Council Meeting 11/2, 1:30 has started. Public Comment on all agenda items begins now. Then consent calendar, and non-consent. There's 4 public hearings, which will go before non-consent, those are the RV etc changes, and you can all directly in on each one.
*call directly on public hearings. So you have two opportunities to speak on the RV items, right now and then during the separate items. There's a density bonus ordinance in there as well that I didn't comment on previously
Asata and Gene are bringing up issue that separated encampments, one self-governed, other run by City appears to be racially segregated. Former residents of 12th are in the City side, former residents of Union Point on the other--and to an outside observer, it does appear a way
Adam Garrett of Tiny Logic says that the current legislation on RVs won't help their community, which has been reported on in mainstream media, because of the sewage requirements [Kalb did add an amendment that would research alternate sewage requirements]
Surprised to hear Garrett complain about this, because if I'm not mistaken, their high profile living situation gave this legislation a lot of impetus. If they create a central unit for bathroom/kitchen, seems like they'd be fine.
The clerk's moved on to reading the consent calendar. Super surprised there wasn't more comment on the RV item, and that the PRA settlement wasn't placed on consent to discuss.
Consent Calendar passed, along with the PRA settlement. The City's version of the settlement seemed to have a significant error in it when I read it, or at least a discrepancy, but I guess we'll find out what's in it and what passed muster with the judge at some future point.
They've moved on to the RV/Planning Changes. Callers can call in on these items directly and for each item; they've been separated because each one requires an ordinance.
Kalb talks about the road up to these items, he says there's been significant discussion in committees, and they've added some amendments [they're in the supplementals]
Kalb, the co-author of the planning changes, along with Schaaf and Thao, says that this is one piece of puzzle of solving homelessness crisis. Kalb notes that it will exclude RVs from blight ordinance as well.
Thao, co-author of the legislation, also bigups the legislation.
Darin Rannelletti, Director of Mayor's Dept of Housing Security giving a presentation
Not sure why, but Ranelletti's showing a video.
Ironically, Adam Garrett, who just commented at the beginning of the meeting that the changes don't help his now well-known trailer community is a big star of the video. Garrett's community is cited under blight ordinance, That'll teach ya!
Garrett's mother, another resident in the community, is also in the Mayor's video. I'm not sure Garrett's complaint is substantive, but it does look very unethical to use he and his mother, other members of that community this way
Rannelliti explains why there's three separate ordinances for the RV item, as they are very complicated, and legal advised them to do this way.
Last week, during a committee meeting, there were amendments made. Here's the amendments, from a supplemental in the package
This amendment might answer Garrett's issue, but not for at least a year, if at all
Rannelletti goes over the fee amounts, and says some community members have complained about the relative high costs.
Rannelletti says that with the changes, city funding could be directed to community/community orgs to address the costs of both permits and other infrastructure.
Planning Dept's Gilchrist says he wants to make sure the amendment directing research into waste alternatives isn't exclusively focused on Planning, as more depts would need to be involved.
Here's Kalb's update to make sure it doesn't just fall on Planning
Kaplan says that a "pump out" contract should be included in the changes, where a service would come and pump sewage directly out of the RV. Kaplan says other cities have done similar.
They are now taking public comment on the RV ordinance + building standard changes.
James Vann of HOmeless Advocacy Working Group, says group and he are supportive, and were involved in development. He says that Kalb has been trying to get this done since Kaplan's original resolution of 2018, directing City to explore such options.
Vann says that there are three concerns: it should be a temporary ordinance to prevent the outcome of having permanent RV neighborhoods; should reduce the permitting amounts; permit should be re-certified over time.
Vann brought up an interesting point. Over time, this could create permanent, legal lower standard communities without a view to create regular affordability.
Several complaints about the fees being exclusionary.
Garrett is on the line now, he talks about his experience with tiny home communities. He says that he's the co-developer for the co-gov'd part of the 12th st encampment, and that the City didn't use the water/sewer lines there because its so expensive.
The distinction Garrett seems to overlook is that for many situations, they won't have to get a sewer line or pump out service, because they can share the house kitchen, bathroom, etc.
I think what does bear watching . Many people will continue on their current situation for their RV section. But if they're going to be cornered on permitting, the property owners are more likely to stop renting out than invest the funds necessary, or use their own facilities
Leah Simon-Wiesenthal says that they don't want to be creating the kind of housing that housing laws are meant to prevent. She says that there's hundred years of experience that sewers are necessary. She says the legislation is doing a good job of ensuring that safety
Nico Nagle, the former treasurer of the anti-Kaplan/Lyft PAC and Housing Action staffer says he supports the ordinances.
LSW also mentioned a revamp at the ballot of Just Cause. Just Cause can't include RV's which are owned by individuals, but rent the land, and would have to be changed at the ballot to include them. JC does cover RVs rented to individuals.
Kalb and Fife are discussing a potential Just Cause revision ballot measure that would include RVs and other issues that might come up.
It does seem clear this is a slippery slope to permanent slums, as several commenters & CMs have noted. But we also currently have permanent slums. It is what it is, & more illustrative of disastrous moment we're in and how long the City's waited to undertake emergency measures
Reid says that they need to counter normalizing homelessness and sub-standard housing. She says she'd like to hear more about the rationale for a permanent ordinance instead of temporary. She also wants more on the fee structure for people with financial barriers.
Kalb says that Council could come back amend or repeal it, and that the ordinance has a three year review requirement. he says that the ordinance will create vested rights and therefore should have an air of permanence.
Rannelletti says that the fees are meant to cover the cost of the program, but that the City could subsidize for some of the situations. He also says that there will be more homelessness funding coming from state, and at that time, Council could consider using it to subsidize
Reid asks what kind of data points they used to gather information on the number of people living in RVs, not sure if she means people who already live on private property or in general. She also asks about establishing a registry of potential landlords for the new rules
Rannelletti says that City needs to better understand vehicular residence [I honestly can't see this as a solution to homelessness outside of non profit RV parks specific to the purpose. It can normalize the situations of some people in bespoke situations, but not much more].
The first ordinance changing the planning rules to allow RV residence and other changes to Planning Code passed unanimously. I do believe it will need a second reading, but that usually goes through. So, [potential] big changes ahead [or not? we'll see]
The next order of business is to terminate the RV/Vacant parcel pilot that began last year. Rannelletti says that there were only three permits issued [in August of this year] under the pilot. The new pilot wouldn't work with new rules, but there's a year sunset period.
The City's report says that at least two of the three permits would be using port a potties. That wouldn't be allowed under the new program. At the end of their year's permit, those situations would have to apply under the new rules, with sewer hookup.
Worth noting that the RV Pilot program went nearly a year without issuing even one permit [per my records request]. All three permits were issued in August.
City answered my last PRA on the pilot shortly after issuing the first permits.
Garrett is back, thanking Council for passing the legislation, and talking about a neighbor who opposes their community. At the very least, the new planning structure removes the ability of neighbors to weaponize blight ordinances against RV residences
The vote on terminating the current RV pilot was unanimous.
Last but not least, adjustments to Rent Adjustment Ordinance. Once the RV planning code changes are inscribed, that would extend Just Cause and Tenant Protection Ord to RV's owned by a landlord & rented to tenant. Will extend Rent Adjustment laws for both RV owned + RV tenants
Kalb is suggesting bringing the TPO back in a future meeting to extend the protections to those RV owners renting the land on private property. Just Cause can't be changed as easily, it will require a ballot measure.
James Vann says that HAWG asked City to include these renter protections and are happy to see them in. He went into some deep inside baseball on the potential Just Cause ballot measure that I coulndn't follow
Wow, I really do feel like the only one who read these reports and legislation.
Kalb on question of people already in an RV situation, potential for random spot-check getting them kicked off for non-compliance. He says random checks would only occur for those who go into permitting. In effect, City turns blind eye to existing RV private property situations.
The extension of rent adjustment ordinance for Vehicular Residential Facilities [Rv's on private property] passed unanimously
On to the Density Bonus issue, Fife has suggested putting the item over for committee discussion first.
City staffers are saying that the density bonus rules are only bringing the City's planning code into conformance with state law about density bonuses
Jackie Zenari says that the city should include affordability requirements in the density item & it should be reviewed to make sure City's law doesn't cause displacement, re, unit replacement, and right of return. It could be made stronger than the state component
Staff clarified that the replacement units don't need to be the same size, only the same number of rooms and amenities.
Fife is repeating the issue of size vs number of rooms, saying that it can shrink the size of the replacement unit without guaranteeing equal sq footage.
Fife has made a motion to put the item over until there's been discussion in committee.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Trash Night Heron

Trash Night Heron Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @hyphy_republic

2 Nov
Today, Council will consider a sweeping series of Planning/Building changes that would legalize RV occupancy on private residentially zoned land & eliminate blight ords that concern private land use of RVs. What's in the changes: 1/9
Changes would allow rental of land for RV owners on private residentially zoned property, both vacant and built up. RVs could either use loo, kitchen etc facilities in a house/structure on property, or would need to have waste & hook ups, utilities if that's not the plan 2/9
Changes would also allow the rental of an RV on private residential property to a tenant. There would be state tenant protections for both rented RV to tenant and rented land to RV owner. Former would have City Just Cause protections also, but RV owner on rented land wouldn't 3/9
Read 11 tweets
1 Nov
Not surprising that housing market forces have led Oakland to legalizing RV residence on private land. Like it or not, it's where we're at. The implications for non-profit and communal use of land are intriguing at least. On tomorrow's City Council agenda Image
My two cents, it does seem a bit, too little, too late. Kaplan floated this idea several times since 2017 or so, but the City Admin really didn't take it seriously. Had Schaaf's admin taken it seriously then, we might not be quite as deep in the hole as we are today.
In East Oakland you see a fair bit of RVs parked in backyards and driveways and I'm pretty sure they're dwellings using house utilities. But you also see them parked on curb in similar situations. Open question to me whether it will help--most neighbors don't narc for blight ord
Read 5 tweets
27 Oct
Be ready to be misinformed on Howard Terminal deal. In the first place, MLB never said THIS vote had to happen. Open question whether a non-binding vote is enough to quell if MLB have genuine misgivings. If anything, vote showed nothing yet has swayed majority of the BOS
Several things were revealed at the meeting that showed even the City isn't close to greenlighting a deal. The first is that Fisher continues to resist real affordability on the 15% of on-site affordable housing. Kaval confirmed the disagreement, Maybrun went into that detail
Maybrun got into the weeds when she had to explain whether or not the fact that several County tax measures Century Urban based their county numbers will sunset in the next several years. CU admitted they hadn't factored that in.
Read 7 tweets
26 Oct
Carson opens the meeting on set matters, says theres three set matters and they're lengthy. There's a Covid 19 and ARPA update first. I'm sure nothing A's fans give a crap about. They have a 6pm redistricting meeting that they have to legally start on time, caveat
Nicholas Moss with Covid updates. 81 currently hospitalized with Covid in ALCO, 30 in ICU. Moss says there's been 138 deaths from July 1 to Oct 12, he says this is lower than last summer. Metrics improving, but there's concern about a winter wave.
Moss on Covid goals.
Read 193 tweets
26 Oct
I'll be reporting on ALCO BOS' possible non-binding resolution vote today. Vote does not commit BOS to a course of action, and language of the item indicates supes may not take a vote at all for any # of reasons. May be other lengthy items before discussion, starting at 12
I think its pretty likely they'll vote and they'll vote yes. But what will come after that is the EIR will be published and discussed, and Schaaf Admin will be on the record with claims about public debt for off-site, and no current concrete state/fed grants in hand.
A good deal of the off site infrastructure would have to be built before the ballpark can open. Punditry have focused on the EIFD for ballpark, but it's a misleading solo focus. None of it works without off-site infrastructure, it's almost a misnomer to call it off-site.
Read 8 tweets
26 Oct
ALCO will have the thesis of a meaningless vote today on Howard Terminal. It's clearly designed to placate Fisher and the Building, but by itself is so symbolic that even die hard A's fans/politics noobs are wondering why they hell they are doing it.
I honestly believe hope on part of the A's, their punditry and captive media components is that if they say HT is a done deal often enough, people will truly resent any politician involved in the actual required long duration process. The pressure built on CMs will be enormous
I've written a lot about the dishonest process, manipulated by Fisher to always appear just around the corner if it wasn't for corrupt or ignorant politicos. Here
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!