and. I hope at least it can also be let in by the clerk. She should be here. So. If not, I have her. I have her presentation so. We can find her. She can read. But you can't find her. Okay, we've missed that. So, dear. No, that the whole technology thing can be challenging. But with three devices in front of each one of us, we can do this, right? Sure. And many of you weren't exactly at your equal to the task. Okay. So she's. We found her. She's called in. Okay, sit. Down. There's audio is. Hey, is that you? Ms.. Fitz? Mrs.. Lisa. Is she okay? She just went. It got muted. I'm assuming that's her number. Okay. Would you like me to start while we have time? Yes, I would love that. She just dropped out. Whoever it was. Okay. Please do. Okay. In September of 2017, the California legislature approved the Building Homes and Jobs Act, which is also known as Senate Bill two or SB to and SB two, which is sometimes also referred to as the permanent source of affordable housing funding. Establish a $75 recording fee for real estate documents to set up, as I said, a dedicated fund for affordable housing. The law has been in effect, funds have been coming in at the state level, and we're now on the first round of local jurisdictions receiving their funding. We are slated to receive $3.3 million over the next five years, and that is an estimate because you get an allocation that's based on the number of real estate transactions in your community. But we know for certain that we will be receiving $558,765 this year. Even though we are getting these funds by right, we have to submit an application to the State HCV. It has to be a five year plan for how we propose to spend these funds. And the funds are to be spent on housing for people and households making less than 60% of the area median income, which is a very low income households. So we have put together the plan. We are required to hold the public hearing that's happening this evening and the opportunity for the council and the community to comment on what's being proposed for the expenditure of these funds over the next five years. During that, for the first year, we are proposing that the funds be used to to provide rent relief and housing navigation services. Really, given the pandemic this year, we feel like the focus should really be on some of the more immediate assistance that can be provided. And we feel like it's a nice complement to the day center that will be opening to provide intense housing navigation services to people who who frequent the day center. And then for years two through five, we are recommending that we allocate these funds to actually building affordable housing. And we have referenced three projects, a wellness center on Mackay Avenue, North Housing and the Reshape Project. And the funds can be spent across those three projects as there is project readiness. We're recommending over the next that four year period that 75% of the funds go for housing development, and that 25% of the funds go to a pool fund that the county is setting up across multiple jurisdictions to provide direct rental subsidies. And we feel like this is going to be a great that rental subsidy program could be a great opportunity to subsidize rent for people living in the wellness center because it will serve a large need of formerly homeless and frail seniors. So that is our plan in a nutshell. We are seeking approval this evening at the close of the public hearing of a resolution authorizing us to submit our application to state HCV. So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Potter. And you know what? I have read this. It's just appeared on this screen. So, misfits, if you wanted to our man quick. Do you need to amuse her or she can unmute herself? He has to unmute herself. There you go. Hi, Ms.. Fitz. Welcome. Would you like to add. This is we know you've worked a lot on this important item. Did you want to add anything to to what Ms.. Potter said? I think she summed it up well. Okay. Um, I, um, I, I'm very excited about it. I'll just add that you want to talk about the two goals that are consistent with the alimony to our housing element. To provide housing services and opportunities. To. Support. And I'm looking on the staff report. Anyway, I that's what we've we've probably heard plenty from Ms.. Potter and I just I want the council I think you'll notice that housing providing housing is one of our top priorities and especially for our most vulnerable populations. But I also want the community to know what we're doing. And this these funds are a very important part of it. And we worked really hard to get the legislature to to to even get this all the way up to be signed by the governor. This this bill took a number of tries. But council any clarifying question before we open for public hearing. Okay. I'm not seeing any hands waving at me. So, Madam Clerk, can you take care of that public hearing piece, please? Yes. We have one. Speaker on Zoom. Okay. Welcome. Darla Brown. Hello, Miss Brown. Hello. I don't know if you. Can hear you. We can hear you. I can hear you. Sorry, I was muted. Miss. Miss Brown, welcome. And please, we're. We're delighted to have you. Thank you. Important part of my proposal really hard. Um, we're working on a plan. A proposal to. Build. Like, a Universal Studio. Which is a movie studio. Amusement park at the Adams Point. The B phase. Hello. I'm Miss Brown. Yes. Yes, that's what I wanted to throw it out there. But we're in the. Process. Of getting everything. Ready for the. Proposal and the plan. But I want to throw out that we're. Looking to want to build like Universal Studios, a movie studio and. Amusement park at. This point, which can create over 4000, 4000 jobs. Hello? Hello? Yes, I can hear you. I can hear you. Thank you. Um, just for clarification, Miss Brown, when you say Adam's point, is that Alameda point? Yes. Yes. All right. Thank you. Okay. However, if anything, further. To be lost. Right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. All right. And, madam, quick, were you getting that feedback or was that from the phone call? Yes, we were getting that feedback and we think the live stream might have been playing in the background. Oh. Okay. So any further, um. Public speakers for this hearing. Madam Clerk. No further speakers. All right. Um, so Councilman Brody's hand is up. And to be real quick, I think, as the mayor mentioned, but it took three times for that bill to actually get out of the legislature in the assembly and or into the governor's desk. And, you know, I was proud to work in the assembly when that happened. But I want to just give a shout out to the mayor's efforts, because this was a bill that she champions from the beginning. All three times. And it took that long. So thank you for that. So it's nice to see something that we all believed in. We worked in, we fought for, you know, finally come to fruition. Thank you. It it seemed like such low hanging fruit. I mean, a $75 transaction fee. And it doesn't apply to the sale or purchase of a single family residence. That is your principal residence. So when you think of real estate prices in California, in the hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, $75 of that fee to go toward affordable housing. But the third time was the term. Okay. Are there any further any further comments or does someone want to make a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the resolution. Thank you. And also the recommendation to authorize the city manager. Yes. Okay. All right. And I think I see a second from Councilmember Bella or did you want to speak? Okay. Thank you. All right. And it's been moved by Councilmember Ody, seconded by Councilmember Vela. Any further discussion? Council seeing none. May we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Councilmember Desai, you're muted. We're going to get good at the. A computer as well doing it. Your double. Privilege. Yes. And. Yes. All right. Is that okay for. Call it. Okay. We can go back to him. Knox White. Yes. I Vela. I may or as the Ashcroft. I and Kels. Meredith, do you want to verbally. Yes. Yes. Got it. Thank you. So that item passes unanimously. Thank you, counsel. This is this is really good news for our city. All right. So we I thank you, Mr. Potter and Misfit's. Great work. Okay, so we now move into the regular agenda. And Madam Kirk, will you introduce the first item. Six days adoption of resolution calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, for the submission of a proposed charter amendment to repeal the prohibition against building multi-family housing in Alameda and authorizing city council members to file written arguments for and against the measure. All right. Thank you, Madam Clerk. And we have 24 hour planning, transportation and building. I might not have gotten this in the correct order. Director As a man of many talents, uh, Andrew Thomas, who is going to present this item this evening. Welcome, Mr. Thomas. The floor is yours. Good evening, Mayor Ashcraft, can you hear me? Okay? Excellent. Okay. Yes, fine. Yes. Good evening, Mayor. Vice Mayor Knox, White Councilmembers Oti Vela and Councilmember de Suck. I am Andrew Thomas. I'm the director of Planning Building in the Transportation Department for the city of Alameda tonight. You're having your third public hearing in a series of four public meetings that have occurred this year to discuss a simple land use question. That question is, should the voters of Alameda be given the opportunity to remove or reconsider Article 26 or some part of it from the city charter? This is not a new question. We've been debating the merits of Article 26, often commonly referred to as Measure A for four years here in Alameda. But the events of the last year caused us, I think, all to see these issues in a new, clearer light. The compounding impacts of a pandemic and deep economic disruption have starkly displayed the disproportionate burdens that exist in our society as planners and leaders of local government. We have roles to play in transitioning to a more just inclusive place where everyone can participate and prosper regardless of income, race, color, age, disability, religion or sexual orientation. No issue is more important to be an inclusive just community than the right to housing. No community can claim to be an inclusive community if it prohibits access to housing for certain segments of our community. If we strive to be an inclusive community, then we must identify and eliminate exclusionary policies and regulations that work to bar access to housing for those segments of our community and undermine opportunities for shared prosperity. In January of this year, staff presented its analysis recommendations that Article 26 in its entirety should be removed from the city charter. We found that Article 26 is in direct conflict with state housing laws that require that all cities provide for the housing needs of all income groups. We found it in direct conflict with our own general plan policies supporting a diverse, inclusive community that provides for the needs of all residents, not just those with higher income. And we found that Article 26 continues a legacy of exclusionary zoning that discriminates against families based upon income. In May, the City Council held a public hearing to discuss these issues, and a variety of options were included and discussed, including full repeal, partial repeal, and a variety of modifications to eliminate these conflicts between Article 26 and state law. In June, the Council continued the public debate and focused on one half of Article 26 the multifamily prohibition, with the idea that the second half could be addressed in in two years or at some later date. But tonight, you must decide what you would like to put before the voters. Staff is recommending that the Council give the voters the option to consider both parts of of of both parts of Article 26 and give the voters the chance to amend their charter to avoid conflicts with state law and remove provisions that be exclusionary and discriminatory and contrary to this King's desires to be inclusive and diverse community. Madam Clerk, can we get the power point up? I forgot about that. Yes, sir. Can we go to the second slide? We'll just skip right over that first one. Leaving us in suspense. There we go. Second slide. So let me just explain very quickly why staff is so concerned about Article 26. Article 26 has two parts. Part one says that constructing multi-family housing is prohibited in Alameda. The charter is saying we will only build single family housing. We will not build multifamily apartments on Park Street and Webster Street, nor Alameda Point or anywhere in Alameda. What do we know about multifamily housing? We know it is more affordable than single family housing. We know that seniors living alone, the disabled and those that cannot afford a single family home depend on multi-family housing. If you need this type of housing, housing Article 26 is discriminating against you and excluding you from our community. Part two. 2063 was added in 1990 to reinforce and support Part one. It says We will prohibit all construction of housing with a residential density over 21 units. P.A. The charter is saying we will only build low density housing. What do we know about low density housing? We know it is more expensive than high density housing. We know that buildings in Alameda that are more affordable are the higher density buildings that were built before. Measure A if you need this type of housing, Article 26 is discriminating against you and excluding you from our community. The photo at the top of this slide is a single family home in the Grand Marina development of 21 units per acre. This is the type and density allowed by measuring the ground. The grand marina homes go for over $1,000,000 per home. The building below is a multi-family building with seven units on Clinton. And each residential density is 40 units. P.A. It is not allowed by measure. Why not? They both fit in Alameda. They both look great. So these provisions are not about design or neighborhood quality. Why would we prohibit the more affordable building measure allows us to build seven of the expensive units, but it does not allow us to build seven of the inexpensive units. So it cannot be about traffic either. It can only be about income. What else do we know? We know that Alameda has not met its regional housing need to provide for lower income households since Measure eight was adopted. We know that Alameda has not constructed a single mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and apartments upstairs since the measure was adopted. Despite general planning policies encouraging this kind of development since Measure eight was adopted. Next slide, please. Well. Thank you. At your last meeting, the council discussed the idea of giving the voters the opportunity to remove half of Article 26 the multifamily prohibition, but leave the other half. The higher the higher density prohibition for at least another two years in the city charter. That proposed ballot language has been prepared for you and is provided in your packet. We recommend that you reconsider that decision and instead give the voters the opportunity to repeal all of 26 from their city charter. We recommend this reconsideration because we do not believe that you have two years to wait before Article 26 begins to cause new problems for this community. Since your last meeting, the Bay Area received its next regional housing needs allocation. This news is confirmed beyond a shadow of a doubt. That you will need to adopt a new housing element within the next two years and before you can get back to the voters. Committing the city of Alameda to zoning sites to meet its regional housing need for a lower income, and that zoning will need to provide for 30 units per acre and will need to provide for multi-family housing by right in direct conflict with both sections of Article 26. You will not be able to comply with state law and respect your city charter if you do not deal with both pieces of measure. You'll need to make a decision as a council. So I uphold state law or uphold the city charter. Article 26 Your city charter should not force you to choose between the charter and state law. Your charter should give should guide decision making in conformance with state law. To do otherwise invites trouble. Conflicting regulations lead to unclear policy direction, poor and inconsistent governance, community uncertainty, and ultimately disputes. These disputes lead to costly lawsuits, threats to state grants and tax revenues, and ultimately the possible loss of local land use control to the to the courts and the state legislature. Lastly, I'd like to reassure some members of the community that seem to believe that removal of Measure eight from the charter will result in an absence of regulation that will result in an uncontrolled boom of high density residential development throughout Alameda. They argue that it is necessary to come up with a whole new set of regulations to replace Measure eight before you get rid of Measure. This is a logical thought, but it is a misunderstanding of the current law. All of Nigeria's restrictions have been embedded in our zoning code over the last 40 years. Removing measure from the charter does not remove these provisions from the municipal code. What it does do, however, is it allows the people of Alameda to work with their planning board and city council in the future to selectively and carefully consider how and where and in which zoning districts these provisions should be changed. These future zoning changes cannot happen without fully notice public hearings before the Planning Board and City Council. Removing Article 26 from your charter does not automatically change Alameda. It merely allows the residents of Alameda to plan thoroughly and thoughtfully for a fair, just and inclusive community. So with that, I'm going to conclude my statements and recommendations. Staff is here to answer any questions or help with your deliberations. If you wish to continue and adopt the provision to place just part one of Measure eight before the voters, that language is before you tonight and you can adopt that language tonight if you want to adjust that approach and go with a ballot measure that allows for full repeal or full of Article 26, then we would have to direct us to do so. And I think we can be back at your next meeting with that legislation. So with that, I'll make myself available through answering questions. I think City Attorney's Office is also here to help out if you have legal questions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. That was a good, succinct report. So do we have any clarifying questions from Councilor City Councilmember Velez? Hand up. So let's take our clarifying questions before we hear from. And should we might have a public speaker too on this item? Councilmember Vela Yeah, a few questions. My first question is, Andrea, you're saying that our arena numbers are putting us up against measuring what parcels are going to be impacted by the repeal of measure? To help with our meeting arena numbers? Well, I think we are looking at to meet our next Reno numbers, we are going to need to identify enough land for about 2000 units of lower income house lower income, well enough land zoned properly to accommodate the lower income portion of our arena. Which is it going to be? We estimate around 2000 units. That means that land is going to need to be zoned at 30 units acre at this point, what we're looking at is areas in the northern waterfront and Alameda point, potentially some of the shopping center sites. I think. The shopping center site. Excuse me. With shopping center sites. Well, we haven't done the housing element yet. I mean, we don't even have our final numbers yet. I think South Shore is definitely a possibility. They've already submitted and proposed housing on that site. I think the other folks, the other sites that have asked us about housing possibilities are Marina Village and Harper Bay. But it's okay. I mean, I don't you know, so we have a process that we haven't we haven't decided yet. I, I guess my question is, and I'm thinking about the sites that you just listed. Most of them are west of Park Street. I think you listed one that is not west of Park Street. And we've got, you know, some of the concern that I've heard is, you know, there's only one point of egress west of Park Street, and that's the Webster Tube. Um, I know that. And I'm glad to hear that you said that Harbor Bay is included in one of the sites that you're you're looking at is what is the process going to be for that? So if we repeal measure A, how do we it's one thing to repeal language. It's another thing to put something into practice that allows for this policy, this policy to be implemented in an equitable way throughout Alameda. So how what is that process look like if it's measure is repealed? Well, we've already started that process because we're in the thick of a general plan update and we are preparing for the housing element update, which we're going to have to get started on first thing next year and you will have to adopt that housing element in 2022. So in the land use element of the general plan, which is posted on the city website, we have already identified the areas that we think should be considered to accommodate housing over the next 20 years, not just the next arena, the next 20 years. Arena is an eight year cycle because we're updating the general plan from 2020 to 2040. The sites that we have called out are Alameda Point Northern Waterfront and the shopping centers along both shopping center sites, as well as some opportunities along Park Street and Webster Street. Our main transit corridors, our our our planning process basically anticipates a robust community discussion about that, those ideas, those general locations for the next 20 years for housing growth in Alameda that will then set us up in the spring of 2021. We will get our final numbers. We believe that our arena numbers for the next eight years will be somewhere between 30 504,000 housing units. If there is consensus over the general locations of where a new housing should go through the general plan land use element, we will then with the community and the Planning Board, start getting much more specific about how we're going to accommodate 4000 units in those areas over the next eight years. That will then determine exactly which sites are identified as housing opportunity sites and what residential zoning we are going to place on those sites to meet our regional housing need for the period 2023 to 2030. Does that include that question? Yeah. I mean, I'm I guess I'm a little confused because in the in the to the earlier question, you said Harper Bay would be included. Did you just leave that off the list and. You just. Say. Look, we're. Going to be all over Alameda. Correct? Yeah, you're absolutely. Look, we are. We are. We are. We have been talking about the shopping centers, that sort of a group of sites we really have for that. We're thinking about South Shore, Harbor Bay, Marina Village and Alameda Landing. Frankly, the future of retail, the future of these sites. And this is not just an Alameda. This is nationally with sort of the projects, the the trajectory of retail shopping centers and the need for housing. So those are obvious sites for the city to be looking at. As you and the council know, we have very little to no vacant land in Alameda and we're not going to create any more land and we're not going to annex land from from the county. So we have to work with the land we have. And that land is that is that that is, you know, other than, you know, sort of random small sites around town. The the those two areas, Alameda Point northern waterfront and the shopping centers are the major areas. And unfortunately, because we would like to distribute the new housing throughout the city and not just focus it in one area, unfortunately, the vast majority of the vacant land, of course, is out of Alameda Point. Then secondly, the northern waterfront between Park Street and AMI to point. And then lastly, really Park Street and Webster Street. I mean, there's very little real opportunities on Park City, Webster Street, because the sites are so small, the shopping centers are the only exception. Another question, Andrew, is have there been projects that have gone through before that were impacted or that we would have been able to get more units had an injury not been there? Yeah, absolutely. We have a couple of that. You know, we've been using state density bonus to basically get multifamily housing built in Alameda. So it's a way around major, but it doesn't get it essentially as a bonus on top of the maximum allowed by measure. The best example that I sort of used is the a couple of years ago we approved a project on Webster Street, a very nice little project, three stories. Webster and Taylor. A beautiful little design on that parking lot. Ground floor retail, two stories of residential above. With measuring the maximum density 21 units, S.A. with the density bonus, they got a bonus density on top of that. But at the end of the day, the project's only nine units. The volume of that building is such that in the size of the building is perfect for Webster Street. It's just right. It fits right in. It's three stories, two stories of residential. We measure the volume of the building is such that the units some of the units are two stories, two storey apartments, because, I mean, really, that volume should should accommodate much more than nine units. It's it would be if that building were 15 or 16 units, I am sure it would be built today. But not. And when you mean volume, you mean the same, the same height. Would it included more units? Yeah, exactly. The building would look exactly the same with 15 as it does with nine. You can imagine if you're an investor, a housing investor who does apartments, invest in apartment buildings, mixed use buildings in Oakland and Alameda. And I want to build a building with two storey apartments. Now, your first thought is like that's how many people want to rent a two storey apartment upstairs on Webster Street. It's just a strange. Housing type that is just not very common, but they got to fill a space somehow. Mhm. You know that's a good example. The other one is CBS right across from City Hall. We've had people come in over the years. Oh, I'm interested in buying the tbf site, redeveloping it ground for retail, maybe move CVS on to the ground floor and do housing above, you know, three or four storeys, certainly no higher than the parking garage, you know, can you help me out with this? Tell me what I can do. And we go through the math. That site is one acre. So that means you get 20 units and then you use that to do anything with density bonus. You get another, you know, five or six units, like 25 units. You can't build that project with 25 units. They tell me like they tell me, how do I get around that? How do I get more units? There's there's no way you have to go to the voters if you want more units than that. And they they are very nice about it. They say, well, thank you so much for giving me this information. We will be leaving now. You will not hear from us again because that is not viable. They sort of look at me and there's are parting words are usually like, that's crazy. Like 25 units. You can't build that site with 25 units and they walk out. And so to two. Really quick last question. The other is when we're. Will there be sitting on parcels that are impacted or would allow for. One of the things we're always fighting about is or not fighting about fighting for is the low income housing are there and included in this and included in this repeal is also city owned parcels. Correct. That we could then look for additional uses for that sort of thing? That's true. And I just want to emphasize something that I said at the end there. I just I can't particularly for some of the people in town who are concerned by this repealing measure A sets us up as a community to decide where we want to do higher density. It doesn't mean that all of a sudden the entire city is higher density. What it means is we get to work with the planning board and the community to decide which sites do we want to go higher density. Where is it appropriate? Might be on Park Street, it might be on Webster Street, it might be at Alameda Point, it might be city owned sites. It may not be near some of our historic neighborhoods. It may not be in certain areas. So it's going to be a public process that has to unfold to decide which sites do we want to up sown, how much do we want to upsell them? Where is it appropriate? Where does it meet our needs? It does not mean that the entire city has to be high density housing. State law does not prohibit single family housing. What it prohibits is single family housing covering every inch of your of your city. So it's it's really a public planning process, which every other city in California does. We are just trying to do it under this sort of this this mantle of of of measure A. That, you know, I'm going to I want to jump in here just because I think I have some other council questions. Sorry. Did you finish your line? I just wanted to ask one question, which he was quite touching on, which is just, you know, I think our current housing element and the multifamily overlay, I think, Andrew, you would talk about this. It sets the density at 30 units per acre for the low income in order to comply with state law. And there's a little bit of a rub there about what we're not necessarily in line with that we have to kind of get to that jump. Is that correct? That's right. And then and then so will the repeal of Article 26 allow council? And I think you just mentioned this to set much higher density levels, perhaps accommodating multi-story structures, or are these these other alternatives? And it's through this process. That's absolutely right. And I think what it does is it allows you there are planning board in your council decide where you want to increase density and in what areas. And it's been, you know, it's you're going to have to accommodate your your regional housing needs. So you might decide we would rather accommodate it by raising the density on a few sites a lot or on many sites a little. They both work. But that's the kind of conversation that you can start having with your community. You've muted yourself. Is that over and out? Yeah. Okay. And then Vice Mayor and actually you had your handout. I did brief Andrew. I guess two quick questions. Just because you guys started talking about specific sites and whatever else, but I just wanted to really clarify the removal of a measure. All of it doesn't change anything, correct? Absolutely correct. That our ability to consider changing it beforehand. Okay. That is the question is if we remove measure eight, is our reader number go up because now we can accommodate more housing? No. Okay. So whether we have measure or not, the reading number stays the same. All it does is affect how we can decide to accommodate that, whether we have to spread it out and build a lot more housing throughout the entire city or whether we can build it where we have to. Absolutely correct. Thank you. Other Council. Thanks. Thank you for that. I need all the visual cues I can get other council members clarifying questions before we go to the public. Seeing no hands waving at me. Madam Clerk, how many public speakers do we have? And so far we have. Eight that are speaking on Zoom and then we have 26 to read into the record. Hello. And two more just came in. So I think we're up to 28. 28. Okay. So that means 2 minutes per comment. And then could you all say to the best of your ability, make sure that we're not double, um, messaging because at the last meeting a couple people pointed out that some people both spoke and had sent in messages. So to the extent you can see, you know, the same names, um, just one bite of the apple here. And after hearing from some members of the public who weren't loving that automated voice, we have the wellbeing thing voice of our city clerk and assistant city clerk. I said, if you you know, there's a lot of messages to read so you can go back and forth. But let's take our live speakers first, if you would. Thank you. Yes, the first one is Zack Bowling. Oh. Good evening. Yes. It's the first surprise. All right. Yeah. Mere council. I'm watching a website called Repeal 26 seconds. Educate voters why? We need a full repeal for 26. Just as an aside. But today I'm asking if you can change the proposal on the ballot item to strike all of 26 from the charter. And please don't kneecap us by leaving 26. That's three and 26. That's one and two may look progressive on paper, but it has very little substance. That's why some of the housing folks may be willing to concede to its removal without removing the ridiculous density restrictions. Nothing of significance will change, and we'll continue to. This is systemic racism enabled by the section of our charter. We shouldn't have to depend on state overrides anymore to build housing. We need to take steps to legalize housing for more than just high income earners, and a full repeal is required to do that measure. It was entirely designed to keep lower income people out of Ballymena. Saving Victorians is only a partial side effect of the time. Our call 26 came five years after redlining was ended and 20 years after discriminatory deed restrictions are ruled unconstitutional, adding just yet another way to keep lower income people and people of color out of Alameda . So I'm asking, please do the right thing. Please put a full repeal on the ballot. I believe it can win. I believe young voters will be out in November. I think we can make this work and I think we can count on the voters to make sure that happens. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. BOLLING. Next speaker. Gail Parsons. Possibly Galen Parsons. Just a guess. And that maybe your. Zoom needs to be updated. So if you could update your zoom and then we can promote you back to a panelist to speak again. So you don't miss this. Why? I figured you maybe want to make that little announcement for people. About. Everybody has to be on the most current version of Zoom in order to be able to speak. And if you are not on the most current version of Zoom will get an error message. When we try to promote, you will let you know you need to update and then we can put you back in. Thank you. Okay. All right. Miss Gamble. Hello, City Council people. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I would like to respectfully implore you to instruct city staff to drop draft a ballot language to repeal Article 22nd floor from our city charter. The Bay Area is facing a catastrophic housing shortage for years. This is a fact. Because of this, any attempt to limit housing supply is irresponsible. The cost of living in the Bay Area makes it impossible for those lower income brackets to achieve secure housing. Many of these folks and able to gain footing are essential workers making minimum wage. If you are grateful to essential workers risking their health so that you can feed yourself, it seems absolutely requisite to accrue as much housing as possible, making it more possible for essential workers to live in the communities that they serve. Article 26 limits the amount of housing that can be built. This is immoral. Earlier this evening, Mayor Ashcroft said that providing housing is our top priority. Here you go. I believe that every one of those council has expressed publicly that they believe that Black Lives Matter here is their opportunity to actually act on this as homelessness disproportionately impacts people of color. Doing everything within our power to remedy. Remedy. The housing shortage. The moral imperative. How we can show that black lives actually matter in policy as opposed to signage and social media platitudes. As the community and country has seemingly determined that it is due time to face the systemic racism and white supremacy embedded in our day to day lives. Alamy We're going to hear this call about our elected officials. This decision is in your hands right now. Intent is not relevant. It is time to address the impact of Article 26 on our black and brown neighbors. It has systematically pushed them out of this community for decades. Please stop this trend. It is due time. Article 26 The Racist Stain on History. If you showed up at the rallies organized by a credible youth organizers and are willing to use your power to make these changes, your attendance at those events was merely performance allyship. It's how many white article 26 alt right along with Jackson Park and our shameful racist cannabis ordinance. And do the work required to move towards our city motto that everyone belongs here. Let's make that a actual reality. Time. Thank you. Perfect timing. Thank you. Next speaker. Zamora Cisneros. Welcome. Hello. My name is Sam Neto. Can you hear me? Yes. Just fine. Welcome. Hello. I am resident and I'm excited to hear that the city council is considering a repeal of Article 26. And I just I think it's become clear that, as Andrew said so well, our history shows that prohibition and segregation of multi-family zoning is rooted in discriminatory policies and practices, dating back to redlining with intent to keep people of color from white neighborhoods. And for anyone in the audience that hasn't had a chance to do so, I highly recommend The Color of Law by Professor Richard Rothstein. And I'm not saying that single family homes are racist or bad, but single family zoning comes with a painful history. You can look around at the lack of diversity here and how need to show how this policy has affected our community. I don't mean as a wonderful community and we had an opportunity to open our city. There was room on this island who welcome you neighbors and not just on the west side. We need to be a fully inclusive community throughout Alameda. I just want to underscore what Andrew was saying, that this is zoning, not like a mandate for developers to have a high density building next to single family neighborhood is just getting permission to allow multifamily development. And I also want to underscore there's market forces and we have the discretion review process and we're going to bring that to the planning board. So there's going to be a lot of checks and balances. And I'm going back to the example about the three storey building in Webster. It's it's really too bad that this policy has made project infeasible, not only affordable housing projects, but also naturally affordable housing projects. These are small and multi-family and product types are really important form of our housing solution. So again, we need more flexibility and I just couldn't agree more with staff, the city council members. I have heard some of your comments and Pastor Michael Yoshi that we need to challenge inclusionary. Hey, thank you, Ms.. Cisneros, our next speaker. Suzy Hofstetter. Good evening, Miss Hofstetter. Good evening, City Council. My name is Izzy Hofstetter. I'm not going to repeat the wonderful arguments from the other speakers, but I'd like to speak in strong support of a full repeal of Article 26. And I'd add that I live in a nice 1920 something four plex and we are good neighbors, and everyone in our neighborhood gets along well with the Single-Family residents and the multifamily residents. And there's no reason why housing, like the older stuff that I live in, shouldn't exist throughout Alameda in greater quantities. So I would encourage you to support a full repeal of Article 26, and I'll be out there canvasing and phone banking with other supporters. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker. Josh Guyer. Good evening, Mr. Gardner. Send me yourself. Perfect, Mr. Ken. Great. Well, I am so appreciative of the previous speakers who have laid out in really persuasive detail why Article 26, as enacted by voters of 30 years, at least 30 years ago, is racist, is exclusionary, is is if not by design, then then by by effect is and keeps our keeps people who want to live here. Want to work here. Who do work here. People who want to raise kids here. People who want to age in place here from having the units that they need to be able to do so. We I walk around alameda and it feels really it feels really integrated to me. Like when I walk around Park Street, I see people of all kinds and it feels really good. And yet there's despite only 5% of the population in Alameda is is black. And it doesn't have to be that way. It doesn't have to be that if if if African-Americans want to hang out in Alameda, which I think they should, and as should all kinds of people, they shouldn't have to kind of come in here for like a lark and then, like go back to another place if here is where they want to be. I think we need to make affordable for all different kinds of people because that's the kind of community I want to live in. And so, again, repeal of Article 26 is embarrassing. We can do better. We are better than this. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Guy. Our next speaker. Galen has called in. So we'll go back to Galen Parsons. All right. Welcome his presence. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, council members. And I'm encouraging you. To fully. Repeal Article 26. First, the. Substance of Article 26 rightly belongs with zoning. Ordinances. The error putting it in the charter. Has been attempted to repeat it again in recent years, unsuccessfully. The misplacement. Of Article. 26 is reason enough to fully repeal it. Second, Article 26 puts our city out of compliance with state law and poorly. Positioned thus. To meet our state. Allocation of housing. This noncompliance. Is reason enough to fully. Repeal Article 26. Article 26 protected the Victorians good jobs and we now have a strong preservation and. Design review ordinances that did not. Exist in 1973 or 1990. Article 26 has done its job. Let's send it to a well-deserved retirement. That is reason enough to fully. Repeal the article. And finally, Article. 26 is demonstrably. Racist in its impacts. That is also enough to fully repeal. Article. 26. It is out of place. It puts us out of. Compliance. And it is. Out of step with who we are today. So let's let's. Be the Alameda that we want to be. And fully repeal article 26. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.. Ms.. Parsons. Our next speaker. Terry Johanson. Hello, Mr. Hansen. Justin Mute. Diego. Thank you. Good evening. They are council staff. Um, this is Harry Johansson, and I'm speaking for the Alameda Progressive and would like to begin by thanking Gavin Yoshi for all of his service to our community for all these years and wish him very well. The Alameda Christmas requested the council adopt a full repeal of 26 in its entirety to be included on the November ballot before COVID. The Alameda Press is sponsoring a Saturday vigil at the end of the Vigil Park and Santa Clara. We started the pledge. I will act to work toward the goal of creating a society where we struggle together with love, justice, human dignity and a sustainable world. I challenge myself and those in my community to take with us as we confront the many ways the black lives are diminished and are taken from us. I pledge resistance to state violence against black lives. I will defend the human rights of others. I will serve as an ally to people of all indications, regardless of their immigration status or face. I pledge to cultivate my own strength and resilience to make space for direct action and civil disobedience. I will remain accountable to myself, to my peers to ensure that I always remain true to this pledge. The ultimate applications feel to remain true to our courage. We must not suppose discrimination, which is inherited at age 26. This is the statue of Robert me. And it must be destroyed. And with that inspiration from the Desmond Tutu. If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. All are welcome. Black, white, red, yellow. Rich, poor. Educated and not educated. Male. Female. Gay. Straight. Oh. Oh. Oh. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Henson. Next speaker. Grover. Women Brown. Good evening. That evening. Mayor and council members, thank you for taking my call today. Hi. My name is Grover and I'm a resident of Alameda and also the communications manager at East Bay Housing Organization. And I'm calling in today on behalf of the membership base of MPO, as we're colloquially known, which includes residents of affordable housing, providers of affordable housing, and everyday residents committed to housing justice. We ask that you reconsider your June decision to divide the repeal Article 26 into two parts and put all the sections of Article 26 on the November ballot. Our more than 500 members are committed to ensuring affordable housing opportunities for low income people in the East Bay. Low income East Bay residents are overwhelmingly elders, children, people with disabilities and because of widespread racial inequity, are too often black, brown and new immigrant resident. Leading the repeal of Article 26 and the two separate ballot measures is confusing for voters. It increases the education and campaign costs of both the city of Alameda and supporting organizations to run two separate campaigns. And it is unnecessary. As a member based advocacy organization, we do not provide direct assistance or affordable housing. And yes, every single month the pages on our website that are titled Looking for Housing and Steps to Find Affordable Housing are visited twice as much as all the other pages. People in the East Bay currently wait years for stable, affordable housing that gets community investment. And some of our members were unhoused, living on the streets for years before they were able to move into an affordable unit. Despite our members that provide affordable housing, working hard to prioritize opportunities for currently on house people to come home. Each affordable unit come in a home for someone who needs it. Our region simply does not have the number of affordable homes are needed and Article 26 stands in the way of meeting that. That's time. Thank you for your comments and our next speaker. Tony Grimm. So that Mr. Graham. It's just on mute. Okay. There you go. Good evening, everyone. I'm here to read a statement from the Alameda Justice Alliance, which is the Alameda Justice Alliance is asking you to place a repeal of the full Article 26 of the Alameda City Charter, all sections on the ballot this November. This provision, which has barred the building of a legitimate and much needed form of the housing in Alameda for the last 47 years should have been removed years ago. Instead, it blocked the building of housing that could have allowed hundreds of working class families to remain as they were pushed out by rising rents from the tech boom . Or when 400 mostly poor minority families from the Harbor Island apartments were evicted in 2000 for Article 26. Some people call it has been used as a battering ram against those brave enough to call out these injustices over the decades. It's the notion of homeowners being a superior and privileged class in Alameda, a division that makes a mockery of the city's aspirations to being a decent and welcoming community. As our nation begins to wake up and acknowledge institutional racism in all its forms. We all cannot ignore the discriminatory, discriminatory legacy of Article 26. There's no more room for excuses and selfishness. The young people in our town are asking us for justice, the opportunity to fashion a new future not built on these false divisions. It begins with reconciling our past. It begins as dumping Article 26 in its entirety. The statement is endorsed and signed by the following alliance members. Alameda Progressive Alameda Renters Coalition Renewed Hope Housing Advocates. Alameda Legal Council. Alameda Firefighters Local 689. Teamsters Local 863 and the wing of the United Methodist Church. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we hear Liz Varella. Hello, Miss Varella. Hello, Mayor and Council. Hi, I'm my name is Liz Berlin. I'm Executive Director of Building Futures and we are a homeless domestic violence and housing agency proud to be serving Alameda in the last 20 years . I am in support of a full repeal of Article 26 and on the November ballot. As you know, in our work, we see every day the ravages of those kept out of housing, the effect on their health, their safety, their mental health, education. It's devastating. I must say I agree with Andrew Thomas. This is an historic opportunity to make Alameda a truly a place that all can prosper. And I hope for Alameda and then the folks that we serve that this path that's put on the ballot and it passes. Thank you so much. Thank you, Ms.. Ferrara. Next speaker. Sophia DeWitt. Hello. Reverend, do it right. Hi there, Tony. And council members. As a resident of the city of Alameda, I encourage you I urge you to follow the staff recommendation of Planning Director Thomas and direct city staff to prepare a full repeal of Measure eight, Article 26 and the City Charter, and help us move past the discriminatory legacy of this part of the city charter. You know yourselves how I measure A prevents the city from reaching its arena obligations, how it is at cross-purposes. With the general plan. And with state law, and how it has racially discriminatory impacts and effects. And it's time to repeal this article in its entirety. We urge you to do that to provide more housing opportunities for everyone in Alameda. And if that's put on the ballot, I will be helping to canvass and make phone calls myself, the Alameda City residents . I'm proud of the community and I want Alameda to live up to the values that we prefer. So thank you very much. Thank you. Our next speaker, Cynthia Bonta. And evening respond to. And you just need to unmute. Welcome. Thank you for this opportunity. Good evening, Mayor and City Council members. I support the total repeal of Measure E on the ballot on election day. So we as a city can vote out this exclusionary provision in our city charter. By so doing, we will be dismantling a law resulting in inequity, splitting our community along colored lines. By so doing, we are resolving the critical need for affordable housing throughout Alameda. Probably only in part, but because there is still much work left to do towards that end. But I want to be clear. What we are doing today is cleaning out our city charter of exclusionary provisions that were passed in the guise of something else. The result of Measure A has certainly shown it has failed its various claims, whether it is bulk traffic congestion, well protected Victorian development. So repeal all of measure a mental loss and discriminate on the basis of race and economic class. Need to do this to be consistent. With. Everyone. Belong here. A place of sanctuary. A welcoming. Thank you. Thank you. And our next speaker. Jonas Coughlin. Mr. Coughlin. Welcome. Good evening, Mayor and council members. I'm a 20 year Alameda resident. I'm a homeowner and I'm just one more voter who would like to see a full repeal of the same measure. But Article 26 put on the ballot in November is the right thing to do. And it's also good governance. It's a just thing because of the disparate impact the current charter has on people of color. We need more affordable housing. It's also good governance because Article 26 is a blunt instrument that doesn't belong in the charter. We need the refined, refined tools of zoning ordinances, historic preservation boards and commissions that work, and the full breadth of Sony ordinances to come up with the housing policies that the city wants and needs. We don't need this in the charter. So for those reasons, I urge you to put the full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot in November. Thank you. Thank you. The next speaker. Paul Forman. Mr. Forman. Thank you. Good evening. Mayor Ashcraft and council members. Some of the proponents of fact, all of that I've heard today argue that Article six has a disparate impact on people with lower income. Most even say it's racist. Other commenters today, oh, we do have an affordable housing crisis. But Article 26 is not the culprit. The responsibility for the shortfall lies with past decisions of our city government. Since 1969, state law has required Alameda to identify sufficient parcels for low income development. I learned very early in law school that state law supersedes city law. Therefore, notwithstanding Article 26, Council has had a legal obligation to produce a housing element since 1969, four years prior to the adoption of Article 26, however, council was resisted and there was no strong state enforcement of the law. Thus, Alameda avoided complying with the law until 2012. This was not voluntary or triggered by a legal demand letter directed to them by a renewed hope attorney preceded by a very damaging lawsuit against Pleasanton for violating the same law. Surely city compliance with state law over 40 years earlier would have given us much more of the affordable housing that we now lack. A second factor depressed, depressing, or affordable housing inventory is our inclusionary ordinance, which requires a market rate developer to provide only 8% of his project for low income housing. Article 26 may or may not be a good idea, but it is the aforementioned city policy, not Article 26, that excluded lower income people from living in Alameda from 1969 to point. Thank you, Mr. Foreman. And our next speaker. Rasheed Shabazz. Good evening, Mr. Shabazz. Getty Images. You City Council Mayor George Floyd was born in Houston, a city which has no zoning, and he moved and was killed in Minneapolis City that recently eliminated all of its single family zoning due to the recognized history of racial segregation. The police power of zoning, as has been applied in Alameda, has been a tool for segregation and exclusion since World War One. So a little bit before the city refused to adopt the housing element for those who responded to my presentation of our measure. You know, I've read the source material from a correspondent for CNN today as a number of citations, and it builds on the research of scholars like Dr. Ross Pindell, who calls things like Article 26 Things of exclusion zoning reduces the housing stock for your family and erases reports of the single family detached dwelling and reduces affordability since it excludes low income families and people of color typically. Regardless of the intent article was generic at the time, some of the opponents expressed concerns about measure a damaging effect, and fair housing advocates oppose three legal challenges to the basis of the on the basis of racial exclusion, predating that last one by a renewed hope for in 1980 and in 1989 with the Henderson. And so my opinion and I read these comments about the will of the voters in some of the court findings, or I saw that some people don't want the voters to be able to vote on this one. Just a couple of years ago, they were talking about the will of the voters, as so urge you to support a full repeal and give the citizens of Alameda an opportunity to repeal Article 23. Thank you. Our next speaker. Alexia Rocher. Good evening, Miss Erica. Good evening. Marriage cross and all. My name is Alexia Rocher and I am in support of full repeal of Article 26. As an attorney, I work with folks who are homeless or at risk of homelessness in Oakland. So I'm quite familiar with the housing crisis in the Bay Area. I also read the book, The Color of Blood, that a former commentator mentioned, which I recommend people on this island are surprised when racist acts continue to occur here, such as All Lives Matter, painted on the cars of black families on the East End, or an elderly white couple almost running over people last Friday at a people dying outside the police station while screaming and yelling. And yet, it shouldn't be a surprise, since this island is quite segregated. And this is partially due to a history of redlining and zoning laws such as this. And as the previous speaker just eloquently explained, I'm Brazilian and Venezuelan. And when I first moved to Alameda on the West End, I also thought this was a diverse island. However, when we moved to the east and I realize it is anything but, so I agree with what many have already said and encouraged that you fully repeal Article 26. Thank you. Thank you. And next speaker. That is the end of these Zoom comments. Okay. Reading the public comments into the record and I think there are 24, about 24. Okay. Do you have your cup of tea next to you? Ready? Okay. Okay. First is Pat severe? I am very disturbed that you are even considering a complete repeal of Article 26. Just a month ago you voted 4 to 1 with your individual convictions to just put 2061 on the ballot. Now, it appears you've been influenced to put the whole article on the ballot. This will greatly influence the public's trust in our leadership. Next is Barbara Johnson. Please do not include repeal of Charter City Charter Article 26, Dash three on the November 2020 ballot. Next is Daniel. Miller. I am writing to encourage you to direct staff to draft ballot language, to repeal Article 26 in full from our cities. Charter 26, Dash 126, Dash two and 26, Dash three. Article 26 was designed to prevent black and brown people from living in Alameda, and it's time for this policy to go. Multifamily housing is sorely needed to address housing affordability and meet our arena targets by putting a full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot. You will enable the city to vote our values all at once in a clean, straightforward, cost effective way. If you seek to eliminate racism from our community, then you must start with eliminating racism from our policies and system. This is one small step you can take to show our community that you are wholly committed to making Alameda a truly inclusive, anti-racist city. Next is Bob and Beth Coates. Mayor Ask Questions, Mayor Ashcraft and city council members. It comes to our attention that the council plans to vote on whether or not to place the repeal of Article 26 from the city charter on the November ballot. We consider this an underhanded move during the pandemic when we are confined to our homes and cannot attend the council meeting to voice our opinions in person. We cannot understand the rush and lack of communication to all our meetings on this issue. This is totally irresponsible and underhanded on the council's part. We've been in Alameda since 1979, raised our children here and watched the growth that we have considered too much too fast. With a lack of forethought. Before our housing. Let's concentrate on traffic, infrastructure and our new homeless. If the city has a mandate for affordable housing, address it. Now, with building affordable cookie cutter housing first, we urge you to vote no on placing the repeal of Article 26 on the November ballot. Next is. Dan Dinneen. Countless mayor and council members. You have all received my earlier email tonight. I want you to realize that Article 20 6-3 in our city charter should not be put on the November ballot. Do not reverse your June 2nd, 2020 decision. Our city deserves better consideration and decision than that which was presented by Andrew Thomas. Do what's right and vote no. Next is Markey. Article Subject Article 26. I believe it is highly premature to schedule a repeal of Measure eight, Article 26, on the ballot for the following reasons. One There is plenty of housing for the well-to-do. As can be seen by all the for rent signs around town. What? Two. What is needed is housing for the thousands of people displaced by gentrification, not more gentrified housing. Three. The US is now in a state of flux due to the current economic crash and COVID 19. At the same time, there is a move away from California. Population growth has slowed dramatically and for the last few years, more people are moving out than in a major increase in online shopping, making shopping centers redundant and a move to work from home making office buildings redundant for the least cost effective way to house the relatively poor is new construction. In an article in February 2020, the New York Times found that each unit of low cost housing in the Bay Area averages a cost of 600,000 to build. Further, Allen modest infrastructure is already under strain. There are only four ways on and off the island, and adding more people will push the infrastructure to the breaking point and create massive gridlock during commute hours. Five. If office buildings and big box stores become redundant, it will be simpler and cheaper. Cheaper to make these edifices over in to apartment buildings in Alameda, much of Webster Street is empty and has been for some time. There is a large building at the entrance to the High Street Bridge that has been vacant for years. Redoing these buildings into low cost housing will put much less strain on the infrastructure and not destroy. Alameda Historic Neighborhood. Seven. Theresa How dare Mayor as Ashcroft, Councilmember Knox, White Villa, O.D. and SOG. I strongly oppose Planning Director Andrew Thomas recommendation that you are of diverse. Your decision of June 2nd, 2020, your decision to constrain the repeal of Article 26 to charter Section 2061 on the November ballot should be maintained. Any further modification may be placed on the 2022 ballot and still afford the planning department the time to identify parcels to meet the RINO requirements. Per those requirements, the subsequent rezoning is allowed to take up to three years. The pandemic has permanently changed our lives from how we live and work to how we do business. More and more people are working from home, and those that do commute do not use public transportation for fear of COVID 19 exposure. As a result. Future housing and transportation needs are not yet well understood. As I am sure the Planning Department is well aware, the Planning Department needs to consider this changing landscape and future urban designs to ensure that public safety requirements, housing, businesses and educational needs are met. While the architectural esthetic and small town feel for which Alameda is most beloved is maintained. Today's world is not business as usual. To now reverse and reconsider your decision to place a portion of Article 26 on the ballot will erode public trust in your ability to govern. Those who wish to repeal Article 26 in its entirety claim this to be a racial issue. The passage of Measure in 1973 had no such intention. Painting the measure as a racial issue is in fact a marketing ploy that fanned the flames of hatred and diverse Ziff Davis divisiveness in a town that prides itself on welcoming everyone . Indeed, everyone is welcome here. Strong leadership is needed to get us through this difficult time. Karen Lithgow, Dear Madame Mayor and City Council Members, I urge you to defend. Defer or. The removal or alteration of Article 2063 on the November ballot until after the completion of the upcoming general plan discussions. The density restrictions in this measure are necessary in certain parts of the city to protect the esthetic and livable features of our historic neighborhoods. It was these density restrictions that shielded our irreplaceable vintage homes from the ongoing destructions by greedy developers wanting to get rich with ugly box multi-unit buildings, taking advantage of those seeking affordable homes. I do not trust this current city council with the responsibility of maintaining zoning and tear down restrictions to protect our treasured vintage properties. We need the firewall of Article 26. I understand that the Council equates large developments with the potential for providing affordable housing for a lucky few. But if you were to go out now and survey the offerings among the newly built housing projects, all you'd find is sky high prices for densely packed townhomes. The long awaited site project, for example. Offers up. A half dozen townhomes models to purchase, starting at 1 million. Don't bother asking where the affordable units are. The salespeople don't know. The newly refurbished. And Admiral. Cove Townhomes for rent on the old base start at 4000 a month. No affordable housing over here. So where is the affordable housing now? It's located in the mom and pop owned rentals in our vintage homes. Check out Craigslist and you will see that the 1600 dollars a month rental I have available in my Victorian is one of the most affordable units in town. And yet landlords in Alameda have been vilified as greedy and subjected to the type of restrictions, leading many landlords to permanently remove rental units from their building or sell outright to owner occupants. These more affordable units are shrinking in number as a result of misguided council actions. What disgusts me the most beyond the city's council's inability to provide actual, affordable units in a timely manner. And the time is up on that comment. Thank you for next comment. James Snyder. Uh oh. This is for three people. Sorry. James Snyder, Sharon Snyder and Cynthia Lacroix. To the members of our city council. We, the undersigned, citizens of the Alameda City of Alameda, concur with the below statement and believe allowing this to proceed is an infringement of our rights and have. Our duly. Elected officials to act in good faith. It is clear that Mr. Thomas recommendation is not motivated, motivated by any material change in circumstances since June 2nd. The reversal of your four one June 2nd decision by taking the draconian step of placing full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot at the last minute and in the midst of an attention diverting pandemic, will reverse your earnest attempts to regain public trust. We strongly oppose placing the repeal of the remaining Article 20 6-3 on the ballot. Its repeal would place the entire city included our established, built up neighborhoods and retail commercial districts at risk of high density development. Next is Dan McDonald. Initially, I would like to register my disbelief at the way council have conducted themselves in bringing repeal of Article 26 of the City Charter to the ballot by stealth before the public has a real chance to weigh in. It's dishonest. More the narrative certain repeal proponents use to sell this is spurious and offensive. I'm seeking, of course, of the I'm speaking, of course of the thinly veiled suggestion that the article and by association its proponents disagreements and against visible minorities. In 1970 the percentage of white residents in Alameda was 90.3. In 2019, it was 48.6. If, as some allege, an object of supposedly nefarious Article 26 is to prevent visible minorities from living here, it's failing spectacularly at it. In reality, the purpose of Article 26 is to protect the current character and quality of life. The city in terms of limiting building for density, whatever you malign, which it achieves in this connection, the city staff evaluation of Article 26 and its glowing conclusions punch up zoning, which this repeal invites, have significant flaws. See the Alameda Citizens Task Force. Christian Citizens Task Force critiqued for details. These flaws are serious enough to put the report subjectivity into real doubt. Last, the proposed ballot language describes Section 20 26-1 as the prohibition against multi-family housing precisely nowhere. In 20 6-1 do the words multifamily housing appear. If the purpose is to prepare to pose an impartial question, why not use the actual language of the section you are proposing to repeal? Please review this ill considered rush to gesture that you are doing something. Next is Ed Singh. Thank you for opening the floor to comments on a proposal to place the repeal. Of all of. Article 26 on the November 2020 ballot. In lieu of only Article 20 6-1, which you affirmatively approved at your June 2nd Council meeting. There is no new information that has arisen since your previous vote to warrant placing a full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot. Article 26 has not been an impediment to the development of multifamily housing in Alameda, as state housing requirements partially supersede those in Article 26. History has shown that we have readily met state housing goals, even with Article 26 in place. Article 26 should be viewed as an important check on ensuring smart development in Alameda. Rather than focusing on repeal of Article 26. The City Council should be focusing on how to bring more affordable housing to Alameda. Repeal of Article 26 will only bring more market rate units and only a limited number of affordable housing units. Your focus, rather, should be on a comprehensive development and financial plan to spur developers to build affordable housing communities in Alameda. Thank you for your time. Next is M.D. Hall. Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Council Members Knox White Villa Odeon. Anderson. I am disturbed to be informed that Andrew Thomas is yet again attempting to influence the Council to fully repeal Article 26. I was in attendance for his initial presentation to council as to why Article 26 should be repealed. The presentation was condescending and less than honest. He never once informed audience members about the ability and ease for Alameda to build or create an accessory dwelling units on their property, particularly when they stood up and expressed a wish to be able to build an in-law unit for income or aging parents. Instead, he let people believe you have to repeal Measure A to do that. Now Andrew Thomas is back, citing the release of regional housing needs assessment for 2023 to 2031. Sadly, I have to question his motivation at this point. I would love to see his enthusiasm for accommodating developers put into some transit solutions. We lose the ability to qualify for affordable housing funds because of our low transportation scores. The public transportation at Alameda Point is a disgrace to the 500 formerly homeless living there that don't have reliable, safe transportation to access Alameda County social and medical services, let alone day to day shopping. We have an affordability issue, income disparity and sheer poverty. In Alameda. We have approved and are in the process of building more and more high density, high end luxury housing and only requiring 15% to be affordable. That is the problem here. To do this during these uncertain times of jobs and housing needs and without full community awareness and access to public discourse is irresponsible. Thank you. Next is. Morale. Grant. Dear Mayor and City Council members, it has come to my attention that there is a plan to put forward by the City Council to put the repeal of Measure A up for a vote. I would ask you not to include repeal of City Charter Article 26, Dash three on the November 2020 ballot. There has been a tremendous amount of planned growth within our city, and we have yet to see the full impact that these new units will bring. Many of these new housing units are still in the process of being built, and it will take several years to discover whether or not we have done a good job planning for the transportation and education and infrastructure needs of all of these new residents. I believe very strongly that this is the wrong time to initiate such a vote when our community is still reeling from the impact of the COVID 19 virus. This issue, Article 26, has been a very powerfully divisive topic that will take a great deal of energy to grapple with when and if it is brought up for a vote. I am certain that the issue will not be given its due attention. It if is put if it is put out to a vote. While citizens are struggling with day to day stressors of this pandemic and the race, civil rights issues that are extremely important and should demand our full attention. In addition. Uh oh. It jumped on me. Sorry. Can't possibly say I lost my place. The flood of media attention and messaging that will come out as an inevitable inevitability of the presidential election process will soon take center stage and will drown out real depth of dialog and assessment of the issues that should occur around Article 26. For all of these reasons that I have stated here, I would request that you not include the potential repeal of City Charter Article 26, Dash three on the November ballot. Next is Rob Halford. Dear Mayor Ashcraft Council Members Knox White Vela Odion de SOG. I strongly oppose Planning Director Andrew Thomas's recommendation that you reverse your decision of June 2nd, 2020 to place only the repeal of Charter Section 2061 on the November ballot, and instead place the repeal of all of Article 26 on the ballot. For the reasons outlined a separate cover by the Army to Citizens Task Force. This hints strongly at a disingenuous act that dishonors the public trust. That should be an objective of every public servant. These types of apparent bad faith and end arounds to accomplish one's objective should not be welcome in our city. Please adhere to the good faith agreement that was set forth with the people of Alameda prior to Mr. Thomas's change of heart. Next is David Buck, to whom it may concern. I strongly oppose the efforts of Mayor Ashcroft, Andrew Thomas and Vice Mayor Knox White to force the repeal of Article 26. While some changes may be required to make Article 26 continue to work for our city, a total repeal will destroy the quality of life that we currently enjoying this city. Any politician that supports the repeal is not acting in the best interests of our city and does not deserve to continue to represent the citizens of Alameda. Please work to keep our city unique and do not sell us out. Next is Gretchen Lipp, our dear mayor and council members. While we are all sheltering in place, this is absolutely the wrong time to take up such an important issue as changes to the historic 1976 measure. You must have good reasons for this move, and I think they should be aired in a public meeting. Members of the public would like to engage in this historic discussion as. Well. As keepers of the city. Plain. Flame. It would do you well to uphold the highest standards of political discourse. You need to safeguard the procedure in the most democratic means possible. Please refrain from manipulations and off the grid mechanization. Let Alameda shine an open discourse, encouraging participation of all of its citizens and refrain from stepping into the obscure dark side. Next is Andrea Magellan. Please do not include repeal of City Charter Article 26 on the November 2020 ballot. Next is Maria. Ballito. What is the limit to Almeida's population, according to four members on the City Council? There is no limit. Furthermore, there are many proposals for additional housing, but not one proposal to improve our infrastructure. Who cares if there is even more gridlock? Construction congestion? Not you, obviously. In fact, Andrew Thomas and John Knox White made the claim that more housing we build, the less. Cars. Less energy and less transportation infrastructure Alameda will need. Did they pass basic math in school? It's real simple. More people equals more congestion and a burden on all city services and schools. More new housing units equal more people, more cars equal more traffic and gridlock. It's simple math. Let me remind you all that Article 26 was voted on. Voted in by a majority in 1973. And it was reinforced with 20 6-3, again by a majority in 1991. There's been no outcry by the people of Alameda to repeal it. And we don't need the four of you to change what the thousands of us voted into the city charter. What you're doing is an abuse of power. It's selfish and it's self-serving, especially during a pandemic. You're doing it because it is convenient for you, because you're beholden to the developers and because you're willing to sell Alameda off for tax revenues and state funding. Shame on you. Next is Mike Van Dyne. Mayor Ashcroft's new reason for repeal of Article 26 is to undo systematic racism and achieve racial equality in Alameda. However, it has been uncovered that she intentionally injected race as the reason for Article 26 repeal as a strategic political calculation. Her strategy became a hypocrite when Laura Thomas, the vice president of renewed Hope Housing Advocates in Alameda, publicly stated that she met with Mayor Ashcraft and recommended the use of race to attract voters in the campaign to repeal Article 26. After that meeting, the mayor began to exercise that tactic. See Laura Thomas's June 18th comment in blogging. Bayport, Alameda. So Mayor Ashcroft, do you believe you can hitch your repeal of Article 26 wagon to a real American social problem and gain African-American votes in November? Are you offering any guarantee that any person of color will live in one of these expensive residential units you plan to build? Have you introduced any mechanism to measure and assure parity for people of color? The fact is that these housing developments, which you propose, have absolutely no guarantee of benefiting any particular race. They only benefit those who can afford to pay to increase almeida's African-American homeownership and population percentage. You should focus on reparations in the form of mortgage rate reductions or rent vouchers aimed specifically to the African-American community until balance has been achieved. Now, that would be a real solution in racial inequality in Alameda. The repeal of Article 26 only promotes your hidden agenda of more development. Next is Conchita Perales and she's sent a flier that says Alameda is for sale. That's the point. For more information, contact the Alameda City Council. Available now, thousands of affordable units starting at a million. These exclusive units are not for everyone. Guaranteed gridlock and longer commutes. New high density overlay plans for every neighborhood. Uninspired living box in a box. Architectural design. Unlimited building opportunities across the island. Alameda City Council promises to add thousands of new residents, exacerbate traffic and ignore the need for new access and egress. It's not about social justice. It's about tax revenue and state funding. Stop the city council from selling off Alameda. Vote to keep Article 26 this November. Next is Michael Bock. To whom it may concern what Mayor Ashcroft, Andrew Thomas and Vice Mayor Knox White have in common is having served in the Alameda Planning Department. So you simply see development as essential and you are addicted to the revenue it generates. You want to force the repeal of Article 26 in order to remove it as an obstacle to your development agenda. Please do not pretend you are fighting against social injustice. How can you not be satisfied with the 5000 housing units you have developed in the past five years? That's not enough. You claim you were forced by the state mandates to keep building. However, Alameda is not obligated to follow the state's recommendation. We need to fight against those housing mandates in order to preserve Almeida's quality of life and unique character. The citizens of Alameda regard our island as an asset just the way it is. You apparently do not. Next is Joan Moore. Mayor and council members. I strongly oppose the staff recommendation to place the full repeal of Article 26 on the ballot. When you walk around the beautiful neighborhoods of Alameda, it's always startling when you pass it. The big, ugly box apartment buildings that were built before Article 26 was voted into the city charter. I want to stop for a minute and formally thank the mayor and city council. Of course, I'm not referring to this mayor or this council, but to Mayor Chuck Krieger and the Council of 1973 who helped implement Article 26. It has helped to deter the crushing development of more apartment buildings in Alameda neighborhoods for 50 years, and it also saved our historic buildings from demolition. Those civil servants are remembered for their incredible legacy that they created for their vision. Our current mayor and council members will be forgotten as soon as they leave office and take jobs with the developers they supported. Next is Elizabeth Tuckwell. Thanks to all council members for allowing my comment about item six to be read aloud at this virtual meeting. Please do not fulfill the sneak attack of which you've been accused. The sneak attack is, of course, including all of measure A in a ballot measure seeking its repeal on the November ballot. There has been almost no opportunity for community input into consideration of even a part of measure, a much less all of it. If the City Council does carry through with this sneak attack, at least part of the community will remember, particularly at election time, while working and voting to retain Measure eight and as an inseparable part of that community. Next is John Spangler, Mayor as he Ashcraft and council members city staff Section 26, 1973, Measure. A. Has been a heavy, burdensome and outdated yoke around our collective necks since before Linda and I moved here in 1997. It is unconstitutional, wasteful and terribly imprecise. Planning tool. I might have worked for its passage in 1973 had I been living here at the time, but it had already outlived its usefulness at least 20 years ago. Since Section 26 is unconstitutional, it cannot be enforced and is moot. It is in the interest of good government since it is moot and outdated as a planning tool. It should be removed in its entirety in order to clear the city of Alameda from the threatening cloud of the state, withholding funds for our park, streets and rows . Please place the repeal of the entirety of Section 26 on the ballot so Alameda can move forward in a rational manner. Next is. Robert Farrar. Here is the future of Alameda. Welcome to northern city of Los Angeles. Be prepared to wait in long lines of traffic as you traverse this once great city. Our city council has decided to try and get 20 6-1 220 6-3 repealed on the November ballot. I have said it all along. Please leave the city of Alameda and Bay Farm alone. You can go ahead and build apartments, condos and single family homes all over Alameda Point. The state of California says the city of Alameda has to come up with additional housing or face reduction of state transportation funds. Has the city of Alameda asked the state why it is mandatory for a small island to build so many units when the infrastructure is not up to par? What does the state of California want the city of Alameda to do? Tear down old Victorians and historical buildings to make room for multifamily multi-unit apartments? How do other cities like Piedmont, Woodside, Hillsborough and Atherton comply with mandates to build housing? I'm talking about cities. Do these cities receive exemptions? And if they did, why doesn't our city apply for the same exceptions? I can understand and accept removing 2061 from the charter, but please leave 26 three in the charter. Next is Jay Garfinkel. Good evening, Madame Mayor. Members of the City Council. Various suspicious arguments have been and continue to be put forth forward as justification for repealing Article 26 from the Charter. One such argument presented this evening is the assertion that the number of additional housing units will increase by 200% is neither mathematically no factually correct. On the first point, note that even if and I stress if the number doubles from our current number, it will be an increase of 100%, not 200%. It's just one of those statistical misstatements that people through. Throw out. When attempting to manipulate those around them who are less than well informed. On the second point, note that the Arena Housing Mandatory Committee has neither settled on which factors to use nor how to weigh them. It should also be noted that once this process has been completed, possibly sometime this fall, the air bag executive and other communities committees will have to review it and take comments. As a result of this process, the final numbers will not be published until the end of 2021. Staff is fully aware of these facts, yet he persists in telling anyone who will listen and is naive enough to believe him that the sky is about to fall in Alameda. We should also be aware that even if we are eventually assigned twice, our current allotment staff has already identified land that can be used to satisfy even the most egregious mandate from the state. There is no way Article 26 can interfere with the use of land that staff has already identified as being sustainable and available to meet the state's demand when they eventually are published in 18 months or later. It appears to me that the reason the staff has been pushing to eliminate Article 26 is that he wants to be able to put infill and replacement housing anywhere he chooses in the city. Article 26 denies him this unbridled authority. Repealing Article 26 in its entirety will allow staff to do whatever he pleases without regard to preserving the current family friendly ambiance of our city. Next is Rosalind mcCorvey. We are an island city. We need to be responsible and address the egress egress issue. The tunnel is only egress on the West End unless you add another bridge to leave Alameda. We will have major traffic jams every day, especially in the mornings. Prior to COVID 19, the traffic is horrific in the mornings. I invite city council members and alameda is in favor of repealing article 26 to go out at 7 a.m. in front of the tunnel and see the traffic mess for yourselves. You'll be harming the working people of Alameda that need to go to work on time. Most speakers who want Article 26 repealed are probably not among the workers that have to leave the island to go to work. Andrew Thomas comment that increasingly a density will not increase traffic does not make sense. I recommend that we hire professionals to study the real traffic data and not make this a political issue. There is nothing wrong with building larger units versus numerous smaller units because larger units actually invite more families instead of tiny apartments for single tenants. I cannot imagine a senior wanting to climb a three storey building. Some of the high rise buildings being proposed in the shopping center areas will impact the city. The city has worked with Article 26 for many years and we have created many buildings with reasonable number of stories that conform with the character of our city. We do. Not repeat. And we do not repeal Article 26. The Council needs to protect existing citizens of Alameda and not try to make room for everyone who wants to come to Alameda to live here because it is impossible. Oh, and we have another Zoom speaker who would. Like to comment. Chris Buckley. It was said. Did you come to the end of the written speakers? Sorry, that is not written, master. Masterful job. And much, much lovelier than the mechanical voice. But. Oh, my goodness. I bet your voice is true. Okay, so we have Mr. Buckley. Hello, Mr. Buckley. Hello? Can you hear me? Yes. Good. Thank you. I apologize for coming in this late. I have not yet fully mastered the technology of Zoom, so thank you for hearing me now. You are not alone, Mr. Buckley. I'm with the Allemagne Architectural Preservation Society and actually was going to present the official position, which you've pretty much already heard from others. So I'll try to be brief. We urge you to not proceed with the staff recommendation to place full repeal of Article 26 on the November 2020 ballot, and to stay with your June 2nd decision to proceed with repeal only of sections 26 one and 26 two as set forth on the resolution before you. We had previously recommended deferring placement of any Article 26 changes on the November ballot until after completion of the general plan revisions which have been discussed but council's action proceeding with repeal of just 20 6-1 4th November 2020 . We think is a reasonable strategy to address some of the more immediate concerns regarding Article 26 while deferring consideration of changes of 26 three until completion of the general plan process. And we would like to thank the Mayor and the council members who supported this approach on June 2nd. Regarding the general plan process. We think that some of the strategies the planning director outlined are quite reasonable and we would be inclined to support those kinds of strategies, but we really need to see them on paper and there needs to be an analysis showing the impacts of favorable impacts on housing supply and particularly affordable housing for those strategies and also other strategies. And we think there really needs to be this kind of analysis before we use a different kind of blunt instrument to repeal all of 26 Article 26 before we've done that kind of analysis. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Beckley. And that was that. Yes, we're all right. Okay. With that, I'm going to close public comment. But, Counsel, before I come back to our discussions and deliberation. It's almost 930 and I am going to call a break. It's 922. Can we be back at 935? Sums up at least a couple thumbs up. Okay. Members of the public, thank you for being here. We've we've been here actually since 5:00 when we started our closed session. So I'm going to give this council a break. We'll see you at 935. Thanks, everybody. Needed break. And before we well, as we start our deliberation on this item, I would like to suggest to the Council that we do something we've done a few times lately and suspend our 9 minutes per speaker speaking limit. Just because I think this is a very significant topic and we might need a little more than nine times, but that would take a motion approved by four of the council members. So anybody want to make that motion? I'm happy to move it for you. While I don't expect to use 9 minutes, I'm happy to make a motion. Say thank you. But I don't think I am either, and I think we usually haven't. But it's just kind of nice not to have to run up against that. But that's we have a motion by the vice mayor to have a second. Well, it's nobody wants to second. Okay. We'll keep it at 9 minutes, then I'll seconds, will you? Thank you, Councilmember Desai. Okay. It's been moved and seconded that we allow ourselves more than 9 minutes if necessary. So, Madam Clerk. And any discussion from council. Madame Claire, could we please have a roll call vote? Councilmember Jason. I like. Hi. Odie. Abstain. Bella? No. A mayor as the outcast. Hi. Since that requires four votes, it does not pass. It was 300. Yes, I got that. All right. Well, I am going to start out and take part of my 9 minutes to just say something that I think is important to note. I appreciate everyone's comments on this matter. What I am taken aback by is some of the ad hominem attacks, personal attacks on staff council, where elected officials I'm not saying I endorse it, but we do get harsh things said about us. Mr. Thomas is an absolute professional with long history and experience in this field. If you have the opportunity to read the staff report, he laid out very clearly what was the recommendation coming from the planning board that studied Measure A back in January and January was even before the pandemic. And the other thing that I just feel the need to to address, because I very much support the democratic process and this is what we're going to talk about and decide whether to put an item or two to the voters in November and let the voters decide. Yes. To be accused of being irresponsible, underhanded, doing a stealth attack, disingenuous acts. One of the things I will note and that we should wait until the pandemic is over, until we can meet again in person. One of the things that I've noted is that we actually are getting very impressive public participation right now on the Zoom call. There's 52 participants that's just on Zoom. It was as high as 69 earlier. People are watching on Facebook Live. People are watching online the way they always have. I would say we have well over a hundred observers and participants. You've spoken in person, you've had your statements read, and we've had many more emails and letters come in to the cities. So you may not agree with the proposal, but I would take exception to being called irresponsible, underhanded, etc.. But enough of the niceties now. I just I just felt the need to to say that we did try to run a civil meeting. So who would like to start out with with their discussion or comments? Councilmember Odie. Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I appreciate the comments you just made. I mean, we have we have thick skin. So what I like to do is make a motion and then reserve my comments to the time when we discuss that motion. And my motion would be to direct staff that this council direct our staff to bring back the ballot language for the November 3rd, 2020 ballot for a ballot measure to repeal Article 26 in its entirety. We have had a motion by Councilmember Odie. Is there a second to that motion? I see the vice mayor as handed vice mayor. In the motion. All right. Um, discussion council. Well here. Yes. Councilmember, time to, um. To give our nine minute talk. Yes. Yeah. Since I spoke for all of you, on behalf of the staff, you get to take it away. Yes, Councilmember Desai. Oh, great. Well, thank you. First of all, let me say thank you very much to all the residents who took part tonight. Um, and let me begin from the outset, uh, tonight by addressing what I believe to be one of the major arguments, um, of those wanting to do away with Measure A in its, in its entirety . I wanted to do away with Chapter 26, dash 126, dash to 26, dash three of our city charter. Um, according to them, Measure A is racist. It is a racist tool meant to stifle diversity in Alameda. Meant to keep African-Americans out, especially out of Alameda. But here's the truth. Here's the truth. U.S. Census data shows that. Contrary to the measure, a is racist argument. The African-American population in Alameda had grown immediately prior to the adoption of Measure eight in 1973. The 1970 U.S. Census showed that the African-American population was 2.6% of a total of Alameda, 2.6% of the total in 1970. Jan Measure eight was adopted in 1973. Now if you believe the measure A is racist argument. You'd think that the 1980s U.S. Census would show a decline. Yet in actuality, almeida's African-American population doubled. Two 4.2% of the total, according to the 1980 U.S. Census. The 1990 U.S. Census showed another growth, 6.7% of Alameda. Alan Alito's black population did drop to 6.2% in the year 2000 U.S. Census. Largely because of a military base closure that occurred in the mid 1990s. The most. And then in 2010, almeida's African-American population went up slightly to 6.4%, the most up to date. Census estimate now puts African-Americans at 9.2% of Alameda. So as a percentage of Alameda as population, we have seen a steady progression in the increase in African-Americans in Alameda since 1970. Throughout all the different censuses, all this with Measure eight intact. The U.S. Census data clearly puts to rest the argument that Measure A is a racist tool meant to stifle diversity. Meant to keep African-Americans out of Alameda. But what is interesting is that even as Alameda is back, black population has grown in sheer numbers. And as a percentage of the total, African-Americans have experienced alarming declines, declines in nearby Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. Between 1970 and 2018, Oakland lost 10,500 African-Americans. They went from 35% of the population to 27% today. Berkeley lost 15,200 between 1970 and 2018, going from 24% of Berkeley's total in 1970 to 10% today. San Francisco lost 38,400 African-Americans between 1970 and today, going from 13% black to 7% black today. So when it comes to attracting and retaining and let me repeat that, attracting and retaining African-Americans, Alameda has performed better than Oakland, San Francisco and Berkeley. Let that sink in. U.S. data shows that during the measure eight era, Alameda has had a better record in retaining and attracting African-Americans as residents better than Berkeley, Oakland and San Francisco. We are a stronger, better, more diverse Alameda than ever before, even with Measure A. I know this because I grew up here since 1974 and our town has changed dramatically in terms of its race and culture. Can we do more to attract Latino Americans, Asian-Americans, African-Americans, of course. But let's put to rest the tired and false argument that measure is racist tool meant to keep out African-Americans from a millimeter. But let's not kid ourselves either. Measure A is urban planning by sledgehammer. Measure eight is not a fine tool of precision, like a scalpel in the hands of a surgeon. But when you look at its history, you see why this urban planning sledgehammer was needed and is still needed. Measure A came about in 1973 because of the planned explosion in housing on what ultimately became Harbor Bay. It also came about because, as others had said, the loss of of Victorian homes, Measure A was and continued to be that sledgehammer that kept runaway growth in check because an island we were an island, an island like Alameda with limited ingress and ingress and egress needs to be especially thoughtful as to how we plan our future. I mean, come on. If you remove measure, eh? You're going to tell me developers are going to self-police themselves and not. Pursue runaway growth at your expense. Right now. Developers are salivating at the prospects of even more housing at Alameda Point because of the forthcoming state mandate numbers that you heard about earlier this morning, this after the evening. Developers are also eyeing the East End, looking at South Shore Shopping Center, as well as Harbor Bay's shopping center. My fellow residents. It is measure A that provides you. The Alameda resident, our planning board and the city council. It is Measure A that provides that extra special protection that forces wise, thoughtful, well moderated growth. Do away with Measure Ray and it's down the path of runaway growth. So let me end by saying this. Even with Measure A, we have met and we will continue to meet state mandates. The state even recently certified our housing element. Of course, we're up for another one. Even with Measure A, we are actually building apartments. I mean, please drive down to a. Point and you. Will see apartments. Or drive. To. Sherman and Vista. And you will see apartments there. You will see in parts of Alameda new apartments that measure a supposedly stopped. But they were built and they were built out of a strategic necessity. The strategic necessity. Our City Hall legal experts figured out a way to keep measure rate intact while meeting state law. Finally, let me say, even with Measure A, our city has become more diverse than ever before as we are attracting and retaining African-Americans at rates far better than Oakland, San Francisco and Berkeley. So if nothing else tonight, please do not believe the line. That measure is a racist tool because U.S. Census data spanning 50 years says otherwise. With Measure Missouri, we can. Continue. To racially diversify and support thoughtful, well-planned, well modulated growth that an island like Alameda. Can support. Thank you, Mary. As we have, Chris, I think this was a great, valuable discussion that we had tonight and we look forward to November 2020. Thank you. Councilmember Jason Account Sirota, your hand is up next. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And I'll say at the outset, I will try to speak quickly. So if I have well, whatever I have left, I will give you everything except one minute if you need it. So I want to thank everyone for for coming and speaking on this today. I'm not going to take a lot of time. I do want to just reiterate that the key thing is we're giving this decision to the voters to decide and I'm sure one of my other colleagues may talk about this more. So I'm not going to touch too much on it. But if all the bad things that were said about us are true, then this initiative will fail and we will go back to where we are. And if the voters do decide that they think that a change is necessary, then then they will make that decision. They were the ones that put this there and they are the ones that have that should have the opportunity to decide whether it stays there. So I don't want to get too much into my colleague's comments, except to say there's a difference between de facto racism and de jure racism. And I kind of interpret his comments as trying to say, well, because we've had an increase of African-Americans in Alameda, then we have no de facto racism. And I mean, maybe that's true. I don't know. But, you know, I've been reading a lot. I mean, I you saw my color of law that was referenced. And then I have this American Babylon. I actually had this one. So I pulled it off the shelf. And we're going to have these discussions on all of these issues in more details over the next four months. But this kind of talks about the impetus behind all of these laws that we have in the East Bay and the affects. So 1950. Alameda, 5312 African-American population. San Leandro, our neighbor. 20. Not 20,000. 20. So it's. Now I look at the 2010 census data. San Leandro is almost 12% African-American, 10,000 residents. Alameda said 6.1. 4500. So we actually had less than we had in 1950. We had Missouri. San Leandro didn't. Their black population as a percentage of their population is double ours. And it was practically zero at a time when we had a significant amount of African-Americans living in Alameda. So if we want to talk about de facto, you can have that argument. But the thing that to me is more important is is de jure. And what that is, is discrimination under the force of law. And this book and I picked it up again today. Look at some more sections. And I read from part of it last time we were here. And I realized, well, if I can say that all of these things are racist for half of that measure. And it seems kind of silly, and I couldn't say that for the other half. And there are things in this country that are coming down like statues of Brodie Lee that are vestiges of white supremacy. And I know it's uncomfortable for people to hear this, but these laws read this book, read this book. This is all about the de jure racist laws that have been placed in effect in this country, a lot of them here in California, to basically keep African-Americans out of white neighborhoods. So to me. This has been an interesting couple of weeks and it's been an awakening that there are pillars of white supremacy that need to come down. I mean, it's easy to fall down a statue, right? It's a little bit more difficult to, you know, take down a flag that people in Mississippi have been using for many years. And it's even more difficult to change laws that have been put in place to perpetuate a segregated society and a segregated system. And, you know, like one of the people said on the Zoom call, you know, if we're going to have any meaning to this Black Lives Matter and value black lives, then we need to do our step, take our our do our responsibility and take steps to remove these laws. And what we can do as a council today on this issue is put this before the ballot. So they're put this on the ballot before the voters. I just, you know, want to just sum up the whole idea of of to show your racism by just rereading a paragraph from The Color of law. And I know people are going to talk about this this measure and talk about it in isolation, but I don't see how we can look at it in isolation. We have to look at it in the picture, in the broader picture of what was going on in our country for the past ten years, not only here in the East Bay, but across across the country. Take it 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 supplemented federal efforts to maintain the status of African-Americans as a lower caste with housing segregation, preserving the badges and incidents of slavery. My fellow alum. Even today, I want to get rid of the badges and incidents of slavery in our charter. And I'm not only voting to put this on the ballot, I will be supporting it and telling everyone I can that we need to repeal it. Thank you. And there you go. Madam Chair, you have you can have all my 3 minutes. And I try to live within my means. Thank you. Councilmember Odie, who's got a councilmember? Well, I see your hand up. You're next. Just unmute yourself. Yeah. So I want to start with before measure a you know, when my family came first came to Alameda in the 1960s. My grandfather was in the Navy. He could not find a place, a house for his family to live in because of the discrimination against Filipinos in our city. And it was very difficult for them and their extended family members to find housing here. And what I want to be careful of is and I'm hearing a lot of measure a. Is the cause of, you know, these disparate impacts, but it's more than just an injury. And that was a lot of what my questions were about, because there have been a lot of projects that have been proposed throughout Alameda in places , you know, on the East End and Harbor Bay, where we have seen these projects summarily rejected because of density, because of multifamily and really trying to to keep out certain types of housing that are affiliated or connected to, you know, lower income. Or affiliated with this concept. Of lower income. And I think we have to be very thoughtful about it's more than just measure because it's going to be about all of the steps that come after it. If we want to see a different outcome, we can repeal Measure A and continue to get the same disparate impacts. If we are not careful and thoughtful in how we go about this process and everybody really coming out and thinking about how we make room for everybody in our community. So I don't see this as the end all, be all, and I want people to think beyond this. I think we have to think beyond this. We have to think about what does the broader Alameda look like? What do we want it to look like? Where do we have these different opportunities to be creative? Because I do think there's a lot put on a lot of stress put on the West. And we are seeing a number of different things happen because of the pandemic. People are worried about whether their bus lines are going to still be operational, how these transit connectors are all going to work. We do not have a safe and clean way for people. On. The West End to cross over into Oakland by bike or by foot. That's something I know this council has been working on. We need to continue to be committed to that effort. It's an environmental equity issue and to be able to move around freely in a safe, safe manner on bike or by foot to have those different transit options, it's going to be a big lift. I also think that there's you know, we're going to have to have bigger conversations as a whole of our community in terms of reimagining things. We've got lots of parking lots in Harbor Bay, lots and lots of them. And whether you look at the business park or you look at around the golf course, Grandview Pavilion, all of these areas, I mean, I think we need to reimagine what type of community we want to have. And I think what makes Alameda Alameda is our smaller neighborhoods. It's the feeling that you get walking around and interacting with people in in space. And, you know, we can recreate that feeling, that pattern, that quilt of Alameda in different ways. We just have to be open to it. And so I want people to come to the table to think about that and to participate in the process. This is not the end all be all. This is the beginning. And I think that we need to really focus on the Alameda we want. To have. We also need to focus on homeowner ownership options for people, first time homebuyers, because, again, it can't just be rental housing that we're adding to. We we keep pushing for for more rental housing. That's great. We need the low income. We need the moderate. We also need first time homeowner opportunities if we want long standing diversity in our community. And not just racial diversity, economic diversity, I think both are important. So I will be joining the majority tonight in placing this on the ballot. I think that there's a larger community discussion that needs to take place in terms of reimagining the future of our city. Thank you. Thank you. Community City Councilmember Vela, I think, Vice Mayor, you haven't spoken yet. Sir. Thank you. Thank you. I, too, want to echo your initial comments about the fact that we can disagree, but we can disagree simply. And if that's your best argument, you really are making a point that you don't have much to add to the conversation. But I also appreciate councilmember many conversations on this issue. I appreciate all of them that were open and friendly. I read the data you presented differently. I don't think we should consider when comparing ourselves to cities that are kind of the national paragons for black flight and gentrification and the entire regional housing market pushing people out of out of the area. I think we can do better. And that housing is one of those places where regional impacts have significant issues. So every city is going to have to step up to address the the issues that we have to kids. It's probably too late for my kids at this point in time. I would like to come back and live nearby. But for the next generation, we need to do better. We need to create a place where people can get where families can actually start and grow and and maintain the roots that I think a lot of us talk about. As important to me, too. I'm going to be supporting this tonight. I really appreciate all the work that was done. I appreciate our our staff's considered. I thought Will, after listening to many of the red letters, you know, I think it's just important, again, to remember that Measure eight does not protect us from the number of households. I think Councilmember Desai did a fine job of explaining how council imagery doesn't actually protect us from the type of housing people are concerned about. It just makes everything very convoluted. And he says strategic and thoughtful. I would say we end up having to put things places that don't make any sense. Rather than looking at the places where we have the infrastructure that can handle this. So I will be fully supporting this and putting this on the ballot and look forward to talking with voters about it in the coming months. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor Knox. Right. So has elected officials. We have certain powers and abilities, not as many as people think we do. I apologize to all my residents that I could not stop the fireworks over the 4th of July weekend. And they were ridiculously loud and long. Nor could I close the beach, but I just urged all Alameda residents not to go. And you were pretty compliant. But we have an opportunity before us to correct a 47 year old mistake. It might have served its purpose at the time until this architectural preservation and design review laws were enacted. But that was know that that's been on those have been on the books for a while. So now we have an opportunity not with the stroke of a pen, to say, okay, measure A is repealed, but simply to say youth voters, today's residents, registered voters. And I want every eligible registered voter in this city to be registered to vote by Election Day in November. You have the opportunity to weigh in on this decision, your voice, your vote, exercise it. So for all the things that were said today, none of that matters unless you get out there and vote one way or the other. But what this council is doing is simply providing the opportunity for democracy to take place. And I'm not sure why anyone should feel threatened by that. But what I have seen over the years that I have been serving both on the planning board and the city council, now as mayor, now serving on a statewide I'm co-chair of a statewide policy body for the League of California Cities on Housing, Community and Economic Development . Councilmember Vela sits on the same committee with me. We have looked at the issue of homelessness and the housing crisis in Alameda, in Alameda, in our state. And just because we've all been consumed by the COVID pandemic, which is a very serious crisis, and also the racial injustice crisis, which is all very serious. We can't forget the housing crisis because all three of those crises are interrelated. And so we have been under housed. And yes, it is true that we are losing some residents to other places, but we're still under housed. And so we can't lose sight of this important fact that we need to do a better job of housing people. And in the city of Alameda, we've done quite a bit, notwithstanding the presence of misery, but we could do so much more. And by the way, for someone who said he couldn't find the housing, the affordable housing added Alameda Point, there is a beautiful residence apartment out there. That is housing as we speak, formerly homeless veterans, among other low income seniors. And there is a multifamily apartment building that is going up. And if it weren't for the fact that we're all sheltering in place, we'd be out celebrating with in-person ribbon cuttings. We will we will do that. It'll be just a little bit retroactive. So we've been doing a lot. We can do more. And I, I want to emphasize one of the principles and I've spoken about this before, when we talk about homelessness, that at this policy committee that Councilmember Vela and I serve on, we have learned over the years that the best, most economical way to address homelessness is not to let it happen to. To begin with. And yet when you have a housing crisis, when demand exceeds supply, it pushes the price of housing up. People's incomes are not going up. In this COVID crisis, people are out of work. Their hours are reduced. They are you know, we've done what we can to protect renters here, but people are being pushed out into their cars, couch surfing and eventually on the street. We need to address the housing crisis. That's what I believe. So I will be supporting putting this measure on the ballot to let the voters vote. And I will say two quick things. One is that times change. We are the same city that we were in 1973. And we need to listen to the current residents and, of course, the ones who have been here for years. But some of those very residents who are long term, who've been here for years, would love to stay here, but downsize out of that family home that they've outgrown. But there isn't a lot of opportunity because since 1973, without jumping through a lot of hoops, we haven't been able to build those smaller units that people could age and place in the very community where they they raised their families and would like to stay. So I am very excited about this opportunity. I think it meshes perfectly with the moment that we are in, in the midst of all these crises. I am always wanting to see the glass is half full and the silver lining in the cloud. And I believe that truly people have become more civically engaged because where else are you going to go? But they're watching the news. They're following what we do. All of us on the council, I think, are most of us have held Zoom town halls, Facebook live town halls. And people have been able to ask us in real time questions about these various issues. But now is the time. It's been a long time coming. Mr. Thomas and I have worked together since I started on the planning board 12 years ago or more, and we were talking today about sometimes the planets just all align and this is our time to give measure a another another look. I think it's outlived its usefulness. I am very excited about the public process that will follow to look at how we want our city to grow and develop. Where and what way. Just like Councilmember Vela was saying, this is just the beginning of a process, not the end. So with that, I am happy to also support this motion and it has been moved and seconded any further discussion. Seeing that a council member decided you have no time left. Councilmember Odie, you have your hand up. I just wanted to say that the motion was was drafted, that this is the council direction. It's not adopting a staff recommendation. No offense, Andrew, but I want the community to be clear that this is the council making this decision to give that direction. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification. So so, yes. So we're clear on what the measure is, what the emotion is that we're voting on to to place both Article 26, dash one in Article 26, dash three. Three outlets in all three. Oh three. Right. Because the others were were all discussed. Yes. Okay. All right. So it's been moved by the council members, seconded by the vice mayor, who's got his hand up. Go ahead and clarify the directions to ask staff to draft the language to bring back for us to vote, to put it on the. So it will not be on the ballot tonight. As of tonight, we will be coming back again into it. Correct. And I do believe I heard Mr. Thomas say that he is confident that he can bring this report back to the council for the next council meeting. Correct. Okay. Nodding of the head is good enough. Okay. Hands up. I got that. Um, okay, so we've had a motion. We've had a second. Any further discussion from anyone who has time left on their clock saying, then we have a roll call vote, please, Madam Clerk. Councilmember Daza. No. Not quite. Hi. Odie. Yes. Bella. Yes. Mayor, as the Ashcroft. That carries 4 to 1. Thank you. And then there's another part of of this item that I want to address, and that is that we can recommend going to the staff report. So. Um. Let's see. Can I? Madam Clerk? Yeah, if I want to. If you want to talk about the arguments. Is that the question we were getting to? Basically, yes. Since you're not adopting the resolution tonight, the timeline will change because. It'll it'll. Kick in after the 21st. If you adopt the resolution on the 21st, we'll set new deadline. So all of the related actions will all be taken on the 21st. No further action is needed tonight. So I appreciate that about the extended timeline because I was a little confused when we talked this morning. I would still like to make my recommendation of how for the council to consider about who would draft the arguments and the rebuttals and and then if the council approves, obviously we'd have to vote on it again on the 21st when the motions, when the directive direction that we've made to staff comes to us. But um, knowing that we have direct the staff to do so, we could have council members at least start thinking unless the city attorney wants to chime in and tell us that that's giving him a problem. Madam Chair, that's not a problem at all. The Council could at least start designating members if the council chooses to start thinking we will have to formally designate those folks again when we bring the report back to on the 21st and the official timeline, as the city clerk indicated, will run from the 21st. But nothing prevents you from having council members be sort of ready to go and have two more weeks to think about what they may want to say. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just so everyone knows, I checked with them ahead of time, because not only not only do I not like to blindside staff, but also I do remember what we learned as litigators. When you're cross-examining someone, you just don't want to ask the question you don't know the answer to. I'm not that this is really a cross-examination, but anyway, my my suggestion would be that and this is on the top of page for this staff report council that there's different, different ways there could be we could go about it. The whole body could draft an argument in open session. I do not recommend that. What I do recommend is that, uh, no more than it's, it's the number three option authorized no more than two council members to draft an argument and decide to have a combination of council members and or other signers. I think that just gives us the, um, the maximum leeway and I would suggest that that subcommittee would be, um, or the two council members would be Vice Mayor Knox White and myself. That's my suggestion and I'm happy to hear input from others. Council Member Desa Madam Mayor, a. Question to our city attorney Is. There anything. That stops the council from also designating a council member such as myself to lead the. No. Uh, I, I, I couldn't do it alone, but, but I would certainly love to get the imprimatur of the council. Good question. I missed your the introduction. Yes. Council member. The Council absolutely had the right to appoint one of its members or one or two of its members to the opposing arguments. And if the Council does so, that one or two council member group will get the priority under the elections code, just like the arguments for. So it is absolutely the Council's direction to pleasure to do that and the Council certainly could. The law certainly authorizes it. Thank you. I would appreciate that. Okay. So, um, so we've heard a suggestion from me, a suggestion from council member desired, um, direction from the rest of the council. Account for everybody. Thank you so much. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in addition to that, it said 2008 as a subcommittee. Those words were left out of option three that they should have been in there. Right. I'm sorry. Say it again. I was crying to the French. Authorities no more than to customers, to me, to the subcommittee. And option three just left out the words to me, to the. Subcommittee is a subcommittee. But I think that was just a typo. Right. I would I would imagine that to be. But what do you think? Everybody counts in the city situation. I know. And so that was not part of my part of the reports. I'm going to defer. Okay. Madam Clerk, do you see where we are at the I? It would it makes sense to. Okay. I think that's right. I think I mean, in both situations it appears it would be a subcommittee. But I believe. The distinction that we're trying to make between two and three is the decision about if you guys want to let the subcommittee decide who would want to sign or if you want the council to. Talk about who it would like to to. Sign, it'd be the same subcommittee working on the drafting the argument. It would just be. It's just for to. The distinction is. Just to talk. About signers and let you have the discussion. About who signs. My preference is to have the subcommittee decide. So I guess it's not an option for you then. Well the but yeah it is option three because if it were option to then it means you have to the entire council. Fine. And I don't think that's happening. But so you're you're saying a. Subcommittee could decide that's what. Well, not the entire council. The subcommittee can decide that's what they want, but. I doesn't have the term to say. But you said you were it was option three that you were supporting, correct? Well, it says decide and have a combination of councilmembers and or other signers. So it sounds like. Yeah, that's three to decide. So that's what I'm talking about. And I don't need to be on the subcommittee, but you know, I will be if someone doesn't want to, but I don't need to be. But I think it's fine as proposed. Thank you. Was that either subcommittee? I'm not going to be on the opposing one. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. Kidding. Okay. Um, other, um. Comments. Councilmember Vela, I'm fine with the proposal. I'm also fine with Councilmember de Saag being on the alternative subcommittee. Okay. All right. Okay. So we do do subcommittee. Second subcommittee. Right. Right. Well, exactly. Because it would be for the two different. Mm hmm. Yeah. So position would be trading places. Yeah. Okay. No more than two. So one should be allowed. Mm hmm. Exactly. Okay. All right. Question on that. Yes. Um, am I. What are the rules in terms of working with others? How do I go about doing that? Or is that something that that that is we could deal with off line work? Well, you can work with whoever you want. It's not a majority of the council. Okay. I think we're pretty safe. In that way. And I if you. Don't like it, but by the council establishing you as your own subcommittee to author, the argument against it gives you priority ranking. If more than one argument is. Submitted is all it does so that it's authorized by the Council, therefore you're the highest priority. And your argument would be. TRUMP Any other arguments submitted? That's what it does. Great. Well, thank you for fighting. You know, sometimes we try to avoid. Okay. Yes, I may add to. My mission, please. Yes. I also believe that the council comes every day FOX requests, which is also that he wants to be able to choose others like citizens at his pleasure to join him. But just like can be one committee, two would have the same powers. I believe that's what the request. Oh, okay. All right. Because committee one will have powers under option three, which is to choose additional citizens that are non council members to join in the signing. And I believe the same is being requested for committee two. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Um, four. Oh, Committee two. But again, also under said paragraph three that the committee one and two is simply in the yes and the yes on the repeal and no on the repeal. I think we've got that. Okay. Any further discussions? Can we get a motion? Can we can we wrap it all up in one or vice mayor? I move that we create two subcommittees, a committee for yes on the appeal. That is the mayor and myself and a committee that is on the appeal that is Council Member Dayton. And it's the repeal. Right. As opposed to appeal. So yes. Yes. Okay. Um, okay. We have a motion by the vice mayor. Do we have a second? Second. Councilmember Ody has seconded to have any discussion. Councilmember Bell's your hand up. No. Okay. No discussion. All right, maybe we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember De Sang. I thank. You, Knox White. You're welcome. Hi. Odie. I also thank you. I may or as the Ashcroft. Hi. That carries by five eyes. Unanimous. All right. Good work, everyone. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Thomas. Thank you to all our speakers. Okay. We will see you in two weeks. And everybody start rolling up your sleeves. And with that, we're going to move on to item six. Be correct. Yes. The adoption of. Madam Quick. Adoption Resolution. Calling for the holding of a consolidated municipal election in the city of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3rd, 2020, for the submission of a proposed charter amendment to clarify the prohibition against members of the Council interfering with duties of the City Manager and other executive city officials. Authorize the city attorney to prosecute stay LA State law misdemeanors and amend outdated provisions, including utilizing gender neutral language in authorizing city council members to file written arguments for and against the measure.