[0:04] >>karen mitchoff, chair: good

[0:04] afternoon I'm going to convene

[0:06] the abag plan for thursday

[0:11] november 12, 2020. Mr. Castro

[0:12] would you call the roll call,

[0:14] please?

[0:15] >>clerk of the board: yes,

[0:16] ma'am. But may we play the

[0:17] covid announcement?

[0:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: sure.

[1:01] due to covid-19, this meeting

[1:02] will be conducted as a zoom

[1:02] webinar, pursuant to the

[1:03] governor's executive order

[1:04] n-29-20 which suspends certain

[1:04] requirements of the brown act.

[1:05] this meeting is being webcast on

[1:06] the abag web site. The chair

[1:06] will call upon commissioners,

[1:07] presenters, staff, and other

[1:08] speakers by name, and ask that

[1:08] they speak clearly and state

[1:09] their names before giving

[1:10] comments or remarks. Persons

[1:10] participating via webcast and

[1:11] zoom, with their cameras

[1:12] enabled, are reminded that their

[1:12] activities are visible to

[1:13] viewers.

[1:13] commissioners and members of the

[1:14] public participating via zoom

[1:15] wishing to speak should use the

[1:15] raised hand feature or dial star

[1:16] nine, and the chair will call

[1:17] upon them at the appropriate

[1:17] time.

[1:18] teleconference attendees will be

[1:18] called upon by the last four

[1:19] digits of their phone number.

[1:20] it is requested that public

[1:20] speakers state their names and

[1:21] organization, but providing such

[1:22] information is voluntary.

[1:22] written public comments received

[1:23] at info@bayareametro.gov by 5:00

[1:24] p.m. Yesterday will be posted to

[1:25] the online agenda and entered

[1:25] into the record, but will not be

[1:26] read out loud. If authors of

[1:27] the written correspondence would

[1:27] like to speak, they are free to

[1:28] do so, and should raise their

[1:29] hand and the chair will call

[1:29] upon them on the appropriate

[1:30] time.

[1:30] a roll call vote will be taken

[1:31] for all action items.

[1:32] panelists should note that the

[1:32] chat feature is not active to

[1:33] attendees. In order to get the

[1:34] full zoom experience, please

[1:34] make sure your application is up

[1:35] to date.

[2:03] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.

[2:03] can you hear me?

[2:06] >>clerk of the board: yes,

[2:06] ma'am.

[2:07] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[2:07] wonderful.

[2:09] mr. Castro will you take the

[2:11] roll please?

[2:12] >>clerk of the board: yes,

[2:13] ma'am. Councilmember adams?

[2:18] yes, I see you. Thank you.

[2:20] mayor arreguin?

[2:23] >>jesse arreguin: here.

[2:24] >>clerk of the board: mayor

[2:25] ashcraft?

[2:26] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft:

[2:28] present.

[2:28] >>clerk of the board:

[2:30] councilmember bonilla.

[2:36] >>rick bonilla: yes. I'm here.

[2:36] >>clerk of the board: mr.

[2:37] [indiscernible].

[2:37] >>speaker: here.

[2:38] supervisor canepa? Is absent.

[2:42] ms. Cha?

[2:45] >>kathleen cha: present.

[2:46] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:47] you. Supervisor chavez?

[2:49] >>cindy chavez: here.

[2:50] >>clerk of the board: crabbe?

[2:50] >>speaker: here.

[2:51] >>clerk of the board:

[2:51] supervisor dillon is absent.

[2:54] mayor pro tempore eklund?

[2:57] >>pat ecklund: present.

[2:58] >>clerk of the board: thank

[2:58] you. Vice mayor

[3:02] [indiscernible]?

[3:03] >>speaker: here.

[3:04] >>clerk of the board:

[3:04] supervisor haggerty?

[3:05] >>scott haggerty: here.

[3:06] >>clerk of the board:

[3:06] mr. Hancock?

[3:09] >>russell hancock: yes. Good

[3:10] afternoon.

[3:10] >>clerk of the board: good

[3:11] afternoon, sir.

[3:12] ms. Jones?

[3:15] >>speaker: present.

[3:15] >>clerk of the board:

[3:17] supervisor mandelman?

[3:17] >>speaker: present.

[3:18] >>clerk of the board: miley is

[3:19] absent.

[3:20] supervisor mitchoff?

[3:21] >>karen mitchoff: here.

[3:22] >>clerk of the board: thank

[3:23] you.

[3:23] mayor pierce?

[3:24] >>julie pierce: here.

[3:24] >>clerk of the board:

[3:25] supervisor rabbit?

[3:26] >>david rabbit: here.

[3:27] >>clerk of the board:

[3:27] supervisor ramos is absent.

[3:29] mr. Regan? Is absent.

[3:34] supervisor rice?

[3:36] >>katie rice: here.

[3:37] >>clerk of the board:

[3:38] mr. Romero?

[3:40] >>carlos romero, vice chair: in

[3:41] attendance.

[3:42] >>clerk of the board: thank

[3:43] you. Councilmember ross is

[3:45] absent. Mr. Savay?

[3:53] >>speaker: present.

[3:54] >>clerk of the board: mr.

[3:54] schaarf is absent.

[3:55] councilmember sedgley is absent.

[3:56] supervisor spering is absent.

[4:00] ms. Trauss?

[4:05] >>sonja trauss: here.

[4:06] >>clerk of the board: thank you

[4:06] very much.

[4:07] mayor wilson?

[4:09] >>lori wilson: here.

[4:10] >>clerk of the board: thank

[4:10] you. Quorum is present.

[4:13] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[4:14] you.

[4:14] >>james p. Spering: karen?

[4:15] spering is present.

[4:16] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[4:17] you jim. Fred's got that.

[4:20] thank you so much. All right

[4:21] we're going to move into item

[4:22] two on the agenda, public

[4:24] comment. This is an opportunity

[4:25] for anyone listening to us to

[4:28] speak on any item not on today

[4:30] agenda. There will be much time

[4:33] afforded to public comment on

[4:34] our agenda items. Mr. Castro, I

[4:36] have three participant' raised

[4:41] hands. Do you see that also?

[4:43] >>clerk of the board: yes I do.

[4:44] >>karen mitchoff, chair: call

[4:45] on them, please?

[4:46] >>clerk of the board: first

[4:47] speak is clayton holstein. Go

[4:51] ahead and unmute yourself.

[4:53] >>speaker: thank you. I will

[4:54] speak later under the item on

[4:58] your agenda. Thank you.

[5:02] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[5:03] you.

[5:04] >>clerk of the board: next

[5:05] speaker is sherry jensen.

[5:09] >>scott haggerty: mark ross

[5:11] probably wants to be moved over.

[5:14] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[5:14] you scott. Who did you just

[5:16] call?

[5:20] >>clerk of the board: jensen.

[5:20] >>speaker: the allocation of

[5:22] 200,000 --

[5:22] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[5:23] ms. Jensen that's for the public

[5:25] hearing. That's for items on

[5:27] our agenda. Did you wish to

[5:31] address us on items not on

[5:32] today's agenda?

[5:34] >>speaker: no. I didn't see

[5:35] the agenda.

[5:36] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay

[5:37] great. We'll call on you at

[5:39] this time. Thank you very much.

[5:41] item three is the chair's report

[5:42] -- I don't have any -- I'm

[5:44] sorry. Is somebody talking?

[5:49] make sure you put yourself on

[5:50] mute, everybody, if you're not

[5:52] going to speak. Thank you very

[5:53] much. All right. I would like

[5:54] to thank my colleagues here for

[5:57] participating in today's

[5:58] meeting. We are at an important

[6:00] milestone in the regional

[6:02] housing needs allocation

[6:03] process. On our agenda are the

[6:05] two public hearings on the rhna

[6:07] proposed methodology and the

[6:09] rhna draft subregional shares.

[6:12] the outcome of the rhna process

[6:14] impacts all our counties, cities

[6:17] and towns, and all of us who

[6:19] live and work in the bay area.

[6:20] it is important for us to hear

[6:22] from the public, and we expect

[6:24] considerable public

[6:28] participation today. I will

[6:29] keep my report brief so we can

[6:31] get to the business. Are there

[6:32] any discussion by members on

[6:34] this item? I'm assuming not.

[6:36] anybody want to comment from the

[6:38] public on my comments?

[6:41] and mr. Castro, I don't think

[6:43] you received any public comments

[6:44] on my report.

[6:46] >>clerk of the board: no.

[6:46] there were none received.

[6:48] >>karen mitchoff, chair: all

[6:49] right. So we have the consent

[6:50] calendar. May I have -- this is

[6:54] for the approval of the abag

[6:56] regional committee minutes of

[6:58] october 1st. Are there any

[7:00] members of the committee who

[7:01] wish to make any comments?

[7:06] marilyn?

[7:07] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: I'll

[7:08] move approval madam chair.

[7:10] >>karen mitchoff, chair: fine.

[7:10] can I have a second. I will

[7:12] take public comment.

[7:14] >>julie pierce: pierce seconds.

[7:19] >>karen mitchoff, chair: pierce

[7:19] seconds. Thank you. Are there

[7:21] any members of the public who

[7:23] wish to comment on this?

[7:25] >>clerk of the board: no

[7:26] speakers.

[7:27] >>karen mitchoff, chair: moved

[7:28] by ashcraft, second by pierce.

[7:31] roll call please.

[7:33] >>clerk of the board: [roll

[7:34] call vote].

[9:34] motion passes with one

[9:38] abstention.

[10:02] >>karen mitchoff, chair: we're

[10:02] going to move to item five which

[10:05] is planned bay area 2050 we're

[10:07] getting information on the 2050

[10:11] plan. Who is giving this

[10:13] report? Is that you gillian?

[10:16] or is that matt?

[10:19] >dave vautin: good afternoon

[10:20] chair, this is dave vautin, I

[10:22] will be filling in for chirag

[10:39] rabari this afternoon. We

[10:42] wanted to give you all a final

[10:44] update on the planned bay area

[10:46] 2050, which will focus on three

[10:49] components. Document,

[10:52] environmental impact report, and

[10:54] most importantly what we're

[10:55] calling the implementation plan.

[10:57] as you are aware we're working

[10:59] on planned bay area and horizon

[11:01] for nearly three years now with

[11:04] the final blueprint approved in

[11:06] september 2020 by the abag board

[11:09] and the commission. We

[11:10] anticipate bringing back the

[11:12] outcomes of that analysis of the

[11:14] final blueprint in the next

[11:15] month. We're also working to

[11:18] kick off the implementation plan

[11:20] this fall with the intent of

[11:22] finishing planned bay area 2050

[11:24] including this implementation

[11:25] plan component by fall of 2021.

[11:27] next slide.

[11:33] for a little bit of context the

[11:37] implementation plan builds on

[11:38] the action plan that we believe

[11:40] was well received in the planned

[11:42] bay area 2040 process. The

[11:43] implementation plan will focus

[11:45] on near term tangible actions

[11:47] that abag, mtc, and partners can

[11:49] take to advanced adopted 35

[11:55] strategies across the four core

[11:58] elements of planned bay area

[11:59] 2050. We look forward to a

[12:01] process that will engage local

[12:03] residents local governments

[12:04] civic organizations business

[12:07] interests and non-profits to

[12:10] involve take shoulders to

[12:11] identify and tackle shared

[12:14] challenges over the next five

[12:15] years. Given that all

[12:17] strategies in planned bay area

[12:18] 2050 require some theme of

[12:20] partnership and collaboration

[12:22] that will be central to the

[12:24] implementation plan process.

[12:26] next slide. We see four key

[12:28] goals for this phase of the

[12:29] planned bay area 2050 effort.

[12:32] first, the implementation plan

[12:34] will work to maximize the

[12:35] viability of the plan's

[12:36] strategies. We want to ensure

[12:38] that the benefit in those

[12:42] strategies are equitable,

[12:43] effective, and that they're

[12:45] realized and that we can chart a

[12:47] path towards addressing

[12:48] challenges that might exist with

[12:50] strategies. Second the

[12:52] implementation plan will

[12:53] reinforce recommendations of

[12:55] existing initiatives whether

[12:56] those are internal to mtc and

[12:58] abag, external, or hybrid

[13:00] initiatives. This includes mtc

[13:02] and abag convening task forces

[13:07] and committees third the

[13:08] implementation plan will work to

[13:09] address emerging and

[13:15] cross-cutting issues, and

[13:17] finally to implement the

[13:19] technical assumptions included

[13:21] within the plan something that

[13:22] our regulators on the state

[13:24] level will be looking at to

[13:26] understand the near term actions

[13:27] we're taking to advance the 30

[13:30] year visionary strategies in the

[13:31] plan itself. Next slide.

[13:33] it's important to just

[13:34] acknowledge the difference

[13:35] between a strategy and an

[13:37] implementation action.

[13:38] so we have been talking about

[13:40] the blueprint for planned bay

[13:41] area 2050 for many months now,

[13:43] and it includes 35 strategies.

[13:45] those strategies are public

[13:47] policies or sets of investments

[13:48] that can be implemented in the

[13:50] bay area over the next three

[13:52] decades at many different levels

[13:55] of government. Those are not

[13:58] near term actions or legislative

[14:01] proposals. Features in this

[14:03] component of planned bay area

[14:04] 2050 are specific actions that

[14:05] will be required to advance the

[14:07] blueprint over a shorter time

[14:10] period of five years

[14:12] specifically identifying what

[14:13] mtc and abag will do to support

[14:15] our partners and work

[14:18] collaboratively to bring the

[14:21] strategies forward each

[14:23] including one or more

[14:24] implementation actions. Next

[14:25] slide.

[14:28] the implementation plan will

[14:29] work to identify requirements

[14:30] for strategy success both

[14:34] identifying areas where we have

[14:35] met those requirements or have a

[14:37] good opportunity to meet them

[14:39] but also challenge areas for

[14:40] each strategy. Second, for each

[14:43] strategy will identify mtc

[14:46] abag's role, do we lead,

[14:48] partner, or support? For a

[14:51] strategy that we lead we'll play

[14:53] a primary role while still

[14:55] working with partners for

[14:57] strategies it might involve a

[14:59] different group of partners or

[15:01] agencies for the strategy and

[15:03] there might be agencies playing

[15:09] a supportive role like state or

[15:12] federal government to advance

[15:14] that strategy. Third the

[15:15] implementation plan will

[15:16] identify different vehicles for

[15:18] strategy implementation could

[15:20] this range from advocacy and

[15:22] legislation to new initiatives

[15:23] or even planning and research

[15:25] efforts at mtc and abag and

[15:28] lastly identify timeline and

[15:30] actions for the next five years.

[15:31] next slide.

[15:34] just to give you a sense of how

[15:36] the months ahead are anticipate

[15:38] to roll out, as you will note

[15:41] here, there are some stars

[15:43] showing when we will be

[15:44] presenting to this committee,

[15:46] the board, the commission, et

[15:48] cetera. We're really here in

[15:50] the second phase of the process

[15:51] right now, after completing some

[15:53] internal analysis during the

[15:54] summer and fall.

[15:57] to describe how this

[15:58] implementation plan will work.

[16:00] next week we'll be having two

[16:02] stakeholder meetings in a

[16:04] virtual format. We are almost

[16:06] fully subscribed to those at

[16:09] this point with almost 80

[16:11] attendees anticipated for both

[16:12] of the different events as we go

[16:15] into december we'll be holding

[16:17] smaller group meetings, office

[16:18] hours, to try to understand

[16:20] specific actions and further

[16:22] refine what comes out of the

[16:23] workshops.

[16:24] going into the winter in phase

[16:26] three we'll begin to draft the

[16:29] implementation plan, we plan on

[16:30] providing an update to this

[16:32] complete and other in february

[16:33] and we'll do some engagement

[16:35] with the public and

[16:36] community-based organizations to

[16:37] continue to refine the

[16:38] implementation actions.

[16:40] in the final phases, we'll also

[16:42] begin to look at potential

[16:44] partnerships to advance specific

[16:46] strategies, we'll put forward

[16:47] the draft implementation plan in

[16:49] april or may of 2021 for public

[16:52] review and discussion. And we

[16:54] anticipate the implementation

[16:55] plan being approved concurrently

[16:58] with planned bay area 2050 in

[16:59] the fall of 2021.

[17:02] next slide.

[17:06] we have begun the strategic

[17:08] assessment of our strategies to

[17:10] understand whether we have the

[17:12] four key criteria for success to

[17:14] advance the particular strategy.

[17:16] while this analysis is still

[17:19] ongoing but we want to give you

[17:20] a bit of a flavor of how

[17:22] different strategies might shake

[17:23] out. When we come back to this

[17:25] committee in february we'll be

[17:27] bringing forward not only what

[17:28] we hear at our workshops but a

[17:31] matrix of how each of the 35

[17:33] strategies scores on the four

[17:35] criteria. For example, we're

[17:36] looking at whether strategies

[17:37] whether we have the authority to

[17:39] advance a specific strategy in

[17:41] an effective, efficient, and

[17:43] equitable manner. An example of

[17:45] a strategy where we have much

[17:46] more limited authority would be

[17:48] something like implementing a

[17:50] universal statewide basic income

[17:53] whereas we have greater

[17:55] authority to expand clean

[17:56] vehicle initiatives associated

[17:58] with the air district and others

[17:59] to fund that program.

[18:01] furthermore the strategy

[18:02] assessment is looking at whether

[18:03] we have the funding to advance

[18:05] each of the different strategies

[18:06] and you can see some examples

[18:07] there of a strategy like

[18:10] targeted mortgage assistance for

[18:12] which no current funding exists

[18:14] or compared to a strategy like

[18:16] advancing seamless mobility

[18:18] where we could leverage existing

[18:20] transportation funds to do so.

[18:22] next slide please

[18:24] third looking at for each

[18:26] strategy whether mtc abag staff

[18:28] have the technical capacity and

[18:29] institutional wrap around to

[18:31] successfully implement it.

[18:33] currently we have very limited

[18:35] capacity in an area like

[18:37] expanding job training programs

[18:38] and incubator programs. And

[18:40] much greater capacity on a

[18:42] strategy like, building express

[18:44] lanes and express buses across

[18:45] the bay area. And lastly, for

[18:48] every strategy we're looking at

[18:49] the level of public and

[18:51] political support.

[18:52] in some strategies there are

[18:54] greater challenges in this

[18:56] regard like implementing per

[18:57] mile tolling on congested

[18:59] freeways whereas there such

[19:00] greater support for a strategy

[19:02] like adapting to sea level rise.

[19:04] just because there's a challenge

[19:06] with a specific strategy doesn't

[19:08] mean that strategy should not

[19:10] move forward but really had

[19:11] finishing how we can overcome

[19:15] challenges in the next five year

[19:16] of implementation actions. Next

[19:19] slide.

[19:21] the implementation plan phase

[19:22] will continue to be a very

[19:24] collaborative effort that

[19:25] involves many different

[19:27] stakeholders. This table here

[19:28] shows examples of projects

[19:31] internal and external as well as

[19:33] key stakeholder we hope to

[19:34] engage with over the course of

[19:36] the implementation plan process,

[19:37] but of course we're interested

[19:39] in hearing any of your ideas

[19:42] about other organizations or

[19:43] groups that we should be

[19:45] touching base with. We look

[19:49] forward to local jurisdictions

[19:54] and we know a number of

[19:55] stakeholder groups will be

[19:57] joining us for our meetings next

[20:00] week. Next slide please this

[20:02] brings me to the conclusion of

[20:06] overview of the implementation

[20:08] plan. If you have comments on

[20:10] high priority implementation

[20:12] areas or stakeholder us that

[20:13] would like to add to the list to

[20:15] bring to the table and just

[20:17] overall approach to the

[20:18] implementation plan phase. Next

[20:20] slide.

[20:21] we look forward to come back to

[20:23] give you an update in

[20:31] february 2021. And I'll take

[20:33] comments or questions.

[20:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair: do any

[20:35] members of the committee have

[20:37] questions for dave? Just raise

[20:38] your hand.

[20:40] >>sonja trauss: I have a

[20:41] question.

[20:42] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go

[20:42] ahead sonja.

[20:44] >>sonja trauss: hi. So first

[20:44] of all, is there still a

[20:47] work-from-home mandate in

[20:48] planned bay area? And if there

[20:51] is, how do you imagine

[20:55] implementing that? Because it

[20:56] seems like impossible. You

[20:58] know, like, you would have to

[20:59] track the location of workers

[21:04] all over -- like, that's

[21:06] ridiculous, logistically, and

[21:09] also for civil liberties.

[21:14] >dave vautin: thanks for that

[21:15] question. In october we

[21:17] presented some parametering to

[21:18] the joint mtc planning and abag

[21:21] administrative committees that

[21:22] defined kind of guidelines for

[21:25] any alternatives to the

[21:27] telecommuting strategy. We do

[21:28] anticipate bringing forward an

[21:31] alternative to that strategy at

[21:33] the november 20th commission

[21:35] meeting, next week, is there

[21:38] will be an opportunity for

[21:40] further discussion on whether

[21:41] that strategy should move

[21:42] forward or be replaced with an

[21:45] alternative approach.

[21:46] >>karen mitchoff, chair: are

[21:47] there any other questions?

[21:51] any hands raised? I'm not

[21:53] seeing any hands raised.

[22:03] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.

[22:04] sonja, you're finished. Okay.

[22:06] then we'll go to public comment.

[22:07] there are any members of the

[22:08] public who wish to comment on

[22:10] this report?

[22:12] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: I

[22:12] believe we have a member with

[22:13] his hand up. Mr. Savay.

[22:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: here

[22:19] is al. Sorry about that.

[22:34] >>al savay: I had a question

[22:36] with the significant changes

[22:37] that were forecasted when the

[22:39] plan was put together, do you

[22:40] have capability to shift in

[22:42] terms of priorities and

[22:43] implementation based on

[22:44] significant changes like the

[22:47] pandemic response that could

[22:48] ripple through the economy in

[22:49] the bay area for years to come?

[22:55] >dave vautin: that's a great

[22:55] question. First of all I'll

[22:57] note the blueprint phase we have

[22:59] been working on since last fall

[23:01] we incorporated a number of

[23:02] different changes to it, because

[23:04] we made refinements to it during

[23:06] the course of the pandemic. So

[23:08] a lot of the strategies were

[23:10] updated or revised this summer.

[23:12] again, taking into account what

[23:14] we know, and also what we don't

[23:16] know about the region's future,

[23:17] but we were able to incorporate

[23:19] some of those learnings into the

[23:22] final blueprint. Furthermore,

[23:24] the regional growth forecast was

[23:26] updated to include covid impacts

[23:28] and recession impacts into the

[23:30] region's long-term trajectory.

[23:32] and we worked closely with the

[23:36] state to incorporate a faster

[23:38] adoption rate of telecommuting

[23:41] than the previous provision. So

[23:43] there has been specific actions.

[23:45] at the same time the plan

[23:49] implements what key changes for

[23:51] priorities in the next five

[23:53] years defined by cove and after

[23:56] effects of it including a weaker

[23:57] economy. So as we think about

[24:00] prioritizing which strategies

[24:00] need to come first, I think that

[24:04] lens along with our equity lens

[24:06] along with some of our other key

[24:08] areas to look at, that lens is

[24:09] going to be really important.

[24:11] and so, you know, we'll be

[24:13] encouraging stakeholders as we

[24:15] think about what is essential

[24:16] for 2021, 2022, et cetera, to

[24:18] keep that in mind.

[24:25] >>al savay: have you, with that

[24:29] response, you have talked to

[24:31] experts in terms of forecasting

[24:33] and futures and things like

[24:34] that, you're asking about what

[24:36] stakeholders should we talk to.

[24:39] have you talked to some experts?

[24:41] or academics? Or others in

[24:44] terms of looking toward the

[24:46] future in terms of how it

[24:48] relates to the implementation?

[24:52] >dave vautin: well we're just

[24:53] at the -- we just kicked off the

[24:56] implementation plan phase this

[24:57] month but I think your

[24:58] suggestion is well take taken

[25:03] that we can look to engage folks

[25:05] in academia and other in this

[25:08] process.

[25:10] >>speaker: thank you.

[25:11] >>karen mitchoff, chair: I know

[25:11] there are members of the public

[25:13] who wish to speak but I'm not

[25:15] seeing any members of the

[25:17] committee wishing to speak.

[25:18] mr. Castro call on our first

[25:20] speaker.

[25:21] >>clerk of the board: first

[25:22] speaker is samuel renos, please

[25:25] unmute yourself and go ahead.

[25:30] >>speaker: good afternoon

[25:32] committee members and staff,

[25:34] 2020 survey of the bay area

[25:36] local government asked to

[25:37] identify major barriers to

[25:39] producing all the housing the

[25:40] region needs shortages of

[25:42] skilled housing construction

[25:43] workers was one of the top

[25:45] responses. The northern

[25:46] california carpenters doesn't

[25:49] expect abag and the mtc to

[25:51] design expanded training

[25:53] programs, but the bay area 2050

[25:56] implementation plan can help

[25:58] guide jurisdictions towards best

[26:01] practices for local government

[26:02] agencies, and private developers

[26:05] creating incentives for

[26:07] developers and contractors to

[26:08] make concrete commitments to

[26:11] recruiting, training, and

[26:12] retaining skilled construction

[26:15] workers. The northern

[26:16] california carpenters stand

[26:18] ready to assist staff in

[26:19] developing a work plan for

[26:21] identifying and proliferating

[26:24] those best practices. Thank

[26:26] you.

[26:28] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[26:28] you. Is there anyone else who

[26:30] wishes to address us?

[26:32] >>clerk of the board: yes. We

[26:32] have one speaker with the

[26:34] initials l. W. Go ahead.

[26:37] >>speaker: hi. Can you hear

[26:38] me?

[26:39] >>clerk of the board: yes, sir.

[26:40] >>speaker: hi. My name is

[26:42] lakinder, and I'm looking at

[26:44] your strategy document. I'm

[26:46] sorry -- I haven't looked at

[26:48] your past documents, but if the

[26:50] idea was to present a

[26:51] comprehensive background as to

[26:52] how you came to this strategy,

[26:54] then, I am not so well informed.

[26:59] and I was wondering, just having

[27:03] a couple of slides is okay, but

[27:05] having a lot more detailed input

[27:07] as to what the member cities

[27:09] have, while participating, given

[27:12] you as input, that would be good

[27:14] to see. But I don't have any

[27:16] idea what's the background here.

[27:19] so thank you.

[27:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[27:22] you.

[27:23] is there anyone else in the

[27:24] public who wishes to address us?

[27:26] do you see any?

[27:27] >>clerk of the board: there is

[27:28] one more person. Raleigh

[27:34] graeber.

[27:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[27:37] ms. Graeber.

[27:41] >>clerk of the board: raleigh

[27:44] graber, please unmute yourself.

[27:47] she does not seem to be --

[27:50] >>speaker: can you hear me?

[27:51] >>clerk of the board: okay. Go

[27:52] ahead.

[27:53] >>speaker: can you hear me?

[27:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.

[27:55] >>clerk of the board: go ahead.

[27:56] >>speaker: okay. Thank you.

[27:58] I'm going to read off a letter

[28:00] to you from an edward singh who

[28:07] also living in alameda. I'm

[28:09] from alameda.

[28:10] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[28:12] ms. Graber I'm going to be

[28:14] limiting public comment to three

[28:16] minutes. Is the letter longer

[28:17] than three minutes?

[28:19] >>speaker: no. It's one

[28:20] type-written page. Dear

[28:23] regional planning committee

[28:24] chairperson mitchoff and

[28:25] committee members -- okay. One

[28:31] concern that arose during

[28:34] discussions of the recently

[28:35] defeated measure z in alameda, z

[28:39] would have removed voter

[28:44] approved development

[28:45] restrictions in alameda and it

[28:47] was defeated, is susceptibility

[28:49] of alameda to natural hazards,

[28:54] earthquake liquefaction, sea

[28:56] level rise and tsunami surges?

[28:59] although these hazards exist for

[29:02] many cities adjacent to san

[29:05] francisco bay, alameda is unique

[29:06] and the egress from alameda

[29:08] should such natural hazards

[29:10] occur an emergency response

[29:12] access to the city, to the

[29:14] island is limited to aging

[29:16] bridges and tunnels, which are

[29:18] already overwhelmed during

[29:20] normal rush hour conditions.

[29:29] adding rhna 4900 housing units

[29:32] from the period from 2023 to

[29:34] 2030 would require building

[29:35] another 13,000 approximate

[29:38] market rate units in order to

[29:40] achieve the rhna target for

[29:43] affordable homes.

[29:45] this would increase the total

[29:47] number of housing units in

[29:49] alameda by over 30 percent,

[29:51] approximately. Burdening an

[29:54] already stressed infrastructure

[29:55] as well as exasperating ingress

[29:59] on to an egress off of the

[30:02] island during emergency

[30:03] conditions. Such concerns

[30:05] should be reflected in the

[30:06] process of determining rhna

[30:09] requirements

[30:10] >>clerk of the board: your time

[30:11] is up.

[30:11] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[30:11] ms. Graber, you're addressing us

[30:13] on an item that we haven't

[30:15] gotten to yet. Can you wrap up

[30:17] your comment, please?

[30:23] ms. Graber, you're back on mute

[30:30] >>speaker: can you hear me now?

[30:31] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.

[30:32] you're addressing us on an item,

[30:34] this is not the item where you

[30:36] should be addressing it. Can

[30:37] you wrap up your comment,

[30:39] please?

[30:40] >>speaker: I'll finish it when

[30:41] you come to the item then. I'll

[30:43] finish it when you come to the

[30:44] proper item. Thank you.

[30:46] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[30:46] you. Is there anyone who wishes

[30:48] to address us on this item.

[30:49] >>clerk of the board: no other

[30:50] hands raised from the attendees

[30:52] and no written comments received

[30:53] on this item.

[30:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.

[30:55] then we are moving on to item

[31:01] 6a, and I have -- my phone keeps

[31:05] going out here. Okay. We will

[31:08] now conduct the public hearing

[31:10] -- this is item 6a public

[31:12] hearing on regional housing

[31:13] needs allocation proposed

[31:15] methodology.

[31:16] we will now conduct the public

[31:18] hearing on the regional housing

[31:19] needs allocation proposed

[31:22] methodology. Is the court

[31:24] reporter ready?

[31:29] the court reporter: I am here

[31:30] and ready. Thank you.

[31:30] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[31:32] wonderful thank you. The public

[31:33] hearing is now open. Good

[31:35] afternoon I'm karen mitchoff

[31:38] chair of the regional planning

[31:42] committee also known as rpc I

[31:45] would like to take up agenda

[31:46] item 6a proposed hearing on the

[31:49] proposed methodology for rhna

[31:50] the hearing is now open and as

[31:52] you heard a certified short hand

[31:55] reporter is transcribing these

[31:58] proceedings. If you wish to

[31:59] testify please use the raised

[32:01] hand feature or dial star nine

[32:04] and please wait to be called

[32:06] upon. We ask that each speaker

[32:08] be brief, concise and keep

[32:11] comments to no more than three

[32:13] minutes if a previous speaker

[32:16] has addressed your concern we

[32:18] ask that you just say you

[32:20] reiterate those comments rather

[32:22] err than repeating them. By way

[32:24] of background abag convened an

[32:26] ad-hoc housing methodology

[32:27] committee also known as hmc,

[32:30] over the last year, to advise

[32:32] staff on the methodology for

[32:33] allocating a share of the

[32:34] region's total housing need to

[32:37] every local government in the

[32:38] bay area.

[32:39] I think this answers the

[32:40] question from a previous public

[32:42] speaker about whether the cities

[32:43] were involved.

[32:45] on october 15th the abag

[32:50] regional executive board offered

[32:53] to release a proposed

[32:54] methodology for public comment.

[32:56] a report on the proposed

[32:58] methodology was posted on the

[33:00] abag web site beginning on

[33:03] october 24th, 2020. Also in

[33:05] late october, legal notices were

[33:07] published in multiple languages

[33:09] in newspapers in each of the

[33:11] nine counties of the bay area

[33:13] announcing the opening of a

[33:14] third day public comment period

[33:16] for written comment ending

[33:19] november 27th. And identifying

[33:21] today's public hearing to

[33:23] receive oral testimony and

[33:25] written comments about the

[33:26] proposed rhna methodology.

[33:29] today's hearing fulfills the

[33:30] requirement identified in

[33:32] california government code

[33:34] section 65584.04(d) written

[33:43] comments can continue to be

[33:45] submitted to rhna at

[33:48] bayareametro.gov or by us mail

[33:51] until the november 27th

[33:53] deadline.

[33:54] I'm going to call on gillian

[33:57] adams who will give us a report

[33:58] on this. Ms. Adams, would you

[34:01] please give your report?

[34:03] >>gillian adams: thank you

[34:04] madam chair. My name is gillian

[34:06] adams, project manager for the

[34:08] regional housing needs

[34:09] allocation or rhna process.

[34:11] I'll be providing you with a

[34:12] brief overview of the proposed

[34:14] rhna methodology approved by the

[34:16] abag executive board. Pull up

[34:18] the slides, please.

[34:23] okay. Next slide please.

[34:27] so rhna is the state-mandated

[34:30] process to identify the share of

[34:31] the region's housing need that

[34:33] each local jurisdiction must

[34:35] plan for over an eight year

[34:36] period. As part of this

[34:38] process, in june 2020, the

[34:40] california department of housing

[34:42] and community development

[34:45] determined that bay area

[34:46] communities must plan for

[34:50] 441,176 housing units from 2023

[34:52] to 2031. By law, abag is

[34:55] required to develop a

[34:56] methodology or formula that

[34:59] divides the entire housing need

[35:01] from the state among each city,

[35:03] town and county in the region.

[35:05] each local government will

[35:06] receive a total number of units

[35:09] by income category from abag and

[35:12] then must update the housing

[35:14] element of its general plan to

[35:16] show how it can accommodate its

[35:17] rhna allocation. It is in the

[35:20] housing that local jurisdictions

[35:22] choose the specific locations

[35:23] within their communities that

[35:25] will be zoned for housing. As

[35:27] noted earlier, abag convened an

[35:30] ad-hoc housing methodology

[35:32] committee or hmc to advise staff

[35:34] on the rhna methodology. The

[35:36] hmc is made up of local elected

[35:39] officials and staff representing

[35:41] jurisdictions in every bay area

[35:42] county and stakeholders from

[35:44] multiple sectors to facilitate

[35:46] sharing of different

[35:48] perspectives. Hmc met 12 times

[35:50] from october 2019 to

[35:54] december 2020 and engaged in

[35:55] robust discussions about how to

[35:57] develop a methodology that

[35:58] advances the five objectives

[36:00] required by housing element law

[36:02] and is consistent with the

[36:04] forecasted development pattern

[36:05] for planned bay area 2050 as

[36:07] required by law.

[36:08] the five statutory objectives

[36:10] for rhna related to increasing

[36:12] housing supply and mix of

[36:14] housing types, promoting infill

[36:16] development and socio-economic

[36:18] equity, promoting an improved

[36:22] inter-regional jobs/housing

[36:24] relationship balancing

[36:25] disproportionate household

[36:27] income distributions and

[36:30] affirmatively furthering fair

[36:32] housing. Throughout the

[36:34] methodology development process

[36:35] both staff and hmc's decisions

[36:38] were guided by evaluation

[36:40] metrics that access how

[36:42] successful different methodology

[36:44] options chief the statutory

[36:46] objectives.

[36:47] these metric were based

[36:50] primarily on how state hcd

[36:52] evaluated other region's

[36:54] methodologies. Results of the

[36:55] evaluation demonstrate that the

[36:57] proposed rhna methodology

[36:58] advances the statutory rhna

[37:01] objectives and is consistent

[37:02] with planned bay area 2050. On

[37:05] october 15th the abag executive

[37:07] board voted to release the

[37:08] proposed methodology for public

[37:09] comment.

[37:11] abag will be accepting written

[37:12] comments until noon on

[37:18] november 27th. Next slide

[37:18] please

[37:20] there are two primary components

[37:22] of the proposed rhna

[37:23] methodology. The first is the

[37:25] baseline allocation, and the

[37:27] second is factors and weights.

[37:30] the baseline allocation is used

[37:31] to assign each jurisdiction a

[37:33] beginning share of the region's

[37:35] housing needs.

[37:36] the proposed rhna methodology

[37:39] uses a jurisdiction's share of

[37:41] the forecasted number of total

[37:42] household in the year 2050 from

[37:45] the planned bay area 2050

[37:50] blueprint as the baseline

[37:52] allocation hmc considered five

[37:54] baselines for the allocation

[37:56] including expected household

[37:58] growth and households using 2050

[38:04] as the baseline capturing the

[38:06] benefits of using planned bay

[38:08] area 2050 blueprint in the

[38:09] methodology and because total

[38:11] household in 2050 is the sum of

[38:14] existing households plus

[38:15] expected growth it provides a

[38:17] compromise between baselines on

[38:20] current number of household in a

[38:21] jurisdiction and baseline based

[38:23] solely on forecasted housing

[38:26] growth in the blueprint. Second

[38:28] forecast of the methodology was

[38:30] selecting factors and weights

[38:31] that best compliment the

[38:33] baseline allocation. Factors

[38:34] and weights adjust a baseline

[38:37] allocation up or down. The

[38:39] proposed methodology includes

[38:40] one set of factors and weights

[38:42] for allocating very low and low

[38:46] income units and separate set

[38:48] for above and moderate units.

[38:53] this allocates for control over

[38:56] a particular income category.

[39:00] allocation to jurisdictions are

[39:02] added together to determine each

[39:04] jurisdiction's total allocation

[39:05] the table at the bottom of the

[39:07] slide shows factors and weights

[39:10] for the methodology each

[39:13] represents data related to the

[39:15] methodology priorities access to

[39:17] high opportunity areas and

[39:18] proximity to jobs. Access to

[39:19] high opportunity areas factor is

[39:21] based on the jurisdictions with

[39:23] the higher percentage of

[39:25] households living in areas

[39:26] designated high resource or

[39:28] highest resource on the

[39:28] opportunity map developed by the

[39:30] state. The state evaluated

[39:33] census tracts using index of 21

[39:36] different indicators related to

[39:37] economic, educational, and

[39:40] health outcomes. Job proximate

[39:44] factors identify the number of

[39:46] jobs that can be accessed from a

[39:48] jurisdiction by a 30 minute auto

[39:50] commute or 45 minute transit

[39:52] commute. Factors on

[39:54] jurisdiction's allocation depend

[39:56] on the scores factor relative to

[39:59] other jurisdictions within the

[40:01] region. Above average score on

[40:03] a factor would get upwards

[40:06] adjustment whereas a city below

[40:07] average factor would get

[40:10] downwards adjustment relative to

[40:12] baseline allocation

[40:13] representatives on the table

[40:14] show weight to each factor

[40:17] selected to the different income

[40:19] groups weight assigned to each

[40:20] factor represent the factor

[40:22] importance in the overall

[40:23] allocation as the weight

[40:24] determines the share of the

[40:25] region's housing need that will

[40:27] be assigned by that particular

[40:29] factor. Next slide please.

[40:34] as mentioned earlier the

[40:35] proposed rhna methodology uses

[40:38] 2050 households from the planned

[40:40] bay area 2050 blueprint as the

[40:42] baseline allocation this slide

[40:44] reviews benefits of using

[40:45] planned bay area as part of the

[40:47] rhna methodology. Importantly,

[40:49] incorporating planned bay area

[40:50] 2050 into the rhna methodology

[40:52] communicates to our local

[40:53] government partners and other

[40:55] stakeholders that we're moving

[40:57] toward a unified vision for the

[40:59] bay area's future. Including

[41:00] the blueprint in the

[41:01] methodology, helps ensure equity

[41:08] and sustainability outcomes

[41:10] identified in planned bay area

[41:12] 2050 particularly those related

[41:13] to greenhouse gas emissions

[41:15] reductions the growth

[41:16] geographies identified in the

[41:17] blueprint priority housing

[41:19] development in areas near

[41:21] transit locations close to

[41:22] existing job centers and high

[41:24] resource areas.

[41:25] using the blueprint in the rhna

[41:27] methodology -- you can go back

[41:31] to slide number four, please?

[41:34] thank you.

[41:35] using the blueprint in the rhna

[41:37] methodology also addresses

[41:39] concerns about natural hazards

[41:40] as the growth geographies in the

[41:42] blueprint exclude areas with

[41:44] high wildfire risk and areas

[41:46] outside urban growth boundaries.

[41:48] local governments can also

[41:49] consider the most appropriate

[41:51] places for planning for housing

[41:52] in areas with less risk from

[41:54] wildfires and other hazards when

[41:56] they update the housing elements

[41:57] of their general plans.

[42:00] using the year 2050 households

[42:02] baseline result in an allocation

[42:03] that reflects the blueprint's

[42:06] focused growth pattern while the

[42:07] allocation factors in the rhna

[42:09] methodology address this

[42:10] baseline to meet the fair

[42:11] housing and equity goals

[42:14] mandated by state law. As a

[42:15] result the proposed methodology

[42:17] will enable the region to

[42:20] accelerate toward a more

[42:21] equitable and less segregated

[42:23] land use pattern in the near

[42:25] term while building toward broad

[42:28] range of pattern movement in the

[42:30] long-term. It's important to

[42:31] note in september abag executive

[42:34] board and mtc commission adopted

[42:36] a changes to inputs into the

[42:39] planned bay area 2050 blueprint

[42:40] since the blueprint is part of

[42:42] the rhna methodology the final

[42:43] blueprint growth pattern which

[42:44] is slated for release in

[42:46] december 2020 will affect the

[42:50] rhna allocations. Next slide

[42:52] please this graphic provides an

[42:54] overview of the proposed rhna

[42:56] methodology. At the top you can

[42:57] see the regional housing need

[43:00] determination of 441,176 units

[43:03] by income category. State hcd

[43:09] identified for the area. In

[43:10] stage one you can see low and

[43:12] low income units have been

[43:14] grouped together and above mood

[43:16] rat grouped together step two

[43:19] shows factors and weights

[43:21] proposed methodology is one

[43:23] group of factors to allocate

[43:25] very low and low income units

[43:27] while another set of factors and

[43:29] weights allocates moderate and

[43:31] above moderate income units.

[43:33] and the factors and weights and

[43:35] resulting number of units

[43:37] allocated by each factor three

[43:38] factors for allocating low

[43:41] income units are 70 percent

[43:43] access to high opportunity areas

[43:44] allocating 126,000 units 15

[43:48] percent jobs prom auto and 15

[43:53] percent jobs programs transit

[43:59] factors to allocate higher

[44:01] income units are 40 percent

[44:03] access to high opportunity areas

[44:05] allocating -- and one hadn't

[44:14] 60,000 units. Opportunities to

[44:15] high opportunity areas factor

[44:18] allocates 52 percent of the

[44:20] region's rhna. In step three of

[44:26] the methodology each

[44:26] jurisdiction's baseline

[44:28] allocation is adjusted based on

[44:30] how it scores on different

[44:33] allocation factors. If a

[44:35] jurisdiction has more access to

[44:36] opportunity or better job

[44:37] proximity relative to the region

[44:40] this allocation is adjusted

[44:41] upward otherwise allocation

[44:43] adjusted downward. The units

[44:47] the jurisdictions receive with

[44:49] different incomes added together

[44:50] to determine a jurisdiction's

[44:52] total rhna allocation. Next

[44:54] slide please. As note the

[44:56] earlier, the potential

[44:58] allocation shown in these

[44:59] materials are illustrative at

[45:01] this point, there are many more

[45:02] steps in the rhna process before

[45:03] a jurisdiction will receive the

[45:05] final allocation that needs to

[45:09] be incorporated into the housing

[45:10] updates. The map on the left

[45:13] demonstrates the potential

[45:14] growth rate each jurisdiction

[45:16] would experience as a total

[45:18] allocation from the proposed

[45:19] methodology. This growth is

[45:21] relative to the jurisdiction's

[45:22] number of household in 2019.

[45:24] jurisdictions with the darkest

[45:26] brown experience the highest

[45:28] growth rates while those in the

[45:30] light gray experience the lowest

[45:32] growth rates in general the

[45:34] jurisdictions with the highest

[45:35] growth rates in the south bay

[45:36] and along the peninsula and

[45:38] those with lowest growth rates

[45:40] are in sonoma napa and solano

[45:42] counties and northern and

[45:43] eastern portions of contra costa

[45:45] county. It's important to note

[45:46] that the region as a whole will

[45:48] grow by 16 percent a result of

[45:51] the regional housing need

[45:53] assigned by hcd for the 2023 to

[45:57] 2031 rhna cycle. Therefore any

[46:01] receiving less than the

[46:03] determined growth rate is being

[46:04] asked to take on less than the

[46:07] average. Highlighted speakers

[46:10] to the 441,000 the bay area must

[46:13] plan for and the statutory

[46:15] requirement of rhna that all

[46:16] communities throughout the

[46:17] region do their fair share

[46:19] toward meeting the region's

[46:21] housing needs. The map on the

[46:22] right shows potential total

[46:24] allocation of rhna units to bay

[46:27] area jurisdictions to the rhna

[46:29] cycle as a result of the

[46:30] proposed methodology.

[46:32] jurisdictions with the darkest

[46:34] purple receive the largest

[46:36] allocations light gray receive

[46:38] smaller allocations of rhna.

[46:40] distribution of rhna is fairly

[46:43] concentrated with the largest

[46:46] cities receiving most

[46:48] allocations accounting for a

[46:49] third of all rhna units

[46:51] jurisdictions with the highest

[46:53] allocations from the proposed

[46:54] methodology would account for 72

[46:56] percent of all rhna units used

[46:58] of the three largest cities the

[47:00] largest rhna this allocations

[47:02] are found in silicon valley

[47:04] where there is proximity to

[47:06] major employment centers and

[47:08] high access to opportunity.

[47:09] next slide please

[47:12] this table shows how rhna units

[47:14] are distributed by county. The

[47:15] numbers in the first column

[47:17] represent the sum of the rhna

[47:18] allocations for all of the

[47:20] jurisdictions in each county.

[47:21] in a second column you can see

[47:23] each county's share of rhna

[47:26] units based on the proposed

[47:27] methodology. You can compare

[47:29] how the share of rhna units for

[47:30] each county compares to its

[47:33] share of rhna unit in the last

[47:35] cycle in the middle column share

[47:37] of existing households and share

[47:38] of existing jobs.

[47:41] san francisco and jurisdiction

[47:42] in marin, san mateo, and santa

[47:44] clara counties would receive a

[47:46] larger share of the region's

[47:47] housing need than they did in

[47:49] the 2015 to 2023 rhna cycle.

[47:53] jurisdiction in alameda, contra

[47:55] costa, and solano counties

[47:56] receive a smaller share of the

[47:57] region's rhna from the proposed

[47:59] methodology than they did from

[48:01] the cycle five methodology.

[48:02] while the share of the

[48:03] allocation to jurisdictions in

[48:05] sonoma and napa counties remains

[48:08] unchanged.

[48:09] when comparing the share of rhna

[48:12] units from the proposed

[48:13] methodology to the county's

[48:14] share of existing households

[48:15] only san francisco and

[48:17] jurisdictions in san mateo and

[48:18] santa clara receive a larger

[48:20] share of the region's rhna

[48:21] compared to their current share

[48:23] of the region's households.

[48:25] when looking at jobs only santa

[48:28] clara and san mateo counties are

[48:29] being asked to tear on a share

[48:31] of rhna units that is larger

[48:33] than their share of existing

[48:34] jobs. The allocations from the

[48:36] proposed rhna methodology would

[48:38] result in jurisdictions in santa

[48:40] clara county receiving 33

[48:41] percent of the rhna compared to

[48:43] its share of existing jobs of 27

[48:46] percent. Slide lied

[48:50] -- next slide please

[48:51] looking at the next steps for

[48:52] the rhna process. Abag is

[48:55] accepting written comments on

[48:56] the proposed methodology until

[48:57] noon on november 27th. And I

[49:01] notice here there's a typo on

[49:03] our slide it should say the

[49:05] public comment on proposed

[49:06] methodology and draft ends on

[49:09] november 27th. In december of

[49:10] 2020 the planned bay area 2050

[49:12] final blueprint data for the

[49:14] 2050 household baseline is

[49:16] anticipated to become available.

[49:18] in january of 2021, the rpc and

[49:21] the executive board will weigh

[49:23] in on public feedback as well as

[49:24] updates made to integrate the

[49:27] final blueprint data into the

[49:28] draft rhna methodology.

[49:30] once the abag executive board

[49:32] approves the draft rhna

[49:33] methodology, it will be

[49:34] submitted to state hcd for its

[49:37] review. And that completes my

[49:39] presentation.

[49:40] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[49:41] you. And I appreciate you

[49:42] noting the typo.

[49:44] since this will be on our web

[49:46] site. I would request that

[49:47] someone go through and correct

[49:49] that before it's posted again.

[49:54] okay. We will now receive oral

[49:57] -- pardon me. There are any

[50:00] comments by any members of our

[50:02] committee before we go to public

[50:04] testimony?

[50:09] is there anyone?

[50:13] >>julie pierce: yes. Sorry. I

[50:14] couldn't get unmuted.

[50:16] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.

[50:17] go ahead.

[50:18] >>julie pierce: yeah. I just

[50:19] want to make a brief comment.

[50:20] and first I want to reiterate my

[50:22] thanks to staff and all of the

[50:24] committee members for the

[50:25] housing methodology committee

[50:27] who spent the past year getting

[50:29] us this far. It has been a

[50:32] monumental lift, but I have to

[50:37] say I'm not happy with the

[50:39] results. And this is not a

[50:41] surprise to staff. I have said

[50:42] this at meetings before. I

[50:44] think we're going to have to

[50:45] agree to disagree. I'm afraid

[50:48] that none of the options that

[50:49] remained on the table at the end

[50:51] of the process really adhered to

[50:54] the stated goal to align with

[50:57] planned bay area 2050.

[50:59] the greenhouse gas and vehicle

[51:01] miles traveled targets are going

[51:03] to be nearly impossible to

[51:05] reach, no matter how many people

[51:08] we have telecommuting.

[51:11] proximity to jobs by auto and

[51:14] transit should be the heaviest

[51:16] criteria for where now housing

[51:19] should go. The quality of life

[51:20] for our workers is severely

[51:23] impacted by spending many hours

[51:26] a day commuting. Families and

[51:27] communities both suffer when

[51:30] residents cannot participate.

[51:32] the proposed methodology that is

[51:35] before the public today, in this

[51:37] public hearing, has dramatically

[51:39] increased the housing

[51:40] allocations to the

[51:42] unincorporated areas of the

[51:43] region, outside of urban growth

[51:48] boundaries that were approved by

[51:50] voters and many of those areas

[51:51] are also high hazard areas.

[51:53] indeed much of the bay area is a

[51:55] high hazard area at this point.

[51:57] it is also dramatically

[51:59] increased the allocations to

[52:00] small communities that are

[52:02] further from high quality

[52:04] transit and job centers rather

[52:06] than a previous option that was

[52:09] aligned closely with planned bay

[52:12] area 2050 growth.

[52:14] during the process, I have

[52:16] frequently heard the charge that

[52:18] some jurisdictions have not done

[52:19] their fair share, and that they

[52:22] should be forced to carry their

[52:24] weight and even punished with

[52:26] higher numbers.

[52:28] in this current housing cycle,

[52:31] cycle five, every one of our 101

[52:34] cities and nine counties have

[52:36] hcd certified housing elements,

[52:39] which where they have identified

[52:41] locations for the housing units

[52:43] they have been allocated. Many,

[52:46] many factors go into why those

[52:48] units have not been built. We

[52:50] all know what those are.

[52:53] I have further heard that for

[52:54] equity reasons the new housing

[52:57] needs to be placed heavily in

[52:59] high opportunity areas. I don't

[53:01] disagree with that at all.

[53:02] but since we're going to be

[53:04] building thousands of new homes

[53:07] in this plan and new homes near

[53:11] jobs, wouldn't it make sense for

[53:13] us to focus some of the

[53:15] resources into making those

[53:17] areas become high opportunity

[53:21] areas? The existing high

[53:23] opportunity areas do not have

[53:25] the capacity to absorb all of

[53:28] this growth.

[53:30] and a high opportunity area that

[53:31] is a two-hour commute from jobs,

[53:35] does not produce a high-quality

[53:37] life for our families. We heard

[53:40] at abag that the estimated cost

[53:42] of realizing planned bay area

[53:46] 2050 is $1.4 trillion.

[53:51] at least part of that should go

[53:53] to improving opportunities close

[53:54] to the jobs, not in the far

[53:57] flung suburbs from where those

[53:58] are located. If we genuinely

[54:01] want to align rhna and future

[54:03] growth with planned bay area

[54:05] 2050, to accomplish the goals

[54:08] that it sets out, then we

[54:11] propose focusing new housing in

[54:13] the areas that are currently big

[54:15] job centers, which are sorely

[54:18] lacking, in existing housing,

[54:21] and are projected to grow their

[54:23] jobs by over 40 percent over

[54:25] what we have today. It only

[54:27] makes sense that the

[54:29] commensurate housing plus more

[54:31] to make up for the backlog be

[54:34] located near those jobs.

[54:36] again, I sincerely appreciate

[54:44] all of the work staff have done,

[54:46] that all the housing methodology

[54:50] committee has put in, this year

[54:52] with covid-19 has made for a

[54:56] convoluted process. I just

[54:57] think we should think twice

[54:59] about this. We're not required

[55:00] to put the houses near jobs, but

[55:03] continuing on the same path

[55:06] we've done for the past many

[55:09] years doesn't make sense. I

[55:10] already voted no on this in abag

[55:14] and I would vote no again today.

[55:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: are

[55:19] there any other members who wish

[55:20] to make comment before we go to

[55:22] public testimony?

[55:25] >>pat ecklund: pat. I had

[55:27] raised my hand, chair mitchoff.

[55:29] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go

[55:30] ahead pat.

[55:32] >>pat ecklund: I don't have a

[55:32] question. I was going to make a

[55:34] comment. And I also agree with

[55:37] director pierce about the

[55:38] methodology. I believe that the

[55:43] increase of the housing

[55:46] allocations to communities in

[55:48] marin and other areas are

[55:51] higher, actually allowed for

[55:54] than in our generally plans. So

[55:56] right off the bat, abag is

[55:59] putting those cities and

[56:01] counties that have a higher

[56:05] allocation, that was in their

[56:09] general plan, they're already

[56:11] being setup for failure, in my

[56:13] opinion. Also the increased

[56:15] housing allocations to areas

[56:16] that don't have the jobs in

[56:21] short high quality transit which

[56:22] means the 15-minute headways is

[56:25] going to increase greenhouse gas

[56:28] emissions therefore taking us

[56:31] further way from the 19 percent

[56:33] goal of greenhouse gas reduction

[56:35] in planned bay area. So we're

[56:36] going to be exasperating what

[56:40] we're trying to help. And then

[56:41] lastly, I think that this

[56:43] methodology does not respect the

[56:46] high-fire hazards in all aspects

[56:51] of sea level rise and effective

[56:54] climate change, which means

[56:56] increased water coming down our

[56:57] creeks and in our bays.

[56:59] so I think that this methodology

[57:04] should have been focusing on the

[57:06] housing growth, not on both

[57:11] existing as well as the housing

[57:14] growth. So if we were voting on

[57:15] it today, I too would also be

[57:18] voting no.

[57:20] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[57:21] you pat. Anyone else wishing to

[57:22] make a comment before we go to

[57:24] public comment?

[57:27] >>sonja trauss: yeah. I will.

[57:28] >>karen mitchoff, chair: sonja.

[57:29] >>sonja trauss: there were only

[57:30] a couple of letters ahead of

[57:32] time, which I was sort of

[57:34] surprised about. But I want to

[57:36] address a couple of themes in

[57:38] those. They seem to all be from

[57:40] alameda for commenters coming up

[57:42] too. So one of the things was

[57:45] that alameda, the center of

[57:49] alameda that's sort of the least

[57:51] vulnerable to climate change

[57:52] impacts is already very densely

[57:54] built out, and I looked it up,

[57:57] and the absolute maximum density

[57:59] anywhere in alameda is the

[58:01] equivalent to 20 units per acre

[58:03] and most of it is much less. So

[58:05] I just want to remind everybody

[58:07] that this is a regional

[58:08] conversation, and so you might

[58:09] have some local idea about what

[58:11] low density means in your town,

[58:13] but remember who you're talking

[58:15] to. You know? And so, just 20

[58:20] minutes per acre is not low

[58:22] density. If you have the idea

[58:24] that's high density and you're

[58:26] saying it, you're broadcasting

[58:28] that you're not thinking at a

[58:30] regional and you don't really

[58:31] know what you're talking about.

[58:33] keep that in mind all these

[58:36] densities are relative at the

[58:37] regional level high density are

[58:39] definitely possible. The other

[58:41] thing too that came up in the

[58:43] previous two committee member's

[58:46] comments. Which is that the

[58:48] towns don't have capacity to

[58:50] accommodate higher density

[58:53] development if that's the kai

[58:55] the town's job is to get that

[58:57] capacity. In alameda they're

[58:59] saying we only have two-ways off

[59:01] the island. They have been

[59:02] saying that for decades. You

[59:05] have had decades to get another

[59:06] way off the island, and you

[59:09] should have done it years ago.

[59:10] if you feel like there is not a

[59:13] lot of jobs in your town look at

[59:15] zoning. Are you zoning for

[59:17] jobs. See what you can do to

[59:19] make it possible for people to

[59:20] locate their businesses closer.

[59:22] that's the name of the game. We

[59:24] really all have to be online

[59:27] with getting more housing and if

[59:28] you feel there are barriers and

[59:29] you feel you don't have enough

[59:32] transit, get more transit.

[59:35] that's the housing solution.

[59:36] thanks.

[59:37] >>karen mitchoff, chair: are

[59:38] from any other comments by

[59:39] members of the committee?

[59:40] marilyn, go ahead please.

[59:46] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: thank

[59:47] you chair mitchoff. There are

[59:51] several of us with our hands

[59:53] raised. Hello ms. Trauss. I

[59:56] want people to understand that

[59:58] the city council, last week,

[1:00:01] voted 4 to 1 to support

[1:00:03] methodology 8a that this

[1:00:09] committee has also supported.

[1:00:11] said that, I certainly recognize

[1:00:13] and support the first amendment

[1:00:14] right of the resident in my city

[1:00:16] to speak their mind. Like many

[1:00:20] groups, we don't all speak with

[1:00:22] one voice. It is true that on

[1:00:24] the last -- on the november 3rd

[1:00:27] ballot, we had a measure that I

[1:00:31] cochaired along with the vice

[1:00:33] mayor to repeal to charter

[1:00:37] amendments from 1973 and 1991,

[1:00:41] that ban the construction of

[1:00:43] multi-family housing in the city

[1:00:45] of alameda and limit density to

[1:00:49] no more than one housing unit

[1:00:50] per 2,000 square feet of land.

[1:00:53] unfortunately those did not

[1:00:54] succeed at the ballot box. So

[1:00:57] we're looking at our next steps

[1:01:01] moving forward in this very

[1:01:03] important issue. But I just

[1:01:07] wanted you to know from an

[1:01:09] official standpoint what the

[1:01:11] city council has said when we

[1:01:13] voted last week on this

[1:01:14] particular housing methodology

[1:01:15] that, again, this committee has

[1:01:18] approved in the past. So, thank

[1:01:19] you.

[1:01:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: and I

[1:01:22] just want to echo, there is a

[1:01:23] number of communities throughout

[1:01:24] the bay area that have done as

[1:01:26] much as they can, but they have

[1:01:30] small footprints and not

[1:01:31] everybody is able to do that.

[1:01:35] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: that

[1:01:36] isn't what I just said if you

[1:01:37] are referring to my remarks that

[1:01:39] isn't what I just said.

[1:01:41] >>karen mitchoff, chair: I was

[1:01:42] referring to what sonja just

[1:01:44] said. I know you're referring

[1:01:46] to what's going on in alameda.

[1:01:48] carlos romero?

[1:01:49] >>carlos romero, vice chair:

[1:01:51] madam chair, I have a few

[1:01:52] comments to make, but I will

[1:01:53] save them until the end because

[1:01:56] it's important, we have all

[1:01:57] weighed in the past on this

[1:01:59] issue, and it's important to try

[1:02:00] to get to the public, to the

[1:02:02] extent possible. So I will hold

[1:02:04] off, if there is time at the end

[1:02:06] I will certainly chime in.

[1:02:08] thank you.

[1:02:09] >>karen mitchoff, chair: neysa

[1:02:10] fligor?

[1:02:11] >>neysa fligor: thank you

[1:02:12] chair. Neysa fligor mayor of

[1:02:16] los altos and santa clara

[1:02:17] community association

[1:02:18] representative, on the housing

[1:02:21] committee and regional planning

[1:02:22] committee. First let me start

[1:02:24] by thanking abag leadership and

[1:02:25] staff in all their hard work,

[1:02:28] including the housing

[1:02:29] methodology committee members.

[1:02:30] as I have stated before, we

[1:02:33] support a rhna methodology that

[1:02:35] advances the rhna statutory

[1:02:37] objectives, allows for an

[1:02:39] equitable distribution

[1:02:41] throughout the region, preserves

[1:02:42] open space, performs well in

[1:02:45] reducing ghg emissions, allows

[1:02:47] for consistency between rhna and

[1:02:49] planned bay area 2050, and is a

[1:02:51] strong methodology to submit to

[1:02:54] the hcd for approval. The three

[1:02:56] remaining methodology options

[1:02:58] that were presented to hmc, as

[1:03:01] we have all seen and as staff

[1:03:03] has demonstrated repeatedly,

[1:03:06] option 8a performed the best in

[1:03:08] meeting these legal

[1:03:09] requirements. It wasn't

[1:03:10] perfect, as many have already

[1:03:12] said. But it was the best

[1:03:14] compromise and it definitely

[1:03:15] meets the statutory objectives.

[1:03:18] having said that, you know, as

[1:03:20] the representative for the city

[1:03:23] in santa clara county, we would

[1:03:26] object to any option that

[1:03:27] further allocates a larger share

[1:03:29] to the santa clara county

[1:03:31] region. Santa clara county is

[1:03:33] one of only three jurisdictions

[1:03:35] where its share of the rhna

[1:03:38] allocation would exceed its

[1:03:40] share of the bay area

[1:03:42] households. And as gillian just

[1:03:44] showed, the last cycle, santa

[1:03:46] clara county also had the

[1:03:47] largest share.

[1:03:49] similar to other counties in the

[1:03:50] region, and statewide, our

[1:03:54] residents and elected officials

[1:03:55] are also questioning where and

[1:03:57] how they will be able to build

[1:03:58] these large share of allocated

[1:04:01] units, especially when they have

[1:04:03] already struggled the last eight

[1:04:04] years to meet much lower

[1:04:06] numbers. So, you know, we can

[1:04:09] discuss the 441,000 big number

[1:04:12] that we received from hcd, and I

[1:04:15] understand the challenges that

[1:04:16] we will all face trying to meet

[1:04:19] our allocations, but at this

[1:04:21] point, with the remaining

[1:04:23] solutions before us, option 8a

[1:04:27] being the best one, when you

[1:04:28] review the statutory objectives,

[1:04:30] we believe the better solution

[1:04:32] is for us to join together as a

[1:04:34] region and figure out, is there

[1:04:36] a way to delay this rhna

[1:04:38] process. Is there a way for us

[1:04:41] to join with abag and

[1:04:42] communicate to hcd on other

[1:04:45] solutions? But if the goal of

[1:04:49] some of my colleagues is to

[1:04:50] change the methodology at this

[1:04:52] point, that is something that we

[1:04:55] could not support. Thank you so

[1:04:57] much, chair, for giving me this

[1:04:59] opportunity.

[1:05:00] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:05:01] you so much. Mark ross?

[1:05:03] >>dir. Mark ross: thank you

[1:05:04] madam chair. I will briefly

[1:05:05] speak in support of what my --

[1:05:08] most of the speakers before me,

[1:05:10] julie and pat, and neysa have

[1:05:13] said, 8a would be the preferable

[1:05:16] option, speaking as the air

[1:05:18] district representative to the

[1:05:19] rpc, not meeting the vmt and the

[1:05:22] ghg goals is of greatest concern

[1:05:25] to this particular seat, and I

[1:05:29] don't see how we're going to do

[1:05:30] that with what is on the table,

[1:05:34] which was very hard work, a lot

[1:05:36] of work by staff, which I do

[1:05:38] appreciate.

[1:05:39] option 8a seems to be inching

[1:05:47] closer to that endeavor, that

[1:05:49] goal, of reducing ghgs and vmts

[1:05:54] but it doesn't seem like we're

[1:05:56] going that way. Being closer to

[1:05:58] jobs or finding a solution to

[1:06:00] that inequitism would be

[1:06:07] helpful.

[1:06:08] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:06:09] you. I'm not seeing any raised

[1:06:10] hands from committee members.

[1:06:12] so at this time I will ask for

[1:06:14] our first speaker. Again. I'm

[1:06:16] going to have a timer. Three

[1:06:18] minutes. Mr. Castro?

[1:06:20] >>clerk of the board: yes. Our

[1:06:20] first speaker is clayton

[1:06:23] holstein. Please go ahead.

[1:06:27] >>speaker: thank you, madam

[1:06:29] chair, and committee members. I

[1:06:31] am clayton holstine city manager

[1:06:38] in brisbane california in

[1:06:40] northern san mateo canyon. Back

[1:06:42] on october 14th of this year we

[1:06:44] sent a letter with regards to

[1:06:46] the proposed rhna methodology to

[1:06:49] the abag executive board. Since

[1:06:50] then we have had an opportunity

[1:06:52] to meet with mtc and abag staff,

[1:06:54] those have been productive

[1:06:56] meetings, but we still maintain

[1:06:58] a concern with regards to some

[1:07:00] of the areas in our town that

[1:07:02] are being identified for

[1:07:03] potential, future housing

[1:07:06] development. These are areas

[1:07:08] that were historical landfills

[1:07:12] from the early part of last

[1:07:19] century as well as part of a

[1:07:21] tank farm area that serves san

[1:07:23] francisco airport. We don't

[1:07:24] believe these areas are suitable

[1:07:26] for housing. We have gone

[1:07:27] through a multi-year planning

[1:07:28] process for the area that has

[1:07:30] been identified as a high growth

[1:07:32] area, and in 2018, our voters

[1:07:38] approved a general plan

[1:07:39] amendment that allowed up to

[1:07:43] 2200 housing units on that site.

[1:07:45] we are actively involved with

[1:07:48] the landowner to move that

[1:07:50] forward so that can reach

[1:07:53] fruition. The proposed

[1:07:55] methodology, the output to that

[1:07:58] -- from that, has us several

[1:08:00] hundred units above that. I

[1:08:04] would want to note that the 20

[1:08:06] -- 200 housing units is

[1:08:12] currently over our stock, and

[1:08:19] we're a good player in the

[1:08:21] process we would ask for some

[1:08:23] future considerations with

[1:08:24] regards to the inputs of the

[1:08:26] model we're not arguing with the

[1:08:28] model itself, but to the inputs

[1:08:30] in terms of what available land

[1:08:33] is suitable. Thank you.

[1:08:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair: next

[1:08:36] speaker.

[1:08:36] >>clerk of the board: david

[1:08:37] foreman. Go ahead.

[1:08:41] david, please unmute yourself.

[1:08:44] >>speaker: okay. Thank you.

[1:08:45] it's actually paul foreman.

[1:08:48] david is my son. I happen to be

[1:08:49] on his zoom. Okay.

[1:08:53] the purpose of this statement is

[1:08:56] to express my concern to abag of

[1:09:02] the fact that your methodology

[1:09:04] does not include natural hazards

[1:09:06] in the allocation formula.

[1:09:08] on page five of the october 15th

[1:09:10] report of the executive

[1:09:12] director, he comments on this

[1:09:15] factor with the parting

[1:09:17] sentence, local governments will

[1:09:18] have the opportunity to consider

[1:09:19] the most appropriate places for

[1:09:22] planning for housing in lower

[1:09:24] risk areas, when they update

[1:09:26] their housing elements, their

[1:09:28] general plans. That may be true

[1:09:30] of most cities in the bay area,

[1:09:31] but it's certainly not true of

[1:09:33] my city of alameda. The abag

[1:09:36] natural hazard map indicates

[1:09:39] that alameda is among those of

[1:09:41] the lowest percentage of the

[1:09:42] urbanized area outside of a

[1:09:44] hazard zone less than 50

[1:09:46] percent. It's obvious if the

[1:09:48] primary hazard that causes this

[1:09:50] is sea level rise. A recent

[1:09:52] study by bcdc indicates that

[1:09:55] current projects from the year

[1:10:00] 2100 are 66 inches with a storm

[1:10:02] surge level of 84 inches. A

[1:10:04] review of flood visualization

[1:10:06] maps shows that the portion of

[1:10:09] alameda that is outside of a

[1:10:10] hazard zone is the center of an

[1:10:13] island which is already very

[1:10:15] densely built up. And one of

[1:10:17] your meet members talked about

[1:10:19] 20 units per acre current zoning

[1:10:22] restriction which of course

[1:10:23] doesn't apply to our housing

[1:10:25] element. We are a ten square

[1:10:27] mile island. We have 75,000

[1:10:31] plus people. We have 7500

[1:10:34] residents per square mile. That

[1:10:37] is a little bit more than

[1:10:38] oakland. There are very few

[1:10:41] cities in the bay area that have

[1:10:43] higher density than alameda.

[1:10:46] so, that's what you have to look

[1:10:48] at. Not our zoning ordinances.

[1:10:51] with the fact that we have so

[1:10:55] little area outside of a hazard

[1:10:58] zone, and what we do have is

[1:11:00] built up, alameda really has no

[1:11:02] choice but to build new housing

[1:11:04] directly in the flood hazard

[1:11:09] zone. In fact of the 4,000 new

[1:11:11] units being proposed and

[1:11:15] approved, is a flood hazard

[1:11:18] zone. Ingress and egress and

[1:11:22] the fact that most police and

[1:11:24] fire responders live off the

[1:11:26] island and for someone to say

[1:11:27] that it's our obligation too fix

[1:11:29] our bridges as opposed to the

[1:11:33] state and opposed to oakland, I

[1:11:36] am sure it's not in this

[1:11:37] condition for lack of trying,

[1:11:38] none of the above is intended to

[1:11:41] off alameda should not have a

[1:11:43] significant rhna. We're a high

[1:11:44] resource city that fits very

[1:11:46] well into the equity factor.

[1:11:49] >>clerk of the board: time is

[1:11:50] up.

[1:11:50] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[1:11:51] mr. Holstine, thank you for your

[1:11:54] comments. You're welcome to

[1:11:55] submit -- okay. Stop -- you're

[1:11:57] welcome to submit the balance of

[1:11:58] your comments or all of your

[1:12:00] comment in writing. Next

[1:12:02] caller, please, fred?

[1:12:09] >>clerk of the board: joshua

[1:12:11] hug. Go ahead.

[1:12:13] >>speaker: good afternoon my

[1:12:14] name is joshua hug speaking on

[1:12:17] behalf of the peninsula regional

[1:12:19] open space district. Thank you

[1:12:20] for the opportunity to speak.

[1:12:22] we're deeply concerned with the

[1:12:23] steep increase of housing

[1:12:26] allocations for unincorporated

[1:12:28] areas opposition 8a and request

[1:12:31] that these allocation in these

[1:12:33] particular jurisdictions be

[1:12:34] significantly reduced also

[1:12:35] utilizing households as a base

[1:12:37] for five growth no

[1:12:42] unincorporated areas neglects to

[1:12:44] protect these open space areas

[1:12:46] and agriculture lands through

[1:12:48] intensive [indiscernible]

[1:12:49] significantly unurbanized areas.

[1:12:50] high rhna allocations in

[1:12:50] unincorporated counties will

[1:12:56] force counties to look beyond

[1:13:00] their limited urbanized areas

[1:13:00] and into greenfield locations to

[1:13:01] zone for new housing. We feel

[1:13:03] an unincorporated approach

[1:13:09] conflicts with government code

[1:13:12] 65584-d2, which states among the

[1:13:15] goals of the housing element is

[1:13:18] the protection of environmental

[1:13:19] and agricultural resources. As

[1:13:21] a steward for several priority

[1:13:23] conservation areas for the last

[1:13:26] 50 years, we know the lands

[1:13:28] provide critical ecosystem

[1:13:32] services to support urban areas

[1:13:35] with clean water, food, and

[1:13:37] urban respite for the public.

[1:13:39] our concern is housing in the

[1:13:40] wildfire urban interface and

[1:13:42] high severity zones

[1:13:46] significantly increase risk for

[1:13:48] fire ignition and poses a risk

[1:13:52] for homes in and around a wui.

[1:13:52] increased risk to sensitive

[1:13:57] habitats and enhanced risk

[1:13:58] exposure of predator populations

[1:13:58] to rodenticides adjacent to

[1:13:59] residential areas. Impacts to

[1:14:00] regional critical habitat

[1:14:03] linkages that serve to enable

[1:14:06] wildlife movement across the

[1:14:10] landscape to enable and adapt to

[1:14:13] climate change and maintain

[1:14:14] local genetic diversity and

[1:14:17] finally new world growth

[1:14:20] undermines vmt reduction goals

[1:14:23] outlined in sb 375, as these

[1:14:24] residents will likely be forced

[1:14:25] into cars. We urge to you

[1:14:27] maintain the delicate balance

[1:14:29] between natural environment and

[1:14:32] working lands that planned bay

[1:14:33] area has successfully provided

[1:14:34] until now and reduce pressure to

[1:14:38] building in these ecologically

[1:14:41] valuable areas. Thank you.

[1:14:43] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:14:44] you. Next speaker.

[1:14:46] >>clerk of the board: greg

[1:14:47] schmidt.

[1:14:48] >>karen mitchoff, chair:

[1:14:49] mr. Schmidt?

[1:14:50] >>speaker: yes. Thank you for

[1:14:51] the opportunity.

[1:14:53] the proposed rhna numbers for

[1:14:55] the five cities of silicon

[1:14:58] valley are overwhelming in size

[1:15:00] and impact. They are also in

[1:15:04] direct defiance of the

[1:15:06] california government code.

[1:15:08] first, the numbers.

[1:15:10] the number of new housing units

[1:15:13] required within the five cities

[1:15:15] of silicon valley would equal a

[1:15:19] 32 percent increase in the

[1:15:22] existing housing stock over the

[1:15:25] next eight years.

[1:15:28] it's a mandate for percentage

[1:15:30] increase that is 60 percent

[1:15:32] higher than the three largest

[1:15:35] cities in the bay area. It's a

[1:15:40] 50 percent higher increase than

[1:15:44] the largest cities of san mateo

[1:15:48] county along the bay and 150

[1:15:50] percent higher percentage

[1:15:51] increase than the other east bay

[1:15:54] cities along the bay.

[1:15:56] where do these numbers come

[1:15:57] from?

[1:16:01] california government code

[1:16:02] section 65584 mandates that the

[1:16:07] rhna numbers be consistent with

[1:16:09] abag's planned bay area 2050.

[1:16:13] but the same code requires abag

[1:16:21] to quote "explore alternative

[1:16:23] ways of improving inter-regional

[1:16:26] jobs/housing imbalances." they

[1:16:30] have not done that. Abag's

[1:16:32] planned bay area 2050

[1:16:33] methodology uses a single, very

[1:16:37] aggressive, jobs-based model

[1:16:40] that focuses massive job growth

[1:16:44] in the five cities of silicon

[1:16:47] valley. That means, of course,

[1:16:48] that housing for the new workers

[1:16:50] is targeted within those same

[1:16:53] cities. It has a very hard time

[1:16:57] competing with new office space

[1:16:59] for some of the most expensive

[1:17:02] real estate in the country.

[1:17:07] abag has refused repeated public

[1:17:10] requests that they follow the

[1:17:13] government code that requires a

[1:17:15] serious look at realistic job

[1:17:23] dispersion to other bay area job

[1:17:25] centers. Neither the housing

[1:17:26] committee, nor this committee,

[1:17:28] nor other city councils in the

[1:17:30] bay area has had a serious

[1:17:33] public discussion of the impact

[1:17:35] of jobs dispersion across the

[1:17:42] bay area as required by code.

[1:17:47] be clear request by the abag

[1:17:51] rhna process should stop until

[1:17:52] the government followed --

[1:17:55] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:17:56] you mr. Schmidt. That's three

[1:17:58] minutes. Thank you. Next

[1:17:59] speaker, fred.

[1:18:01] >>clerk of the board: yes,

[1:18:01] ma'am. Our next speaker is

[1:18:03] aaron eckhouse. Go ahead.

[1:18:05] >>speaker: hi. Thank you my

[1:18:06] name is aaron eckhouse, I'm the

[1:18:08] regional policy manager for

[1:18:10] california yimby, yes in my

[1:18:14] backyard. I want to say I think

[1:18:16] -- I want to commend hmc for the

[1:18:18] great work they did on this

[1:18:19] draft methodology. I think they

[1:18:21] did -- when faced with an

[1:18:26] exceptionally difficult task

[1:18:28] with competing interests they

[1:18:31] did a great job. Scoring highly

[1:18:35] on all of the statutory

[1:18:37] objectives and performance

[1:18:38] metrics that staff developed for

[1:18:40] that. I want to address the

[1:18:42] idea that this project does not

[1:18:44] advance infill growth, jobs

[1:18:47] oriented growth or transit

[1:18:49] oriented growth because that is

[1:18:50] simply not accurate. There is

[1:18:53] simply higher growth in

[1:18:55] transit-rich cities job rich

[1:18:57] cities and low vmt cities under

[1:18:59] this proposed methodology

[1:19:00] compared to other cities in the

[1:19:02] region. So I think you will

[1:19:03] see, if you look at the

[1:19:06] performance metrics that it

[1:19:07] scores highly on that front.

[1:19:09] some of the alternatives that

[1:19:11] have been proposed particularly

[1:19:16] shifting the baseline would be a

[1:19:18] disaster for some of the

[1:19:19] performance metrics particularly

[1:19:20] to those facing equity and fair

[1:19:23] housing. And I think would

[1:19:25] leave abag either vulnerable to

[1:19:28] rejection by hcd or a lawsuit

[1:19:30] for failing to uphold their

[1:19:32] legal obligation for

[1:19:37] affirmatively furthering affair

[1:19:39] housing. These issues can be

[1:19:40] addressed through small targeted

[1:19:42] adjustments such as a reduction

[1:19:44] to the allocations specifically

[1:19:45] for unincorporated areas. I

[1:19:48] don't think we need to zero

[1:19:49] those out because there are

[1:19:51] places like stanford that are in

[1:19:53] unincorporated areas and have

[1:19:54] housing needs. But there can be

[1:19:56] target adjustments made there.

[1:19:59] there can be targeted

[1:20:00] adjustments made to further

[1:20:03] equity adjustment, representing

[1:20:05] a minor change at the scale of

[1:20:07] the methodology. But overall, I

[1:20:09] think you should uphold the work

[1:20:11] of the housing methodology

[1:20:13] committee, I think it recognize

[1:20:15] there is say need for housing

[1:20:16] everywhere in our region. There

[1:20:18] are jobs everywhere if our

[1:20:19] region there are people in need

[1:20:20] of housing everywhere in our

[1:20:22] region, and it directs more

[1:20:23] growth to jobs rich and

[1:20:25] transit-rich areas, but it also

[1:20:27] recognizes the fact that every

[1:20:28] part of our region has a part to

[1:20:30] play in addressing our housing

[1:20:32] needs. And it shouldn't be

[1:20:37] limited by the fact that the

[1:20:38] current general plan is

[1:20:40] inadequate. Thank you.

[1:20:42] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:20:43] you. Next speaker please.

[1:20:44] >>clerk of the board: grown --

[1:20:48] greenbelt alliance. Go ahead.

[1:20:50] >>speaker: amanda brown-stevens

[1:20:52] from grown belt alliance.

[1:20:54] executive director of greenbelt

[1:20:56] alliance and was part of the

[1:20:59] housing committee, I want to

[1:21:00] thank staff for all the work you

[1:21:02] have done. I think, overall, I

[1:21:04] am proud of being part of this

[1:21:05] process. The methodology is of

[1:21:07] course a compromise, not

[1:21:08] perfect, but just would agree

[1:21:10] with aaron's comment that is it

[1:21:15] absolutely moves in the right

[1:21:17] direction planning for homes

[1:21:18] near jobs and amenities where

[1:21:20] people live. I am in favor of

[1:21:22] making that relatively small

[1:21:24] adjustment to address

[1:21:26] unincorporated areas,

[1:21:27] particularly as per the comments

[1:21:29] by staff, around the goals of

[1:21:31] planned bay area, and honoring

[1:21:33] urban growth boundaries and not

[1:21:36] inducing sprawl. I think there

[1:21:38] are some ways to make those

[1:21:40] adjustments using a data-driven

[1:21:43] process to allocate the housing

[1:21:47] in the manner of following

[1:21:51] infill and the spirit of the

[1:21:54] methodology. Thank you.

[1:22:03] >>clerk of the board: thank

[1:22:03] you. Next speaker is rodney

[1:22:05] nickens.

[1:22:06] >>speaker: thank you goods

[1:22:09] afternoon everyone. Rodney

[1:22:14] nickens. I was part of the

[1:22:15] housing methodology committee.

[1:22:16] I want to echo the comments of

[1:22:19] my colleagues at greenbelt

[1:22:22] alliance and yimby. I support,

[1:22:27] use the planned bay area 2050

[1:22:31] households baseline however the

[1:22:32] methodology could be refined and

[1:22:34] improved with an equity

[1:22:35] adjustment that myself jeff

[1:22:38] levin, carlos romero, all

[1:22:42] advocated for. As has been

[1:22:50] echoed, many of my colleagues

[1:22:53] and housing advocates this

[1:22:55] adjustment is critical to moving

[1:22:57] us to a prosperous region where

[1:23:01] all residents have a safe and

[1:23:03] affordable home in access to

[1:23:05] educational and economic

[1:23:09] opportunities, as has been

[1:23:11] mentioned option 8a was a

[1:23:14] compromise and falls short of

[1:23:17] the j equity adjustment. We

[1:23:21] need to ensure that every

[1:23:22] resident has a stable home that

[1:23:24] they can afford. I would also

[1:23:27] strongly urge abag to reject any

[1:23:31] alternatives such as changing

[1:23:32] the baseline which would perform

[1:23:35] worse on the statutory

[1:23:37] objectives performance metrics.

[1:23:39] if adjustments are to be made

[1:23:41] they should improve performance

[1:23:43] on the objectives. The housing

[1:23:49] element process is another

[1:23:50] opportunity to also explore.

[1:23:52] which will also include

[1:23:54] equitable planning that accounts

[1:23:55] for geographies that are

[1:23:57] vulnerable to fire and flood

[1:23:58] protect our open space while

[1:24:01] also tackling our region's

[1:24:03] long-standing problem with

[1:24:04] segregation and exclusion. For

[1:24:06] those reasons I mentioned above,

[1:24:07] I strongly support option 8a

[1:24:10] with the equity adjustment.

[1:24:11] thank you.

[1:24:12] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:24:13] you. Our next speaker, fred?

[1:24:16] >>clerk of the board: paul

[1:24:19] kermoyan.

[1:24:20] >>speaker: thank you committee

[1:24:21] members. My name is paul

[1:24:29] kermoyan, I'm the community

[1:24:29] development director for the

[1:24:31] city of campbell. Thank you to

[1:24:31] abag staff and hmc for advancing

[1:24:32] the methodology; it's really

[1:24:33] important. The pda 2050 growth

[1:24:35] projections illustrate

[1:24:36] geographical areas located

[1:24:37] within one and a half miles of

[1:24:39] transit stops and high

[1:24:41] opportunity areas as being ripe

[1:24:45] future housing growth.

[1:24:46] unfortunately these areas, which

[1:24:47] are defined as pda eligible

[1:24:51] acres, in campbell, we have

[1:24:53] about 2600 acres contain lands

[1:24:56] that cannot be developed. This

[1:24:58] is a common occurrence in many

[1:25:01] you in municipalities. Although

[1:25:06] the structure of the methodology

[1:25:10] may be found sound the growth

[1:25:13] projections data input used to

[1:25:15] influence the outcome is not.

[1:25:18] for example, acreage figure

[1:25:20] should exclude more than

[1:25:22] highways, roads, and parks, they

[1:25:24] should exclude new developments

[1:25:26] that will not it turn over in

[1:25:28] the next 30 years, pg&e

[1:25:30] substations, creeks, habitat

[1:25:33] areas, conservation areas,

[1:25:35] historical preservation

[1:25:37] districts, valley water

[1:25:39] percolation ponds, single family

[1:25:41] zoning districts where a

[1:25:43] developer would have to buy out

[1:25:46] multi-million dollar singly

[1:25:47] family homes and hope to build

[1:25:49] multi-family development,

[1:25:50] government owned properties,

[1:25:53] abandoned vta, light rail

[1:25:57] extensions et cetera. Why is

[1:25:58] this important? Because state

[1:26:00] housing law requires that

[1:26:02] housing element specify site for

[1:26:05] a number of units realistically

[1:26:09] to be accommodated whether a

[1:26:11] site is adequate. Please help

[1:26:22] this region more realistically

[1:26:25] realize our goal and modify the

[1:26:26] pda2050 growth projections as an

[1:26:30] element of the hmc methodology.

[1:26:33] thank you.

[1:26:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:26:34] you.

[1:26:35] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:26:35] speaker is shajuti hossain. Go

[1:26:39] ahead.

[1:26:39] >>speaker: hi I'm shajuti

[1:26:41] hossain an attorney with public

[1:26:43] advocates I want to echo

[1:26:45] comments from rodney nickens. I

[1:26:49] support the housing methodology

[1:26:50] committee proposed methodology

[1:26:52] but believe it needs to be

[1:26:54] further refined with an equity

[1:26:56] adjustment to further meet the

[1:27:00] statutory objective of

[1:27:02] affirmatively furthering affair

[1:27:04] housing to reduce commutes

[1:27:06] improve our environment and

[1:27:07] ensure residents have a stable

[1:27:12] environment they can afford.

[1:27:13] make the baseline that homes are

[1:27:18] close to jobs this equity

[1:27:22] adjustment allocates 60 percent

[1:27:24] of total rhna into san francisco

[1:27:27] san mateo and santa clara

[1:27:28] county. Other counties do have

[1:27:30] jobs each day 180,000 people

[1:27:33] commute into contra costa county

[1:27:35] for work meaning there is still

[1:27:37] need for more affordable homes

[1:27:39] there as well. And access to

[1:27:41] opportunity factor in the

[1:27:42] methodology is important

[1:27:43] especially for the affordable

[1:27:45] allocations because it prompts

[1:27:46] jurisdictions that have mostly

[1:27:48] zoned for single family homes in

[1:27:49] the past to now zone for

[1:27:51] multi-family homes to meet those

[1:27:55] affordable allocations

[1:27:56] multi-family buildings are known

[1:27:59] to be more efficient for land

[1:28:02] and water than single family

[1:28:04] neighborhoods. I strongly urge

[1:28:13] alternatives on the stat owe

[1:28:15] objective performance. There

[1:28:19] are still 16 jurisdictions that

[1:28:21] are not getting a fair share of

[1:28:23] affordable allocations. Without

[1:28:25] the equity adjustment, rhna will

[1:28:26] exacerbate fair housing problems

[1:28:28] in over 1/3 of our historically

[1:28:32] exclusive jurisdictions. There

[1:28:34] are planning objectives that

[1:28:35] need to be advanced at the local

[1:28:36] level through housing element

[1:28:38] updates those include planning

[1:28:39] that accounts for geographies

[1:28:42] particularly for communities

[1:28:43] vulnerable to fire and flood

[1:28:45] protecting open space and

[1:28:47] dismantling segregation within

[1:28:48] local jurisdictions. I strongly

[1:28:51] support the proposed methodology

[1:28:52] with the 2050 households

[1:28:53] baseline along with the equity

[1:28:55] adjustment. Thank you.

[1:28:56] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:28:57] you.

[1:28:58] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:28:59] speaker is elizabeth osborne.

[1:29:01] go ahead.

[1:29:05] >>speaker: hi. This is

[1:29:06] actually derek sagehorn in

[1:29:09] oakland. I want to express my

[1:29:12] support for the hmc's work. And

[1:29:14] I think that option 8a is really

[1:29:17] the best compromise as well as

[1:29:20] associate myself with comments

[1:29:22] from california yimby and the

[1:29:24] greenbelt alliance. I think to

[1:29:26] the extent that changes need to

[1:29:29] be made, they should be

[1:29:31] adjustments rather than

[1:29:33] wholesale changes to input on

[1:29:35] the baseline as has been

[1:29:37] suggested by others here. I

[1:29:38] really think that this is a good

[1:29:40] compromise. But we just need

[1:29:42] more jobs near our housing. I

[1:29:45] firmly reject the idea that job

[1:29:49] dispersion needs to be part of

[1:29:50] this plan. It's just absolutely

[1:29:53] killer for vmt, we cannot

[1:29:55] control the jobs sprawl that

[1:29:59] would result from that. And I

[1:30:01] also want to say from the

[1:30:02] perspective of smaller

[1:30:03] jurisdictions that are saying

[1:30:04] they lack the resources, to one,

[1:30:07] meet the infrastructure, or two

[1:30:08] meet the subsidy needs for the

[1:30:10] low income portion of this it's

[1:30:13] really difficult to hear this

[1:30:14] when some of the same people are

[1:30:16] rejecting free money from the

[1:30:17] state for things like permanent

[1:30:20] supportive homeless housing

[1:30:22] through operation home key. So

[1:30:24] it's really difficult to hear

[1:30:25] that and have these same

[1:30:27] jurisdictions arguing for lower

[1:30:29] homes overall. So thank you for

[1:30:30] your time. And again, support

[1:30:32] for option 8a.

[1:30:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:30:35] you.

[1:30:36] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:30:36] speaker is justine marcus. Go

[1:30:40] ahead.

[1:30:42] >>speaker: hi there my name is

[1:30:44] justine marcus the policy

[1:30:47] director for entirety partners I

[1:30:50] am speak today in support of 8a

[1:30:53] with 2050 households baseline

[1:30:55] which was recommended by an

[1:30:57] overwhelming majority of hmc,

[1:31:00] rpc and abag executive board.

[1:31:02] the proposed methodology will

[1:31:04] improve our regional balance of

[1:31:05] jobs and housing which we know

[1:31:07] is essential to both reduce our

[1:31:09] greenhouse gas emissions while

[1:31:11] improving the quality of life

[1:31:12] for thousands of workers who

[1:31:14] commute long hours to their jobs

[1:31:16] each day. Methodology accounts

[1:31:17] for job growth, allocating about

[1:31:19] 60 percent of the total

[1:31:21] allocation to the three counties

[1:31:22] with the highest projected job

[1:31:25] growth and it also accounts for

[1:31:27] the existing imbalance between

[1:31:28] jobs is housing in counties that

[1:31:30] may not have the largest

[1:31:32] projected growth into the

[1:31:32] future, but where today hundreds

[1:31:34] of thousands of people must

[1:31:36] commute in from other counties

[1:31:38] because they can't afford to

[1:31:39] live near their jobs. I want to

[1:31:41] echo the comments made by

[1:31:43] partners at greenbelt alliance

[1:31:45] and others that we support the

[1:31:47] targeted data-driven approach

[1:31:49] staff is pursuing to allocations

[1:31:51] to unincorporated areas via

[1:31:55] spheres of influence while

[1:31:56] planning for homes in

[1:31:58] unincorporated areas where it is

[1:32:00] urbanized and appropriate for

[1:32:01] new development. In addition I

[1:32:04] want to associate myself with

[1:32:05] our partners at nph and public

[1:32:09] advocates for the first time in

[1:32:11] this rhna cycle we are required

[1:32:13] to affirmatively further fair

[1:32:16] housing and while option a is

[1:32:18] strong going forward it needs to

[1:32:19] go further to address the

[1:32:21] persons of racial and economic

[1:32:23] patterns across the region.

[1:32:24] this exclusion and segregation

[1:32:29] undermines opportunity for all

[1:32:32] bay area residents as well as

[1:32:35] diversity and inclusivity in our

[1:32:37] region. Therefore we urge abag

[1:32:39] to consider the small but

[1:32:41] meaningful equity adjustment

[1:32:43] which would allocate a small

[1:32:45] number of low income homes to

[1:32:46] ensure there are ample

[1:32:48] opportunities across the region

[1:32:50] at all income levels of the

[1:32:55] finally we urge abag to reject

[1:32:58] alternatives to the baseline as

[1:33:00] others have mentioned performing

[1:33:03] overwhelmingly well in the last

[1:33:05] performance metrics and put the

[1:33:07] region in jeopardy of not

[1:33:09] meeting statutory compliance.

[1:33:12] finally there are objectives in

[1:33:14] the rhna process that will be

[1:33:16] advanced through the local

[1:33:17] housing element update and we

[1:33:19] look forward to working with

[1:33:21] partners to engage in this work

[1:33:24] as it moves forward over time.

[1:33:27] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:33:27] you very much.

[1:33:28] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:33:28] speaker is zarina. Go ahead.

[1:33:33] >>speaker: hi. I am -- I echo

[1:33:37] what aaron of greenbelt

[1:33:39] alliance, shajuti and justine

[1:33:42] marcus stated earlier I strongly

[1:33:47] support abag option 8a using

[1:33:51] 2050 household baseline but

[1:33:53] methodology needs to go further

[1:33:55] and basically deal with

[1:33:57] affirmatively furthering fair

[1:33:59] housing this will move us to a

[1:34:02] closer and prosperous region

[1:34:03] where all residents are where

[1:34:05] they're working and living in

[1:34:07] the same place and with access,

[1:34:09] equity and access to

[1:34:10] environmental economic and

[1:34:12] educational opportunities.

[1:34:13] option 8a performs well on all

[1:34:15] five rhna statutory objectives.

[1:34:17] this methodology with equity

[1:34:19] adjustment will help our region

[1:34:21] reduce our commutes improve our

[1:34:23] environment and ensure every

[1:34:26] resident has a stable home they

[1:34:29] can afford. Jobs proximity

[1:34:31] factor in planned bay area

[1:34:33] household baseline ensures our

[1:34:36] homes are closer to all kinds of

[1:34:37] jobs. Each day thousands of

[1:34:39] people commute to contra costa

[1:34:41] county for work which means we

[1:34:42] still need more homes for

[1:34:45] clayton. And clayton has a lot

[1:34:46] of open spaces I'm not saying to

[1:34:48] go ahead and build everywhere

[1:34:50] that you can find, but if they

[1:34:51] have to rezone for affordable

[1:34:52] housing, they have to do their

[1:34:54] fair share for housing. Access

[1:34:56] to opportunities, allocates more

[1:34:58] homes in places with high

[1:35:00] quality jobs, schools, and

[1:35:02] environment.

[1:35:03] I strongly urge abag to reject

[1:35:06] alternatives such as changing

[1:35:08] the baseline that performs worse

[1:35:10] on statutory objectives

[1:35:12] performance matrix. If there is

[1:35:15] any adjustment it has to be to

[1:35:16] make it more equitable,

[1:35:20] basically affirmatively

[1:35:21] furthering fair housing. And

[1:35:23] thank you for your time. And I

[1:35:24] am just tired of seeing the

[1:35:29] nimbys coming and putting up,

[1:35:31] lay over, lay over, we are in a

[1:35:33] housing crisis. We are where we

[1:35:36] are because of the nimbys if not

[1:35:40] for them we wouldn't be forced

[1:35:42] to build 40,000 homes. We have

[1:35:44] crisis and pandemic. When are

[1:35:46] you guys going to wake up? The

[1:35:49] nimbys. I am tired of the

[1:35:52] elected's starting the

[1:35:53] conversation that we can't have

[1:35:54] it because if there is an I

[1:35:56] fire. There is going to be

[1:36:01] exception for groups in the fire

[1:36:02] zones, places that cannot be

[1:36:05] built, that's logical. Right.

[1:36:07] but we need to make houses for

[1:36:08] people and they have to be close

[1:36:11] to jobs. Quality of life.

[1:36:14] thank you.

[1:36:16] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:36:16] you.

[1:36:18] >>clerk of the board: victoria

[1:36:19] fierce. Go ahead.

[1:36:24] >>speaker: I live in downtown

[1:36:26] oakland. I am a former member

[1:36:28] of hmc housing methodology

[1:36:30] committee and the person who

[1:36:31] actually made the motion for 8a,

[1:36:34] the proposal before you now.

[1:36:36] you also know me from previous

[1:36:39] films such as carlos versus los

[1:36:43] altos where we beat them up.

[1:36:52] it's quite boring at this point

[1:36:55] and we don't have time to play

[1:36:57] such games. I agree with what

[1:36:59] zarin just said I'm tired of the

[1:37:03] nimbys I'm tired of them saying

[1:37:05] we want to do something about

[1:37:07] housing then there is an idea,

[1:37:10] then deciding not to do it. A

[1:37:14] eight is the best solution we

[1:37:15] spent a year surviving through

[1:37:18] the pandemic to get this before

[1:37:20] you. Please don't make all that

[1:37:22] go to waste. The thing about

[1:37:24] rhna is it establishes minimums

[1:37:26] for cities and if we want to end

[1:37:29] the housing crisis we are

[1:37:31] setting an aspirational goal,

[1:37:34] and if people think the numbers

[1:37:36] are too high you should have

[1:37:38] thought about building more

[1:37:39] housing in the last 20 years

[1:37:41] unfortunately that's not the

[1:37:42] case. So we have this plan in

[1:37:44] front of us. This the bay area,

[1:37:46] we built the internet and put

[1:37:48] people on the moon we can solve

[1:37:49] this problem of the human rights

[1:37:52] housing. I support 8a. It's a

[1:37:56] great idea. Of course it is I'm

[1:37:58] asking you to be bold and take a

[1:38:00] step solving the crisis don't do

[1:38:02] this backing off because you're

[1:38:08] terrified of tall buildings.

[1:38:09] it's fine. I live in a three

[1:38:11] story building. Thank you.

[1:38:13] >>karen mitchoff, chair: next

[1:38:14] speaker.

[1:38:15] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:38:16] speaker kelsey banes.

[1:38:18] >>speaker: I am kelsey banes

[1:38:20] regional executive director with

[1:38:25] yimby action. Peninsula group

[1:38:27] for everyone prohousing. I want

[1:38:31] to thank hmc for all their work

[1:38:34] and coming to a compromise that

[1:38:35] will help us grow in a

[1:38:40] sustainable and equity way in

[1:38:41] the future. I support the

[1:38:43] compromise but will associate

[1:38:45] myself also with the comment

[1:38:46] errs that are urging to do an

[1:38:49] equity adjustment because I do

[1:38:51] think this plan could be

[1:38:54] improved in terms of where the

[1:38:56] allocations are going and making

[1:38:59] sure we are affirmatively

[1:39:01] furthering fair housing. But I

[1:39:03] will also accept what we have as

[1:39:06] a compromise if necessary. So

[1:39:08] I'm also going to speak as a

[1:39:10] resident of palo alto. We have

[1:39:13] had a lot of our local

[1:39:16] elected's, and some of my

[1:39:18] neighbors saying that we

[1:39:20] couldn't possibly build this

[1:39:20] many homes. And, to me, when I

[1:39:24] hear that, it's a little bit

[1:39:25] like we have tried nothing, and

[1:39:27] we're all out of ideas because I

[1:39:29] have been watching palo alto

[1:39:31] politics for several years now,

[1:39:33] and I haven't seen palo alto

[1:39:36] take much many meaningful steps

[1:39:41] to protect housing production,

[1:39:44] tenants or preserve existing

[1:39:47] housing. I believe we have a

[1:39:49] lot of work to do but I believe

[1:39:50] we can do it and it's just pay

[1:39:52] matter of doing the work and

[1:39:54] locating the sites, and we can

[1:39:56] absolutely accomplish building

[1:39:57] more housing on the peninsula.

[1:40:00] this is not app impossible task.

[1:40:04] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:40:04] you.

[1:40:06] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:40:06] speaker is hector malvido.

[1:40:17] >>speaker: can you hear me?

[1:40:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.

[1:40:18] >>speaker: I want to thank,

[1:40:20] everyone, staff, rhna folks for

[1:40:22] working so hard on this. And

[1:40:24] also, to my colleagues at home

[1:40:28] and others for really supporting

[1:40:30] option a, the rhna methodology,

[1:40:32] but also calling for the equity

[1:40:34] adjustment. It's so necessary

[1:40:36] to improve this methodology's

[1:40:39] performance and in furthering

[1:40:42] fair housing objectives. We

[1:40:43] need to ensure that we're

[1:40:45] considering the entire bay area

[1:40:46] in this process including the 17

[1:40:48] jurisdictions that are under the

[1:40:49] current proposed methodology

[1:40:53] that without adjustment would

[1:40:55] not receive their proportion at

[1:40:57] share of very low and low income

[1:40:59] allocation. The bay area

[1:41:01] residents have access to high

[1:41:02] opportunity areas and

[1:41:03] jurisdictions which would

[1:41:05] provide high quality education

[1:41:07] and environmental opportunity.

[1:41:09] newly allocated hopeless would

[1:41:11] be allocated to jurisdictions

[1:41:12] with adequate jobs and schools

[1:41:17] and minimum pollution. Ensuring

[1:41:20] bright equitable futures for all

[1:41:23] residents. Currently many of

[1:41:25] our jurisdictions have severely

[1:41:27] unbalanced jobs/housing fit.

[1:41:30] it's crucial in the wake of

[1:41:32] covid-19 pandemic has laid bare

[1:41:38] many of the inequities. We have

[1:41:42] driven a policy that makes sense

[1:41:43] is inclusive and transformative.

[1:41:46] thank you for your time.

[1:41:48] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:41:48] you.

[1:41:49] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:41:49] speaker is ken chan. Go ahead.

[1:41:59] >>karen mitchoff, chair: you're

[1:41:59] on mute.

[1:42:02] >>speaker: can you hear me?

[1:42:03] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.

[1:42:04] >>speaker: hello members of the

[1:42:05] abag planning committee. Thank

[1:42:07] you for your participating as we

[1:42:09] endure this pandemic together.

[1:42:11] my name is ken chan. And I am a

[1:42:14] housing advocate with san mateo

[1:42:16] we work to preserve quality and

[1:42:18] affordable housing. We would

[1:42:20] like to echo what has been

[1:42:22] previously mentioned today and

[1:42:24] voice support for rhna

[1:42:26] methodology 8a using plan 2050

[1:42:32] household baseline however could

[1:42:34] be refined with equity

[1:42:35] adjustment to fully meet the

[1:42:38] statutory equity objectives for

[1:42:44] affirmatively furthering fair

[1:42:46] housing. It is the people that

[1:42:51] make this region what it is in

[1:42:53] the long run nobody thrives if

[1:42:55] we price out our children who

[1:42:57] have the talent to strengthen

[1:42:59] our businesses. No one thrives

[1:43:07] if families struggle to put a

[1:43:08] roof over their heads and

[1:43:11] parents can't provide roof over

[1:43:18] the heads of their children. We

[1:43:20] urge you to support option 8a

[1:43:23] with a methodology adjustment.

[1:43:26] we urge you to reject the

[1:43:33] alternatives to change the

[1:43:34] baseline.

[1:43:37] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:43:39] you mr. Chan.

[1:43:40] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:43:41] speaker is vicki parker.

[1:43:52] unmute yourself please.

[1:43:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: you

[1:43:55] there are. Thank you.

[1:43:56] >>speaker: vicki parker

[1:43:57] community development director

[1:43:59] for the city of novato. I want

[1:44:01] to, as many other speakers, have

[1:44:04] acknowledged the complexity and

[1:44:06] difficulty of the task, in the

[1:44:07] enormous amount of effort that

[1:44:11] abag staff and the hmc have put

[1:44:13] into development of the

[1:44:14] methodology. I also want to say

[1:44:16] that we generally support the

[1:44:18] goals and the methodology, and

[1:44:20] especially the focus on regional

[1:44:23] equity. We agree with comments,

[1:44:27] however, by several other

[1:44:29] speakers, that we think the -- a

[1:44:32] focus on natural hazards and

[1:44:34] other regulatory constraints

[1:44:36] when looking at land inventories

[1:44:38] needs to be better acknowledged.

[1:44:41] and we have some suggestions for

[1:44:42] that, that we have put into our

[1:44:44] letter. Specifically, though, I

[1:44:48] want to focus on one thing, and

[1:44:50] that is, our city's concern is

[1:44:53] that the use of 2050 future

[1:44:56] households as the baseline does

[1:44:58] not acknowledge the realities of

[1:45:01] missing or inadequate

[1:45:03] infrastructure. By that, I

[1:45:04] mean, water, sewer, streets,

[1:45:07] storm drains, using this future

[1:45:09] number, we feel escalates the

[1:45:12] growth far more quickly than our

[1:45:18] capital budgets and programs can

[1:45:20] keep pace with and we fully

[1:45:23] knowledge this may be hard for

[1:45:25] some folks to understand if

[1:45:26] you're not on the front lines of

[1:45:28] small city budgeting and

[1:45:29] priority setting. It doesn't

[1:45:31] necessarily make sense to folks.

[1:45:32] but, our draft numbers mean that

[1:45:36] we would be asked to provide two

[1:45:38] and a half times our total, 15

[1:45:42] year build-out, and we would be

[1:45:44] asked to produce it in eight

[1:45:46] years, so half of the time. So

[1:45:49] that may put it in some

[1:45:51] perspective that that's really

[1:45:54] unrealistic to think that

[1:45:55] jurisdictions can produce

[1:45:57] additional revenues to push

[1:46:01] capital projects forward at

[1:46:03] double the pace. We simply

[1:46:05] don't have the ability to

[1:46:06] produce new revenues. We feel

[1:46:09] like use of 2050 households as

[1:46:12] the baseline sets us up to fail

[1:46:15] and we respectfully request that

[1:46:17] the methodology, instead,

[1:46:19] utilize 2050 household growth as

[1:46:22] that baseline. As its been said

[1:46:28] by many others, none of the

[1:46:30] methodologies are perfect. We

[1:46:31] also agree that everyone has to

[1:46:33] do their part, and we're happy

[1:46:35] to do our part. However, use of

[1:46:37] growth rates instead of future

[1:46:39] households as the baseline would

[1:46:41] allocate rhna at rates that are

[1:46:44] consistent with planned bay

[1:46:45] area.

[1:46:49] >>clerk of the board: thank

[1:46:50] you. Our next speaker is sidhar

[1:46:55] kapur. Go ahead.

[1:47:00] >>speaker: hi. My name is syd

[1:47:04] kapur. I live in oakland and

[1:47:06] volunteer with yimby action. I

[1:47:07] am here again after several

[1:47:10] meetings of this to again say I

[1:47:12] support the 8a proposed

[1:47:14] methodology. I would also

[1:47:16] support an adjustment of

[1:47:17] targeted adjustments of housing

[1:47:20] relief from unincorporated areas

[1:47:21] and the inequity adjustments

[1:47:26] proposed by others. So far this

[1:47:29] is the proposed methodology is

[1:47:31] really good. It has all the

[1:47:36] metrics we all want to meet, and

[1:47:38] there is no reason to delay this

[1:47:39] decision any more. All right.

[1:47:41] thank you.

[1:47:45] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:47:45] you.

[1:47:46] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:47:46] speaker is jordan grimes. Go

[1:47:48] ahead.

[1:47:58] unmute yourself, please.

[1:48:00] >>speaker: yes. Good

[1:48:01] afternoon. My name is jordan

[1:48:02] grimes a lead member of

[1:48:04] peninsula for everyone. We're a

[1:48:06] grassroots housing advocacy

[1:48:09] group from daly city to

[1:48:11] sunnyvale here to reiterate our

[1:48:13] strong support for option 8a.

[1:48:15] our members participated in

[1:48:20] housing methodology committee

[1:48:21] meetings and are impressed by

[1:48:24] hmc and staff, mostly people who

[1:48:31] participate in these meetings

[1:48:33] are affluent, white, and older.

[1:48:35] option 8a provides compromise on

[1:48:41] the housing and urban sprawl. I

[1:48:44] want to support comment in

[1:48:45] support of the equity

[1:48:46] adjustment. To the other

[1:48:47] comments no one's being setup to

[1:48:49] fail here. Literally every city

[1:48:51] can meet their targets if they

[1:48:53] meet the appropriate zoning

[1:48:55] permitting and process changes.

[1:48:56] it's on them to do so. And then

[1:48:58] just one last thing I would like

[1:49:01] to note. I have heard it

[1:49:03] repeatedly and tired of hearing

[1:49:04] it. Having a certified housing

[1:49:07] element doesn't mean you're

[1:49:08] building your fair share of

[1:49:11] housing it means you're having

[1:49:12] to jump through a specific

[1:49:14] bureaucracy hoop. We have built

[1:49:20] 2,000 units of housing over the

[1:49:21] last decade and adding more than

[1:49:24] 20,000 jobs in the same time

[1:49:26] frame both have certified

[1:49:28] housing elements and far too

[1:49:30] many in other cities have

[1:49:32] housing ratios. I cannot

[1:49:33] imagine anyone who would not

[1:49:36] agree to do their fair share.

[1:49:38] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:49:39] you.

[1:49:39] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:49:40] speaker is salim.

[1:49:42] >>speaker: hi. I'm salim, a

[1:49:45] bay area native and supportive

[1:49:47] of california yimby. I support

[1:49:49] the 8a methodology for targeted

[1:49:51] adjustments for unincorporated

[1:49:53] areas I am supported of

[1:49:56] adjustments for equity concerns.

[1:49:58] so, no one's perfectly happy

[1:50:04] with the proposal. It's not

[1:50:06] perfect. Trying to find

[1:50:09] something that works for

[1:50:10] everybody. I understand some

[1:50:14] neighborhoods are not perfectly

[1:50:16] satisfied with what's on the

[1:50:18] table but I feel it's good with

[1:50:21] as much work that's gone into

[1:50:23] it, I have heard rhna numbers

[1:50:26] are too large or unfeasible.

[1:50:29] you have to keep in mind it has

[1:50:30] to match scale of the problem.

[1:50:34] climate change is going to be

[1:50:35] one of the defining problems of

[1:50:37] our generation we're the first

[1:50:39] generation that can see the

[1:50:41] crippling effects of climate

[1:50:42] change with the forest fires and

[1:50:44] we're the last generation that

[1:50:45] can do something about it.

[1:50:47] building more housing where

[1:50:48] there are jobs, building more

[1:50:50] housing in infill areas instead

[1:50:52] of creating more sprawl, those

[1:50:55] are all important goals, and the

[1:50:56] other crisis that, you know, we

[1:50:59] have to meet is the housing

[1:51:01] crisis.

[1:51:02] so, I am part of a younger

[1:51:06] generation than I think maybe

[1:51:08] the majority of people on the

[1:51:10] call, and if I think about my

[1:51:11] friends, you know, the

[1:51:12] majorities of them have either

[1:51:14] moved back in with their family

[1:51:16] after college or they have moved

[1:51:18] to an area that's more

[1:51:19] affordable. They have had to

[1:51:21] leave the bay area. It's not

[1:51:23] sustainable. The bay area has

[1:51:24] to be inhabitable for our own

[1:51:29] children otherwise they're not

[1:51:31] going to be able to enjoy the

[1:51:32] same quality of life that we

[1:51:34] have. I hope that when towns

[1:51:37] find themselves disappoints they

[1:51:39] will keep this in mind that it

[1:51:41] will help with their climate

[1:51:42] action plan and help them

[1:51:44] keeping their own children in

[1:51:45] their community and the benefits

[1:51:47] outweigh the costs. Thank you.

[1:51:50] >>clerk of the board: our next

[1:51:51] speaker is daryl owens, go

[1:51:56] ahead.

[1:51:58] >>speaker: yes. I'm daryl

[1:52:00] owens from berkeley, california.

[1:52:03] I want to say I support 8a. I

[1:52:06] hope this is the last time I

[1:52:08] have to call in and say I'm in

[1:52:10] support of 8a. I support any

[1:52:12] methodology changes that shift

[1:52:13] more of the housing closer to

[1:52:16] the west bay and shift out of

[1:52:20] unincorporated areas. I think

[1:52:21] it's important from an equity

[1:52:26] standpoint and feasibility

[1:52:27] standpoint. Demand is highest

[1:52:32] and if you want allocation to

[1:52:35] materialize you want to put it

[1:52:36] in place where is demand is pent

[1:52:42] up. You do not want it to be

[1:52:44] sitting there and unbuilt. I

[1:52:46] support item 8a.

[1:52:49] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:52:49] you.

[1:52:50] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:52:50] speaker is rayla graber, go

[1:52:55] ahead.

[1:53:00] >>speaker: okay. I would just

[1:53:01] like to add my support to a

[1:53:03] prior speaker, paul foreman, and

[1:53:06] his comments regarding alameda

[1:53:08] and some of its special

[1:53:13] characteristics should be taken

[1:53:15] into account when figuring the

[1:53:17] rhna figures. But I want to

[1:53:19] finish mr. Edward singh's letter

[1:53:23] they started reading previously.

[1:53:25] I'll just finish t.

[1:53:29] mr. Singh from alameda said the

[1:53:33] rhna requirements stress

[1:53:39] proximity to major city center

[1:53:41] this might have been a fact pre

[1:53:45] covid but now it demonstrates

[1:53:46] the need for telecommute working

[1:53:49] has greatly decreased the

[1:53:51] opportunity for major city

[1:53:53] centers and will inevitably

[1:53:55] create a need for more jobs in

[1:53:57] professional and service

[1:53:58] industries in more outlying

[1:54:00] cities. Such changing

[1:54:02] employment and housing needed

[1:54:04] characteristic should be

[1:54:06] reflected in the process of

[1:54:07] determining rhna requirements

[1:54:09] for bay area cities. Even

[1:54:13] discounting potential changes in

[1:54:15] employment centers due to covid,

[1:54:18] giving more weight to proximity

[1:54:19] to major business centers is

[1:54:22] somewhat tenuous as pre covid

[1:54:27] over 400,000 commuters use mass

[1:54:30] transit to commute from outlying

[1:54:32] cities into the major business

[1:54:34] centers.

[1:54:37] mr. Singh finishes by saying, I

[1:54:41] fully support the concept of

[1:54:43] social equity, however I ask

[1:54:45] that you consider paul foreman's

[1:54:49] and my concerns and viewpoints

[1:54:52] regarding the proposed rhna

[1:54:54] requirements for alameda, the

[1:54:56] city of. Thank you.

[1:54:57] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:54:58] you.

[1:54:59] >>clerk of the board: the next

[1:55:00] speaker is sam deutsche. Go

[1:55:04] ahead.

[1:55:05] >>speaker: hi my name is sam,

[1:55:07] and I am a san francisco

[1:55:08] resident and also a member of

[1:55:11] yimby action. And I am calling

[1:55:12] to support the hmc methodology,

[1:55:15] and furthermore support the

[1:55:18] equity and unincorporated area

[1:55:22] adjustments as well. I mean, we

[1:55:24] have had so many of these

[1:55:26] meetings already, and I have

[1:55:27] already voiced my support for,

[1:55:29] you know, putting more housing

[1:55:31] in places that are after fluent,

[1:55:34] have good transit, have good

[1:55:36] climate, and are lower density

[1:55:38] than they should be. But also I

[1:55:41] want to respond to a comment I

[1:55:42] heard earlier about, oh, you

[1:55:44] know, we don't have the

[1:55:45] infrastructure for this, blah,

[1:55:47] blah, blah, if you look at prop

[1:55:49] 13, the fact that so much of our

[1:55:53] housing stock was built so long

[1:55:55] ago is artificially depressing

[1:56:00] the amount of property tax that

[1:56:02] could be collected is spent on

[1:56:04] infrastructure regardless of

[1:56:05] prop 13 it's a reality we face

[1:56:07] and as a result the only way to

[1:56:10] adequately fund new

[1:56:11] infrastructure is to build a ton

[1:56:12] of more new housing that is

[1:56:14] assessed at market rate for

[1:56:16] taxing. So I find that to be an

[1:56:18] incredibly specious argument and

[1:56:21] one that does not hold up to any

[1:56:24] scrutiny, and yeah, just

[1:56:26] reiterating my support for the

[1:56:27] hmc methodology, and building

[1:56:29] more housing in the bay area.

[1:56:31] thank you.

[1:56:32] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:56:33] you.

[1:56:34] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:56:34] speaker is kevin mah.

[1:56:35] >>speaker: hello. My name is

[1:56:36] kevin mah. I am a resident of

[1:56:36] palo alto in santa clara county.

[1:56:46] I support hmc's proposal for 8a.

[1:56:48] it is done in a consensus

[1:56:54] manner. The issue of

[1:57:02] unincorporated is a wide bucket

[1:57:03] for many communities would like

[1:57:06] perhaps in the future to be

[1:57:08] broken down in designate the

[1:57:09] places. In santa clara we have

[1:57:13] coyote valley and creek which is

[1:57:15] an unincorporated areas that

[1:57:18] people would like to protect,

[1:57:19] and other areas than

[1:57:24] unincorporated. There are

[1:57:26] adjustments that need to be

[1:57:27] done, and in the sense that we

[1:57:29] should be furthering anything to

[1:57:30] do with affirmatively furthering

[1:57:33] fair housing. That being said I

[1:57:35] also -- for all the speakers who

[1:57:37] talk about, we can't build.

[1:57:40] we're till -- still in a housing

[1:57:45] crisis and telework isn't going

[1:57:46] to help those who are searching

[1:57:50] for a job when their rent is

[1:57:52] still due. There are still

[1:57:55] quite a bit of people burdened

[1:57:58] that honestly is immoral for the

[1:58:03] region we're living in. We

[1:58:07] should be building housing so

[1:58:08] that everyone can have a decent

[1:58:09] place to work and live rather

[1:58:11] than just depending property

[1:58:13] values in the sense they just

[1:58:14] don't like neighbors. Thank

[1:58:16] you.

[1:58:17] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[1:58:18] you.

[1:58:18] >>clerk of the board: next

[1:58:19] speaker is sherry l jensen go

[1:58:24] ahead.

[1:58:25] >>speaker: hi. The allocation

[1:58:27] of 2100 dwelling units to

[1:58:30] saratoga is made by people who

[1:58:32] have not done the careful work

[1:58:34] of planning and siting homes in

[1:58:38] our city. Half of saratoga

[1:58:40] consists of steep hills with

[1:58:42] extreme fire dangers, ongoing

[1:58:45] soil creep, slides fault zone

[1:58:49] and rain fall compared to half

[1:58:55] of the valley floor and the

[1:58:56] other half, meaning we have to

[1:58:59] recharge our aquifer. Unlike

[1:59:03] san francisco in the east bay

[1:59:04] which have commandeered

[1:59:08] substantial sierra water supply

[1:59:12] not us 50 percent of our local

[1:59:14] water comes from our local

[1:59:16] sources hence vital to our life.

[1:59:19] for san jose and county of santa

[1:59:21] clara we saw from the early 70s

[1:59:23] what a critically important task

[1:59:25] this was. We learned the hard

[1:59:28] way the lessons of building

[1:59:30] homes on land slides and faults.

[1:59:33] boulder creek homes in san jose

[1:59:36] and eastern hills the land began

[1:59:38] to collapse, houses collapse,

[1:59:41] utilities have to be built above

[1:59:43] ground so when it failed it was

[1:59:46] visible and could be fixed right

[1:59:48] away. Houses are built over and

[1:59:52] over continuing to collapse as

[1:59:54] families lose just about

[1:59:56] everything. The roads are

[1:59:58] continually rebuilt. Successful

[2:00:01] homeowner lost everything. The

[2:00:03] public paid and paid and paid

[2:00:04] for this mistake. Simoni drive

[2:00:09] was next to fall eventually

[2:00:12] geo-technical work on both sides

[2:00:14] of our valley showed

[2:00:16] instability, and in addition

[2:00:21] high fire danger, we developed a

[2:00:25] slope to keep development out of

[2:00:27] the risky areas, and about late

[2:00:31] 1980 to the lower density in

[2:00:34] these highly unstable lands and

[2:00:36] through citizen initiatives we

[2:00:38] lowered densities we had to it

[2:00:40] was costing us a forgotten --

[2:00:49] fortune to rebuild the roads.

[2:00:53] santa clara valley water agency

[2:00:55] based on their value in

[2:00:57] percolating rail fall into the

[2:01:00] aquifer. Cities and county --

[2:01:04] bay lands -- restoring aquifers

[2:01:07] for the county so they can hole

[2:01:09] water 50 of our county's water

[2:01:12] comes from this system to

[2:01:13] accommodate this process

[2:01:14] saratoga has had a hard scape of

[2:01:17] development of 30 percent per

[2:01:19] parcel this proposal --

[2:01:21] [indiscernible].

[2:01:22] >>karen mitchoff, chair: time

[2:01:23] is up. Ms. Jensen that's three

[2:01:25] minutes. Thank you.

[2:01:29] >>clerk of the board: next

[2:01:29] speaker is rob nielsen. Go

[2:01:39] ahead.

[2:01:41] >>clerk of the board: james

[2:01:42] baxter's -- [indiscernible].

[2:01:47] >>speaker: hello. There is

[2:01:48] cross talk here. My name is rob

[2:01:51] nielsen. I support 8a from the

[2:01:55] methodology committee. I

[2:01:56] attended some of the meetings

[2:01:57] this summer and fall and I am

[2:01:59] very impressed by all the hard

[2:02:01] work that was done in the back

[2:02:03] and forth to reach a compromise

[2:02:05] that met all the statutory

[2:02:07] requirements. I want to point

[2:02:08] out the high opportunity

[2:02:13] requirement. Since I moved here

[2:02:19] there has been less opportunity

[2:02:21] because of the high cost of

[2:02:23] housing. I am glad you're going

[2:02:25] to start talking about issue

[2:02:26] that so there is opportunity for

[2:02:29] all people to live here and to

[2:02:31] add benefits to the bay area.

[2:02:33] and I'm glad you're taking steps

[2:02:35] to correct it. Thank you.

[2:02:37] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[2:02:38] you.

[2:02:38] >>clerk of the board: last

[2:02:39] speaker is adam buckbinder. Go

[2:02:41] ahead.

[2:02:42] >>clerk of the board: hello I'm

[2:02:43] adam, from the city of campbell

[2:02:46] speaking for myself here. As a

[2:02:48] commissioner I am familiar with

[2:02:49] campbell the idea that we

[2:02:50] shouldn't have an ambitious

[2:02:52] housing target because we are

[2:02:54] mostly single family homes is

[2:02:58] nonsensical. The housing

[2:02:59] doesn't care about the rezoning

[2:03:01] map. This is what the housing

[2:03:03] process is for what the general

[2:03:05] update when we are in the middle

[2:03:06] of campbell is for it's morally

[2:03:10] horrible to place the aesthetic

[2:03:12] whims over the needs community.

[2:03:17] it's perfectly reasonable to

[2:03:19] make targets adjustments to

[2:03:21] reduce allocations in

[2:03:23] unincorporated areas but

[2:03:25] changing the baseline metrics

[2:03:28] undermines the work and will

[2:03:29] lead to worse outcomes. It's

[2:03:32] vital we find a way forward.

[2:03:33] hmc has provided that I

[2:03:35] encourage abag to use it. Thank

[2:03:37] you for your time.

[2:03:38] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[2:03:39] you.

[2:03:39] >>clerk of the board: chair

[2:03:40] mitchoff, this is fred. Two

[2:03:42] additional members of the public

[2:03:43] have raised their hands.

[2:03:45] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go

[2:03:45] ahead please.

[2:03:46] >>clerk of the board: next

[2:03:47] speaker is joanna. Go ahead.

[2:03:54] please unmute yourself.

[2:03:58] >>speaker: sorry. Hi my name

[2:04:01] is joanna. I am a colead with

[2:04:03] urban environmentalists. I am

[2:04:06] calling in out of my work day to

[2:04:08] say we support the hmc proposal

[2:04:10] it's also illegal to place our

[2:04:13] plans on regulatory constraints

[2:04:15] like existing land use

[2:04:18] restrictions because it

[2:04:20] reinforces exclusionary

[2:04:22] patterns. Thank you very much.

[2:04:24] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[2:04:25] you very much.

[2:04:25] >>clerk of the board: last

[2:04:26] speaker is zack boling. Go

[2:04:29] ahead.

[2:04:30] >>speaker: hi there. I am a

[2:04:32] resident of alameda and I want

[2:04:34] to voice my disagreement of the

[2:04:38] statements made by foreman. I

[2:04:45] want to support my support for

[2:04:47] hmc proposal. Thank you.

[2:04:50] >>karen mitchoff, chair: fred,

[2:04:51] is it my understanding there are

[2:04:53] no more public speakers.

[2:04:55] >>clerk of the board: no other

[2:04:57] speakers. I have a list of

[2:04:58] public comments received. I

[2:05:00] would like to read the names.

[2:05:01] david howard, paul foreman,

[2:05:03] public advocates, singh bardin,

[2:05:08] val e.a. Ebert, edward singh,

[2:05:11] public advocates and daniel

[2:05:18] staub. Thank you.

[2:05:20] >>karen mitchoff, chair: I will

[2:05:21] close the public hearing.

[2:05:22] >>carlos romero, vice chair:

[2:05:23] excuse me, madam chair. May I

[2:05:25] just make a comment? I know I

[2:05:28] wanted to reserve two minute was

[2:05:37] of my time. I want to support

[2:05:40] 8a to affirmatively further fair

[2:05:44] housing in the nine county bay

[2:05:45] area. It is essential to do

[2:05:47] that. 8a is a compromise from

[2:05:50] 6a as many of the speakers have

[2:05:52] said it took us a while to get

[2:05:55] here. We agree on that and any

[2:05:58] wholesale change to this process

[2:06:00] and/or another option at this

[2:06:05] point really would serve neither

[2:06:08] the public, nor, for that

[2:06:10] matter, any of us, any of the

[2:06:12] residents of the nine bay area

[2:06:14] county area because it would not

[2:06:16] have been a vetted discussion

[2:06:17] and more importantly, there is

[2:06:19] no way that any other option

[2:06:21] introduced today would be able

[2:06:23] to have the widespread

[2:06:28] discussion and ultimately,

[2:06:30] approval of, as you heard today,

[2:06:32] many of those folks speaking.

[2:06:34] so, again, I urge that we do

[2:06:36] move forward with 8a with an

[2:06:39] equity adjustment, and lastly

[2:06:41] I'll say I was pleased to hear

[2:06:44] greenbelt alliance speak in

[2:06:45] favor of 8a, certainly I know

[2:06:49] our staff is working diligently

[2:06:51] with the three counties that

[2:06:53] have a concern about the

[2:06:54] allocation ever units to the

[2:06:56] unincorporated areas, and I

[2:06:57] think that issue is surmountable

[2:07:00] by utilizing our staff smarts as

[2:07:04] well as applying and approving

[2:07:06] 8a. Thank you.

[2:07:08] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[2:07:08] you carlos. All right. Now I

[2:07:10] will close the public hearing.

[2:07:12] just as a reminder for anyone

[2:07:14] listening in who wants to

[2:07:16] comment. You have until

[2:07:18] november 27th, and the

[2:07:20] information on how to do so is

[2:07:22] on the web site.

[2:07:24] all right. We're going to move

[2:07:25] on to --

[2:07:30] >>rick bonilla: madam chair,

[2:07:31] rick bonilla, if I may, now that

[2:07:33] I have heard extensive public

[2:07:35] comment, I would like to make a

[2:07:37] statement.

[2:07:41] >>speaker: likewise.

[2:07:42] >>karen mitchoff, chair: rick

[2:07:42] please keep it short we have got

[2:07:44] another hearing.

[2:07:46] >>rick bonilla: thank you of

[2:07:47] course. After hearing extensive

[2:07:52] public comment, after taking

[2:07:55] part in the housing methodology

[2:07:57] committee, which was a long and

[2:07:59] informing process. I believe

[2:08:00] that we came forth with the best

[2:08:02] recommendation possible that

[2:08:03] will go and do the best at

[2:08:05] meeting the housing, the

[2:08:09] affirmatively furthering fair

[2:08:11] housing mandate and will meet

[2:08:13] the goals necessary to provide

[2:08:14] the housing that we need in the

[2:08:16] locations where we need it. I

[2:08:18] understand other jurisdictions

[2:08:19] have some issues, those can be

[2:08:21] worked through. I believe that

[2:08:22] we're going to be able to go

[2:08:24] forward with this, and I

[2:08:25] recommend for everybody, if you

[2:08:27] don't understand it, please take

[2:08:28] a closer look. This is a great

[2:08:31] option. Thank you very much.

[2:08:34] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[2:08:34] you. And melissa.

[2:08:41] >>speaker: also I want to lend

[2:08:42] my comment to the equity and

[2:08:45] proposed 8a. We are living

[2:08:47] through perhaps the most

[2:08:49] fundamental demonstration of the

[2:08:51] inequities in our system. The

[2:08:53] pandemic has had a huge

[2:08:55] percentage of the population

[2:08:56] working from home, and many more

[2:08:58] in the very jobs that would

[2:09:01] qualify folks for affordable

[2:09:03] fair housing out at work and

[2:09:05] exposed. And this is a moment

[2:09:08] where the least we can do I

[2:09:09] think, is make sure that we have

[2:09:11] I strategy that gets us to full

[2:09:13] affordable housing for those

[2:09:14] people who have worked so hard.

[2:09:16] and the existence of

[2:09:18] exclusionary communities that

[2:09:19] have benefitted from the hard

[2:09:21] work of those families, it

[2:09:24] really is time to figure out how

[2:09:26] those exclusionary communities

[2:09:27] start to create the housing in

[2:09:29] their communities for the

[2:09:31] families whose labor they

[2:09:40] benefit from.

[2:09:41] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[2:09:42] you. David rabbit?

[2:09:43] >>david rabbit: thank you madam

[2:09:44] chair. I want to again make

[2:09:45] sure I get this on the record.

[2:09:47] I want to thank staff and the

[2:09:49] housing methodology committee.

[2:09:50] I want supportive of the

[2:09:52] methodology moving forward. Of

[2:09:53] course I do remain concerned

[2:09:54] about the errors in urban sim

[2:09:57] and I know that our staff is

[2:09:59] working on that. For instance,

[2:10:00] in our county, it identifies

[2:10:01] high density housing assumption

[2:10:03] in grave yards and floodways and

[2:10:06] rural regulation land many miles

[2:10:09] in services there is 20

[2:10:11] instances of that in our county

[2:10:13] alone. Adjacent freeways and

[2:10:21] basins and noxious lands, there

[2:10:24] have been five wildfires in the

[2:10:27] county in the last three years

[2:10:28] and has burned 300,000 acres of

[2:10:32] land and nearly 900 total

[2:10:35] structures. Our population has

[2:10:38] decreased since the first major

[2:10:41] wildfire that is some of the, we

[2:10:43] are moving forward. We just put

[2:10:47] $10 million into a housing fund

[2:10:48] to keep moving forward on center

[2:10:50] city growth. There is nearly a

[2:10:52] thousand percent increase in the

[2:10:55] cycles allocation for the

[2:10:58] unincorporated areas ever sonoma

[2:11:02] a that includes basically where

[2:11:04] water and sewer is. We're more

[2:11:07] than willing to take our fair

[2:11:10] share and push ourselves, we

[2:11:12] want to make sure we doing it

[2:11:13] with correct, error free data.

[2:11:18] and we want to make sure that we

[2:11:20] can not con addict our other

[2:11:23] goals of greenhouse gas

[2:11:25] emissions because that's what's

[2:11:26] happening in the higher numbers

[2:11:27] of the unincorporated area and

[2:11:30] one last thing that's relatively

[2:11:31] new development every county is

[2:11:33] going to find this out, the safe

[2:11:36] roads standards that you need to

[2:11:38] get approved by the california

[2:11:40] department of forestry have all

[2:11:42] been stopped, and that means

[2:11:43] that you cannot build a building

[2:11:45] on a non-standard street of

[2:11:48] which the unincorporated

[2:11:50] counties around the bay area

[2:11:52] probably have thousands and

[2:11:53] thousands of miles, unless you

[2:11:56] improve that street segment all

[2:11:58] the way down to the next safe

[2:12:01] street getting towards a fire

[2:12:03] station. This is prohibitively

[2:12:07] expensive, and it will be a

[2:12:08] state issue for probably some

[2:12:10] years to come. I don't know

[2:12:11] what the right answer is but I

[2:12:14] know that it's going to prohibit

[2:12:15] a lot of growth in

[2:12:17] unincorporated areas. So again,

[2:12:18] I just want to make sure that

[2:12:20] the errors are going to be

[2:12:21] corrected before we move

[2:12:22] forward, and if staff can talk

[2:12:24] about how that's going to get

[2:12:28] factored in, that, and I know

[2:12:30] the sphere of influence with

[2:12:32] which we will work, with this

[2:12:34] county in the city of santa

[2:12:35] rosa, and those areas that are

[2:12:37] going to be shortly annexed to

[2:12:41] make sure we're going to push

[2:12:44] just right and we want more

[2:12:46] housing but we want to make sure

[2:12:48] we're not at odds with

[2:12:52] ourselves.

[2:12:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank

[2:12:54] you. I'm not seeing any other

[2:12:56] raised hands. Let me check one

[2:12:59] more time. Nope. Okay. I'm

[2:13:01] now going to close the public

[2:13:03] hearing. And we're moving to

[2:13:05] item 6b for the sake of time, I

[2:13:09] really don't -- does anybody

[2:13:11] want a staff presentation, or

[2:13:14] would you like to go directly to

[2:13:15] comments of the commissioners

[2:13:18] and the public?

[2:13:22] >>pat ecklund: madam chair?

[2:13:24] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go

[2:13:25] ahead.

[2:13:25] >>pat ecklund: I think -- we

[2:13:26] had a presentation at the last

[2:13:28] meeting. So is it possible for

[2:13:30] us to go to public comment and

[2:13:31] then discussion?

[2:13:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: that's

[2:13:33] what I was hoping for is that we

[2:13:35] have all -- susan, you're okay

[2:13:37] with that?

[2:13:43] >>susan adams: I'll second that

[2:13:44] yes.

[2:13:45] >>karen mitchoff, chair: we're

[2:13:46] all on the same page. And staff

[2:13:47] that doesn't take away from all

[2:13:49] the hard work you have done.

[2:13:51] matt, do I need to repeat

[2:13:53] everything I said before

[2:13:54] relative to the court reporter

[2:14:00] and the county this one

[2:14:02] government code section is one

[2:14:03] digit off it's 65584.03 (c)and

[2:14:11] again on this one, we can accept

[2:14:13] and be accepting any mailed in

[2:14:15] comments until november 27th.

[2:14:17] so with that, are there any

[2:14:20] commissioner -- committee member

[2:14:23] comments before we go to the

[2:14:24] public hearing?

[2:14:26] >>clerk of the board: chair

[2:14:27] mitchoff, this is fred, could I

[2:14:28] just confirm that the court

[2:14:31] reporter is still with us.

[2:14:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.

[2:14:35] the court reporter: I am here.

[2:14:36] >>karen mitchoff, chair: do you

[2:14:37] need a break?

[2:14:38] the court reporter: I really

[2:14:39] appreciate that. I'm doing my

[2:14:41] best. I think I will be okay.

[2:14:43] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.

[2:14:43] I don't think there are going to

[2:14:45] be as many public speakers on

[2:14:46] this as there were on the last

[2:14:47] one. But believe me, I come

[2:14:49] from a legal background so all

[2:14:51] you got to do is say hey I got

[2:14:55] to take a break.

[2:14:58] let's go directly to public

[2:15:00] comment. Again, you have three

[2:15:02] minutes to make your comments.

[2:15:03] fred, do we have members of the

[2:15:04] public who wish to speak?

[2:15:07] >>clerk of the board: at this

[2:15:07] point there are no raised hands

[2:15:08] from the attendees.

[2:15:12] >>rick bonilla: do I have a

[2:15:12] question about the material

[2:15:14] that's presented before we go to

[2:15:16] comments. I think it's

[2:15:17] important.

[2:15:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: all

[2:15:18] right. Go ahead rick.

[2:15:20] >>rick bonilla: on the

[2:15:23] subregions, if we look at slide

[2:15:27] -- what is it? The slide that

[2:15:31] shows the subregions and the

[2:15:33] amounts, their total

[2:15:35] allocations, if we look at napa

[2:15:36] county, and in paragraph three,

[2:15:38] on the page above, it says that

[2:15:40] there will be no harm nor

[2:15:42] benefit to member jurisdictions.

[2:15:44] and yet if we look at the

[2:15:46] allocation totals, napa county

[2:15:48] shows 3436 on slide four of this

[2:15:52] presentation yet if you look at

[2:15:54] the subregion -- I mean the

[2:15:57] regional regular share is shows

[2:16:01] 3816. I think this might be an

[2:16:03] error because when I look at the

[2:16:04] same information for solano

[2:16:06] county, those two numbers are

[2:16:08] the same.

[2:16:09] >>karen mitchoff, chair: staff,

[2:16:10] can you address that concern?

[2:16:12] >>gillian adams: I'm not sure

[2:16:14] where year looking at.

[2:16:17] >>rick bonilla: slide three of

[2:16:18] the presentation for this item.

[2:16:24] >>gillian adams: okay.

[2:16:26] >>rick bonilla: if you look at

[2:16:27] the bottom bullet point, it says

[2:16:29] that this confirms no harm nor

[2:16:32] benefit. Go to the next slide.

[2:16:34] okay. Look at the total

[2:16:35] allocation for napa and solano.

[2:16:37] solano county, the total

[2:16:39] allocation, there is no change

[2:16:40] between this and the regular

[2:16:42] allocation shown on the

[2:16:44] presentation. The numbers are

[2:16:45] both 11,906.

[2:16:48] on napa county, here it shows

[2:16:51] 3436, but on the regular

[2:16:54] allocation it shows 3816.

[2:16:59] >>gillian adams: so the reason

[2:17:00] -- I'm sorry. I wasn't sure

[2:17:01] what other number you were

[2:17:04] referring to but it's from the

[2:17:05] previous presentation. The

[2:17:06] reason for that is because not

[2:17:07] all jurisdictions in napa county

[2:17:09] are part of the subregion.

[2:17:11] >>rick bonilla: all right.

[2:17:13] >>gillian adams: if you look at

[2:17:14] slide number two of the

[2:17:15] subregion's presentation, you

[2:17:16] will see that calistoga and st.

[2:17:20] helena are participating in the

[2:17:22] regional process, not the

[2:17:23] subregional process.

[2:17:25] >>rick bonilla: thank you.

[2:17:26] just checking. Thank you very

[2:17:27] much.

[2:17:27] >>karen mitchoff, chair: all

[2:17:28] right. Great question. Thank

[2:17:30] you for the clarification. All

[2:17:33] right we're going to go to

[2:17:34] public comment. Julie just said

[2:17:36] she has to drop off and I'm

[2:17:40] look, take care julie.

[2:17:41] [laughter]

[2:17:43] but anyway, let's go led with

[2:17:45] public comment. Fred, you said

[2:17:46] there weren't anybody -- there

[2:17:49] weren't any individuals who wish

[2:17:50] to provide public testimony on

[2:17:52] this item? Just confirming

[2:17:54] that?

[2:17:55] >>clerk of the board: that is

[2:17:55] correct. No hands raised.

[2:17:57] >>karen mitchoff, chair: then

[2:17:58] would you go ahead and read, if

[2:17:59] there have been written comments

[2:18:01] made?

[2:18:02] >>clerk of the board: the

[2:18:03] comments, the names of the

[2:18:04] people that have submitted

[2:18:05] public comments were mostly for

[2:18:07] 6a and I think there was one for

[2:18:09] 6b, but I couldn't find that

[2:18:14] reference those were the only

[2:18:16] submitted public comments that

[2:18:18] we received for item six.

[2:18:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: then

[2:18:22] monica, you're just happy.

[2:18:23] okay. And I -- okay. So with

[2:18:26] that --

[2:18:29] >>monica brown: this is coming

[2:18:30] across at least in solano county

[2:18:32] as noise.

[2:18:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: what

[2:18:34] is that? You're hearing some

[2:18:35] background noise? Okay. Well,

[2:18:38] we're almost finished. So

[2:18:39] that's the good news. So, again

[2:18:41] to reiterate, there were no

[2:18:43] individuals of the public who

[2:18:45] wished to testify, and

[2:18:46] mr. Castro read into the record,

[2:18:48] those who have given written

[2:18:50] comment. Again, reiterating,

[2:18:52] anyone can provide written

[2:18:55] comments through november 7th,

[2:18:59] 2020, and with that, I will

[2:19:01] close that public hearing on 6b,

[2:19:03] and our next is the adjournment,

[2:19:04] and I have lost my calendar. Or

[2:19:08] my agenda here. So I just want

[2:19:11] to make sure, do we have another

[2:19:13] meeting scheduled? Yes. We are

[2:19:14] next scheduled to have a special

[2:19:16] meeting of this committee on

[2:19:21] december 2020. And with that, I

[2:19:22] say goodbye, and nice to see you

[2:19:26] all. Take care, stay well. And

[2:19:28] we will see you, if not sooner,

[2:19:30] at least on december 20th --

[2:19:33] 10th. All right. Thank you

[2:19:37] all. Good night.

[2:19:37] [adjourned]

ABAG Regional Planning Committee on 2020-11-12 1:00 PM

Agenda

Transcript