Correspondence - Updated 3/1 — Alameda City Council, March 1, 2022

From: Dodi Kelleher
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Item 6-A on City Council"s March 1st, 2022 agenda-Proposed Municipal Code amendments to bring R-1 zoning into compliance with SB 9
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 8:53:11 AM
Dear Council Members,

I am resubmitting my original email below due to the time that has passed before hearing and voting on this item. I respectfully request that it be included in the March 1st meeting record.

This email is written in support of comments and recommendations contained in the letter to City Council, submitted January 3, 2022 by Christopher Buckley, Chair of the Preservation Action Committee of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. The main elements of the letter recommend that City Council:

Adopt the original staff recommendation to limit the maximum number of units to four as permitted by SB 9 rather than the ten units recommended by the Planning Board Adopt the staff recommendation for a 1200 ft.² maximum unit size for SB 9 units rather than the Planning Board’s 1600 ft.² recommendation.

Consider adopting a maximum 800 ft.² unit size as permitted by SB 9 to promote smaller and more affordable units.

Revise the proposed SB 9 amendments to follow the SB 9 text as closely as possible, as detailed in the AAPS letter
Adopt the urgency ordinance, reflecting the above changes

Sincerely,

Dolores Kelleher

Dear Council Members,

Consider adopting a maximum 800 ft.² unit size as permitted by SB 9 to promote smaller and more affordable units.

Revise the proposed SB 9 amendments to follow the SB 9 text as closely as possible, as detailed in the AAPS letter
Adopt the urgency ordinance, reflecting the above changes

I request that this email be included in the meeting record.

Sincerely,

Dolores Kelleher

From: Patricia Baer
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Allen Tai; Lara Weisiger; Andrew Thomas Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item6-A
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 7:33:33 AM
My opinion on this issue is:

Alameda’s R-1 zoning district should have a maximum of two dwellings per lot with a 1200 sq. ft. max per unit. If a lot is split, the max remains 1200 sq. ft. per unit; however, at least one of the units must be a max of 800 sq. ft.

Patsy Baer
From: margie
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Eric Levitt; Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; Yibin Shen; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] There is NO need for more density
Date: Tuesday, March 1, 2022 7:13:17 AM
As stated in my last letter on this subject, people are continuing to move out of the Bay Area. Companies are moving to Utah and Texas, and the continuing viability of remote work means that people can live anywhere they can get a good internet connection
There is no evidence, whatsoever that the "trickle down" theory works any better in housing than it does in economics. I recently walked past a large homeless encampment in Oakland. Three blocks away, there is a brand new, half-empty apartment building.

From: Donna Fletcher
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella Cc: Lara Weisiger; Andrew Thomas; Eric Levitt; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments on item 6-A, City Council meeting of February 25, 2022 Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 9:53:13 PM
February 25, 2022

Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Members of the Alameda City Council, I am writing to enthusiastically support our planning staff 's recommendations for Item 6-A., the ordinances governing implementation of SB-9 projects in Alameda.

These are:

1. Two Dwellings per lot Maximum

2. Maximum dwelling size of 1,200 sq. ft. for SB-9 units and ADUs.

These adjustments are also supported by Alameda Citizens' Task Force and the ALameda Architectural Preservation Society.

Over the course of many months I have observed and taken part in the community conversation around implementation of SB-9. During this time Planning Staff, CIty Council, the Planning Board, and the community have had a productive dialogue that has resulted in reasonable adjustments to the implementation ordinance.

I believe these revisions will generate housing types and sizes that are more affordable for owners and renters, and more visually cohesive on Alameda's small urban lots.

Please vote to approve the SB-9 Ordinance before you on Tuesday night. Thank you so much!

Sincerely,

Donna Fletcher
112 Centre Court
Alameda
From: Patricia Gannon
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Tony Daysog; Eric Levitt; Andrew Thomas; Trish Spencer; Malia Vella; John Knox White Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 6-A 3-1 agenda
Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 1:14:12 PM
Honorable Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft. Mayor
City of Alameda
Honorable City Council Members
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and City Council Members:

I am writing in whole-hearted support of all the positions outlined so clearly by ACT in its recent letter. All of you were elected to represent the city of Alameda, not to transform it into the Island of Manhattan. Please do so tomorrow evening. Thank you.

Patricia M. Gannon
1019 Tobago Lane 94502
[email protected]
From: T Krysiak
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 7-B Feb. 15, 2022, City Council Agenda-R-1 Zoning Ordinance Ammendments Date: Monday, February 28, 2022 6:22:46 AM
Dear Mayor Izzy Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Malia Vella and Council Members John Knox-White, Trish Herrera Spencer and Tony Daysog:

This issue will be discussed on Tues March 1 and I thought it was important to voice my concern. I stand with Alameda Citizens Taskforce and support the Planning Department’s proposed R-1 amendments which was submitted to the Planning Board on Dec. 13, 2021.

Essentially, the impacts of SB 9 are unsettling because it removes local control over zoning.

The result of this unpopular law and the recent measures of the planning board will mostly make mandated Alameda housing units even more expensive and out of reach for the city’s middle class support workers.

Your partnership with ACT’s recent proposal seems to be a reasonable and necessary compromise on this contentious issue. Please help see this ACT plan through to fruition.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Tom Krysiak
Sweet Road
Sent Via My iPhone
From: KC Egan
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] Item 6-A, March 1 City Council Agenda-R-1 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Date: Friday, February 25, 2022 3:01:55 PM
I am writing one again, to ask that you support the Planning Department's recommended amendments to out R-1 zoning ordinance which limit total units to 4 and dwelling floor area to 1200 sq. ft. and not allow the Planning Board recommendation of allowing up to 10 units and a floor area of 16oo sq.

Until you have addressed the increased traffic and lack of emergency evacuations on an island, you are personally affecting my safety and the safety of my family.

I appreciate your condiseration.

KC Egan
From: Marie Kane
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; John Knox White; City Clerk; Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; Nancy McPeak; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Lara Weisiger
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Proposed Alameda Municipal Code Amendments Date: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:21:08 AM
Dear Mayor, City Council, City Staff and Planning Board, I have been deeply concerned about the city's actions regarding the implementation of SB9 within our city. Having worked as a realtor in Alameda since 1973, I greatly care about our residential neighborhoods and the Alamedans who purchased homes there.

I would encourage you to adopt the revised ordinance with also adopting a maximum 800 sq. ft. unit size (to make the units more affordable and to hopefully preserve some on-street parking.)
I would encourage you to revise the SB9 amendments to closely follow the intent of the SB9 text, allow for notice to nearby property owners when projects are submitted, and not use the PD overlay if it effectively allows by right up to two units per previously R-1 use lots.

Thank you for your concern for the architectural integrity of our city, the current residential property owners of Alameda and residential property values. I know many residents who share my concerns.

Sincerely,
Marie Kane

From: margie
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Eric Levitt; Andrew Thomas; Allen Tai; Yibin Shen; Yibin Shen; Lara Weisiger Subject: [EXTERNAL] : Item 7-B Feb. 15, 2022, City Council Agenda-R-1 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Date: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:28:01 PM
It is not reasonable to support additional density in Alameda -- At present, it would not be possible to evacuate in case of emergency. I reference the East Bay Hills fire and the wildfires that incinerated Paradise, California and Lytton, BC. Global warming will make such emergencies more common
-- The population of Alameda has been dropping since 2019, Tech companies are moving out of the Bay Area and to cheaper locales, such as Portland, Oregon, Austin, Texas and Salt Lake City. Many of the companies that are staying are making it possible to telecommute.
-- Alameda's infrastructure and police force are seriously overloaded as it is -- One of the main ways we can fight global warming is by planting more trees. Increased development means less room for trees.

I support the ACT recommendations
From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
To: City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Fw: Item 7-B Feb. 15, 2022, City Council Agenda-R-1 Zoning Ordinance Amendments Date: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:08:21 AM
Please place this letter in the correspondence file for the item noted above.

From: Alameda Citizens Task Force
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; Malia Vella <[email protected]>; John Knox White <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]> Cc: Eric Levitt <[email protected]>; ANDREW THOMAS <[email protected]>; Allen Tai <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; LARA WEISIGER <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 7-B Feb. 15, 2022, City Council Agenda-R-1 Zoning Ordinance Amendments ACT
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Vigilance, Truth, Civility
Dear Mayor Ashcraft, Vice Mayor Vella and Council Members Knox-White, Herrera Spencer and Daysog:

ACT strongly supported the Planning Department’s (PD) proposed R-1 amendments submitted to the Planning Board (PB) on Dec. 13, 2021. However, the PB rejected the two most important standards contained in the proposed amendments, the maximum allowable size of any new dwellings of 1200 sq. ft. and the maximum allowance of two total units on a lot with four units allowed on each lot created by a lot split. Instead, the PB replaced these standards with a maximum allowable new dwelling standard of 1600 sq. ft. and full application of our current ADU ordinance to the R-1 district. This would allow as many as five units on a current lot or ten units if the owner does a lot split.

The PB recommendation was placed on your Jan. 4 Council agenda at which time we submitted a letter opposing their recommendation and supporting the PD recommendation.

At the Jan. 4 meeting Council directed the PD to further explore its original recommendation.

It has completed that task and now submits a revised version which we continue to support and discuss below.

1. Two Dwellings Per Lot Maximum: This is far superior to the PB recommendation which could allow as many as five units on the original lot and 10 units after a lot split. This level of density is unsustainable regarding parking, water, sewer and other infrastructure needs, and reduction of our urban forest protection against carbon dioxide and heat. Quadrupling the density of our R-1 districts via a lot split will be difficult enough for the community to absorb.

We believe that increasing density by a factor ten simply makes no sense.

2. 1200 sq. ft. Maximum New Dwelling Size: The Planning Department presented its rationale for a 1200 sq. ft. maximum lot size of 1200sq. ft. in its written report to the PB:
“Staff recommends a 1,200 square foot maximum for three reasons: 1) smaller units are more affordable than larger units and the greatest need in Alameda is for smaller, more affordable units, and 2) Alameda’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance establishes a cap of 1,200 square feet for ADUs. Having a consistent maximum size for both ADUs and “SB 9 units” will simplify the administration of the ministerial permitting process for both ADUs and SB 9 units, and 3) smaller units will result in smaller buildings, which will result in less visual, shading, and other community character issues.”
We asked Karen Lithgow, a well-known local realtor, to compute the 2021 cost difference between purchasing/renting a 1600 sq. ft. dwelling or a 1200 sq. ft. dwelling. The larger dwelling median price is $1,275,001. The smaller dwelling median is price $1,037,500. The larger dwelling average rent is $4286. The smaller dwelling average rent is $3391.

Adopting the Planning Department recommendation will provide us a with an inventory to meet the needs of poorly served “missing middle” or “workforce” residents who perform vital services for our community as well as providing the other benefits set forth in their rationale quoted above.

3. 800 sq. ft. Dwellings: At the Jan. 4 Council meeting Mayor Ashcraft mad some positive comments about encouraging the construction of 800 sq. ft. dwellings. We believe that the R- 1 ordinance can help improve our inventory of these smaller units. This could be accomplished by requiring that a lot split proposing to build 2 units on the new lot must include at least one 800 sq. ft. unit.

3. The Need for an Urgency Ordinance: Our prior letter that appears in the correspondence file for Item 7-A in the Jan 4 Council agenda presented a detailed analysis of the legal propriety of an urgency ordinance which will not be repeated here. However, we are again faced with a scenario where the normal process will delay the effective date of the new R-1 amendments until mid-March, allowing a month for applications to be filed under existing law which would require approval of up to five units on an existing lot or ten units with a lot split.

Therefore, we again implore Council to adopt the R-1 amendments as an urgency measure.

Sincerely,
Paul S Foreman
ACT board Member
1 Lara Weisiger
From: Geoffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 4, 2022 3:19 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Tony Daysog; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer Cc: Eric Levitt; Gerry Beaudin; Andrew Thomas; Lara Weisiger; Allen Tai Subject: [EXTERNAL] The ordinance for implementing SB9 is fatally flawed Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files; Proposed housing Ordinance with comments.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

Feb 15 meeting will be addressing the ordinance to loosen housing zoning standard to comply with SB9 by allowing for lot splits that can create up to 4 housing units on formerly single‐family homes

The senate bill 9 implementation ordinance is a flawed document in two important ways. These fatal flaws make this the wrong ordinance lang
uage to approve.

First, it does not directly state it’s goal. A stronger statement must be made that 5,353 housing units RHNA is the max target. Despite several requests to staff, I can't get a clear answer on how big the gap is and how many units have already been approved and how big the gap is. Though small scale projects CAN help meet goals, this over‐broad loosening restrictions run the risk of over shooting the target by 1000s of units, permanently changing the character of Alameda.

Second, the language is vague and conflicting in part. The consequences of these defects are an inevitable challenge to every small scale development, drowning city government in endless bureaucracy and delaying the approval of projects that would otherwise easily be approved

Attached you will find a markup of several of these, with comments. Minimum and maximums are seemingly in conflict, setbacks are defined in different ways in different sections and there is quite a bit of repetition in the ordinance. The vagueness about 'proper residential character' is among the most slippery phrases that could cause years of acri
monious debate.

Bottom line: This ordinance is not ready to pass and should be re‐written

Geoff Dalander
215 Hudson Bay

From: Geoffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2022 9:25 AM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: Are we ready for the implications of going beyond state required housing goals 2 Dear council members,

Thanks to staff member Andrew Thomas for correspondence related to proposed liberalization of housing zoning practices that could allow up to 10 units per lot. Despite this, I am still unclear whether a) how many units are likely this is to produce and b) how far these and other already committed developments are beyond that state mandate

But today I write about implications. According to Wikipedia, there are currently approximately 30,000 households and the 5,353 target is approximately a 16% increase. That implies 16% more firefighters, police and teachers. And, despite the protestations of those that are pro‐growth, there is a likely a 16% increase in traffic and pa
rking problems. Are we ready? Do we have the resources to support this rapid growth?

The other important but less easily quantified impact is the inevitable lawsuits and challenges that City will face. The legal fees alone will be enormous for every major project and the committ ee work for all the
individual challenges will be cumbersome and time‐consuming. Are we ready?

Sticking with state‐mandated goals will help with both of these issues. Going beyond opens a pandora's box.

Thanks for your continuing attention in this matter

Geoff Dalander
215 Hudson Bay
Alameda, CA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alameda,_California
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Alameda, California - Wikipedia
Alameda (/ ˌ æ l ə ˈ m iː d ə / AL-ə-MEE-də; Spanish: ; Spanish for "tree-lined path") is a city in Alameda County, California, United States.It spans Alameda Island, Bay
Farm Island, and a few minor islands.It is adjacent to and south of Oakland and east of San Francisco across the
San Francisco Bay.Bay Farm Island, a portion of which is also known as "Harbor Bay Isle", is part of the ...
en.wikipedia.org

From: Geoffrey <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 1:28 PM
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Trish Spencer <[email protected]> 3 Cc: Alameda Community <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Lara Weisiger <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: What problem is R‐1 Zoning liberalization solving?

I'm hearing alarming estimates of the impacts of liberalizing zoning standards way in excess of state requirements.

Why?

According the latest 'everyone counts' homelessness estimates, there are several hundred homeless. This approach will create many dozens of times that need. Housing supply is constrained, but this is an over correction
https://everyonehome.org/wp‐cont
ent/uploads/2019/07/ExecutiveSummary_Alameda2019‐1.pdf

Let's take a more moderate approach and match state requirements ‐ not exceed them Geoff Dalander
215 Hudson Bay
Alameda, CA 94502

From: Alameda Community <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 8:05 PM
To: Alameda Community <[email protected]> Subject: Jan 4‐ City Council Meeting at 7PM; See ITEM 7‐A regarding R‐1 Zoning

Hi Everyone,
Brief reminder to please voice your opinion regarding tomorrow night's City Council Agenda Item 7-A about the R-1 Zoning Ordinance:

Zoom link: https://alamedaca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_XdTklPz_QnmxEfoZTlnJbw)

Staff Report:

City of Alameda - File #: 2022-1587 (legistar.com)

Send emails to:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];mvella@ala medaca.gov;[email protected]

Please also send copies of your emails to Staff at:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; lweisiger@alamedac a.gov; [email protected]

Key points below, and please ask the City Council to:

4 1. Reject the Planning Board's upzoning to 10 units per parcel. The State mandate is up to 4 units per parcel, so this goes well above and beyond State Bill 9, and is completely unreasonable for the island City of Alameda.

2. Limit the maximum size of SB 9 units to either 800 sq ft or 1200 sq ft. and reject the proposed 1600 sq ft maximum.

3. Reject the proposal to adopt 4' rear setbacks. This would basically eliminate backyards and open space. Frankly, this is just too close, especially for projects that have the potential to add significant height and density in neighborhoods.

4. Adopt an urgency ordinance asap reflecting the above suggestions.

These recommendations are supported by both the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society and the activist watchdog group Alameda Citizens Task Force.

Thank you for your help!

Please see attached letter from AAPS and the letter from ACT below:

ACT
Alameda Citizens Task Force
Vigilance, Truth, Civility

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

ACT strongly supported the Planning Department’s proposed R-1 amendments submitted to the Planning Board (PB) on Dec. 13. Unfortunately, the PB rejected the two most important objective standards contained in the proposed amendments, the maximum allowable size of any new dwellings of 1200 sq. ft. and the maximum allowance of two total units on a lot including ADU’s. Instead, the PB replaced these standards with a maximum allowable new dwelling standard of 1600 sq. ft. and full application of our current ADU ordinance to the R-1 district. This would allow as many as five units on a current lot or ten units if the owner does a lot split.

We strongly oppose both of these PB recommendations. A discussion of both issues and the need for an urgency ordinance follows:

1. Maximum Lot Size: The Planning Department presented its rationale for a maximum lot size of 1200sq. ft. in its written report to the PB:

“SB 9 allows the City to set size standards provided that those standards allow for at least two 800 square foot units. Staff recommends a 1,200 square foot maximum for three reasons: 1) smaller units are more affordable than larger units and the greatest need in Alameda is for smaller, more affordable units, and 2) Alameda’s Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance establishes a cap of 1,200 square feet for ADUs. Having a consistent maximum size for both ADUs and “SB 9 units” will simplify the administration of the ministerial permitting process for both ADUs and SB 9 units, and 3) smaller units will result in smaller buildings, which will result in less visual, shading, and other community character issues.”

5 We have asked Karen Lithgow, a well-known local realtor, to compute the 2021 cost difference between purchasing/renting a 1600 sq. ft. dwelling or a 1200 sq. ft. dwelling. The larger dwelling median price is $1,275,001. The smaller dwelling median is price $1,037,500. The larger dwelling average rent is $4286. The smaller dwelling average rent is $3391.

2. Two Dwellings Per Lot Maximum: The Planning Department proposed amending the R-1 ordinance by providing Section c (f) stating:

The number of units shall be limited to two dwelling units or one dwelling unit and one accessory dwelling unit on each lot for a maximum of four (4) total dwelling units on the two lots created by the lot split.

However, the PB proposes that the current ADU ordinance fully apply to the R-1 district, while acknowledging that this would allow two SB-9 units and three ADU’s on each lot for a total of five per lot, with a SB-9 lot split allowing up to ten units. This will create a level of density that is unsustainable regarding parking, water, sewer and other infrastructure needs, and reduction of our urban forest protection against carbon dioxide and heat.

Quadrupling the density of our R-1 districts will be difficult enough for the community to absorb. Increasing density by a factor of ten simply makes no sense.

3. The Need for an Urgency Ordinance: Staff has presented you with the option of adopting the R-1 amendments in an urgency ordinance. However, staff does not recommend this option. They admit that adopting the amendment in the normal process would delay the effective date of the amendments until Feb. 17 and that between the Jan. 1 effective date of SB-9 and Feb. 17 they would not be able to subject a development application to the objective standards of the amendments. However, they argue that the only significant standard is the 1600 sq. ft. maximum lot size, and that the unenforceability of this standard does not have “an impact to public health or safety”. Their conclusion is faulty on several grounds.

1. They ignore all of the other standards in the amendments.

2. They assume that you will not make any changes in the PB proposal, most importantly, reducing the density from five to two units per lot, including ADU’s.

3. They misconstrue the St ate urgency ordinance law.

Ca Govt. Code Sec. 65858 (a) states:

“Without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance, the legislative body of a county, city, including a charter city, or city and county, to protect the public safety, health, and welfare, may adopt as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time.”

The law is specifically designed as an interim measure to allow enforcement of a contemplated zoning change while it is in progress, thus preventing developers from rushing an application in order to avoid the proposed changes. Thus, the statute establishes that such a fact scenario does justify an urgency ordinance to protect public safety, health, and welfare.

6 The urgency ordinance, if adopted, only has a life of 45 days. You will have time to improve on it in the future if needed. The cities of Los Altos Hills, Portola Valley, Pasadena, and Santa Barbara have enacted such an ordinance while their SB-9 revisions to their zoning ordinance are pending, and we do not doubt that there are others.

There is simply no downside to the urgency ordinance and an important upside that all SB-9 applications will be subject to the same objective standards regardless of when the applications are filed.

Sincerely,

Alameda Citizens Task Force
Paul S. Foreman, Board Member

From: Zac Bowling
To: Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; John Knox White; Malia Vella; Trish Spencer; Tony Daysog Cc: Andrew Thomas; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: SB 9
Date: Wednesday, January 19, 2022 5:38:17 PM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg Alameda SB 9.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.

Evening Mayor and Council,
Please see the letter attached

from East Bay YIMBY

regarding the SB 9 item that staff was
asked to bring back later this month. We believe there was a misunderstanding around with how SB 9 works which led to some less than optimal

direction to staff to consider when
bringing this item back. The letter dives into this in detail with some specific policy recommendations.

Thank you!
Zac Bowling

Alameda City CouncilMarch 1, 2022

Alameda City Council
March 1, 2022