>>karen mitchoff, chair: good
afternoon I'm going to convene
the abag plan for thursday
november 12, 2020. Mr. Castro
would you call the roll call,
please?
>>clerk of the board: yes,
ma'am. But may we play the
covid announcement?
>>karen mitchoff, chair: sure.
due to covid-19, this meeting
will be conducted as a zoom
webinar, pursuant to the
governor's executive order
n-29-20 which suspends certain
requirements of the brown act.
this meeting is being webcast on
the abag web site. The chair
will call upon commissioners,
presenters, staff, and other
speakers by name, and ask that
they speak clearly and state
their names before giving
comments or remarks. Persons
participating via webcast and
zoom, with their cameras
enabled, are reminded that their
activities are visible to
viewers.
commissioners and members of the
public participating via zoom
wishing to speak should use the
raised hand feature or dial star
nine, and the chair will call
upon them at the appropriate
time.
teleconference attendees will be
called upon by the last four
digits of their phone number.
it is requested that public
speakers state their names and
organization, but providing such
information is voluntary.
written public comments received
at info@bayareametro.gov by 5:00
p.m. Yesterday will be posted to
the online agenda and entered
into the record, but will not be
read out loud. If authors of
the written correspondence would
like to speak, they are free to
do so, and should raise their
hand and the chair will call
upon them on the appropriate
time.
a roll call vote will be taken
for all action items.
panelists should note that the
chat feature is not active to
attendees. In order to get the
full zoom experience, please
make sure your application is up
to date.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
can you hear me?
>>clerk of the board: yes,
ma'am.
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
wonderful.
mr. Castro will you take the
roll please?
>>clerk of the board: yes,
ma'am. Councilmember adams?
yes, I see you. Thank you.
mayor arreguin?
>>jesse arreguin: here.
>>clerk of the board: mayor
ashcraft?
>>marilyn ezzy ashcraft:
present.
>>clerk of the board:
councilmember bonilla.
>>rick bonilla: yes. I'm here.
>>clerk of the board: mr.
[indiscernible].
>>speaker: here.
supervisor canepa? Is absent.
ms. Cha?
>>kathleen cha: present.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Supervisor chavez?
>>cindy chavez: here.
>>clerk of the board: crabbe?
>>speaker: here.
>>clerk of the board:
supervisor dillon is absent.
mayor pro tempore eklund?
>>pat ecklund: present.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Vice mayor
[indiscernible]?
>>speaker: here.
>>clerk of the board:
supervisor haggerty?
>>scott haggerty: here.
>>clerk of the board:
mr. Hancock?
>>russell hancock: yes. Good
afternoon.
>>clerk of the board: good
afternoon, sir.
ms. Jones?
>>speaker: present.
>>clerk of the board:
supervisor mandelman?
>>speaker: present.
>>clerk of the board: miley is
absent.
supervisor mitchoff?
>>karen mitchoff: here.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you.
mayor pierce?
>>julie pierce: here.
>>clerk of the board:
supervisor rabbit?
>>david rabbit: here.
>>clerk of the board:
supervisor ramos is absent.
mr. Regan? Is absent.
supervisor rice?
>>katie rice: here.
>>clerk of the board:
mr. Romero?
>>carlos romero, vice chair: in
attendance.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Councilmember ross is
absent. Mr. Savay?
>>speaker: present.
>>clerk of the board: mr.
schaarf is absent.
councilmember sedgley is absent.
supervisor spering is absent.
ms. Trauss?
>>sonja trauss: here.
>>clerk of the board: thank you
very much.
mayor wilson?
>>lori wilson: here.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Quorum is present.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>james p. Spering: karen?
spering is present.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you jim. Fred's got that.
thank you so much. All right
we're going to move into item
two on the agenda, public
comment. This is an opportunity
for anyone listening to us to
speak on any item not on today
agenda. There will be much time
afforded to public comment on
our agenda items. Mr. Castro, I
have three participant' raised
hands. Do you see that also?
>>clerk of the board: yes I do.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: call
on them, please?
>>clerk of the board: first
speak is clayton holstein. Go
ahead and unmute yourself.
>>speaker: thank you. I will
speak later under the item on
your agenda. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is sherry jensen.
>>scott haggerty: mark ross
probably wants to be moved over.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you scott. Who did you just
call?
>>clerk of the board: jensen.
>>speaker: the allocation of
200,000 --
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
ms. Jensen that's for the public
hearing. That's for items on
our agenda. Did you wish to
address us on items not on
today's agenda?
>>speaker: no. I didn't see
the agenda.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: okay
great. We'll call on you at
this time. Thank you very much.
item three is the chair's report
-- I don't have any -- I'm
sorry. Is somebody talking?
make sure you put yourself on
mute, everybody, if you're not
going to speak. Thank you very
much. All right. I would like
to thank my colleagues here for
participating in today's
meeting. We are at an important
milestone in the regional
housing needs allocation
process. On our agenda are the
two public hearings on the rhna
proposed methodology and the
rhna draft subregional shares.
the outcome of the rhna process
impacts all our counties, cities
and towns, and all of us who
live and work in the bay area.
it is important for us to hear
from the public, and we expect
considerable public
participation today. I will
keep my report brief so we can
get to the business. Are there
any discussion by members on
this item? I'm assuming not.
anybody want to comment from the
public on my comments?
and mr. Castro, I don't think
you received any public comments
on my report.
>>clerk of the board: no.
there were none received.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: all
right. So we have the consent
calendar. May I have -- this is
for the approval of the abag
regional committee minutes of
october 1st. Are there any
members of the committee who
wish to make any comments?
marilyn?
>>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: I'll
move approval madam chair.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: fine.
can I have a second. I will
take public comment.
>>julie pierce: pierce seconds.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: pierce
seconds. Thank you. Are there
any members of the public who
wish to comment on this?
>>clerk of the board: no
speakers.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: moved
by ashcraft, second by pierce.
roll call please.
>>clerk of the board: [roll
call vote].
motion passes with one
abstention.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: we're
going to move to item five which
is planned bay area 2050 we're
getting information on the 2050
plan. Who is giving this
report? Is that you gillian?
or is that matt?
>dave vautin: good afternoon
chair, this is dave vautin, I
will be filling in for chirag
rabari this afternoon. We
wanted to give you all a final
update on the planned bay area
2050, which will focus on three
components. Document,
environmental impact report, and
most importantly what we're
calling the implementation plan.
as you are aware we're working
on planned bay area and horizon
for nearly three years now with
the final blueprint approved in
september 2020 by the abag board
and the commission. We
anticipate bringing back the
outcomes of that analysis of the
final blueprint in the next
month. We're also working to
kick off the implementation plan
this fall with the intent of
finishing planned bay area 2050
including this implementation
plan component by fall of 2021.
next slide.
for a little bit of context the
implementation plan builds on
the action plan that we believe
was well received in the planned
bay area 2040 process. The
implementation plan will focus
on near term tangible actions
that abag, mtc, and partners can
take to advanced adopted 35
strategies across the four core
elements of planned bay area
2050. We look forward to a
process that will engage local
residents local governments
civic organizations business
interests and non-profits to
involve take shoulders to
identify and tackle shared
challenges over the next five
years. Given that all
strategies in planned bay area
2050 require some theme of
partnership and collaboration
that will be central to the
implementation plan process.
next slide. We see four key
goals for this phase of the
planned bay area 2050 effort.
first, the implementation plan
will work to maximize the
viability of the plan's
strategies. We want to ensure
that the benefit in those
strategies are equitable,
effective, and that they're
realized and that we can chart a
path towards addressing
challenges that might exist with
strategies. Second the
implementation plan will
reinforce recommendations of
existing initiatives whether
those are internal to mtc and
abag, external, or hybrid
initiatives. This includes mtc
and abag convening task forces
and committees third the
implementation plan will work to
address emerging and
cross-cutting issues, and
finally to implement the
technical assumptions included
within the plan something that
our regulators on the state
level will be looking at to
understand the near term actions
we're taking to advance the 30
year visionary strategies in the
plan itself. Next slide.
it's important to just
acknowledge the difference
between a strategy and an
implementation action.
so we have been talking about
the blueprint for planned bay
area 2050 for many months now,
and it includes 35 strategies.
those strategies are public
policies or sets of investments
that can be implemented in the
bay area over the next three
decades at many different levels
of government. Those are not
near term actions or legislative
proposals. Features in this
component of planned bay area
2050 are specific actions that
will be required to advance the
blueprint over a shorter time
period of five years
specifically identifying what
mtc and abag will do to support
our partners and work
collaboratively to bring the
strategies forward each
including one or more
implementation actions. Next
slide.
the implementation plan will
work to identify requirements
for strategy success both
identifying areas where we have
met those requirements or have a
good opportunity to meet them
but also challenge areas for
each strategy. Second, for each
strategy will identify mtc
abag's role, do we lead,
partner, or support? For a
strategy that we lead we'll play
a primary role while still
working with partners for
strategies it might involve a
different group of partners or
agencies for the strategy and
there might be agencies playing
a supportive role like state or
federal government to advance
that strategy. Third the
implementation plan will
identify different vehicles for
strategy implementation could
this range from advocacy and
legislation to new initiatives
or even planning and research
efforts at mtc and abag and
lastly identify timeline and
actions for the next five years.
next slide.
just to give you a sense of how
the months ahead are anticipate
to roll out, as you will note
here, there are some stars
showing when we will be
presenting to this committee,
the board, the commission, et
cetera. We're really here in
the second phase of the process
right now, after completing some
internal analysis during the
summer and fall.
to describe how this
implementation plan will work.
next week we'll be having two
stakeholder meetings in a
virtual format. We are almost
fully subscribed to those at
this point with almost 80
attendees anticipated for both
of the different events as we go
into december we'll be holding
smaller group meetings, office
hours, to try to understand
specific actions and further
refine what comes out of the
workshops.
going into the winter in phase
three we'll begin to draft the
implementation plan, we plan on
providing an update to this
complete and other in february
and we'll do some engagement
with the public and
community-based organizations to
continue to refine the
implementation actions.
in the final phases, we'll also
begin to look at potential
partnerships to advance specific
strategies, we'll put forward
the draft implementation plan in
april or may of 2021 for public
review and discussion. And we
anticipate the implementation
plan being approved concurrently
with planned bay area 2050 in
the fall of 2021.
next slide.
we have begun the strategic
assessment of our strategies to
understand whether we have the
four key criteria for success to
advance the particular strategy.
while this analysis is still
ongoing but we want to give you
a bit of a flavor of how
different strategies might shake
out. When we come back to this
committee in february we'll be
bringing forward not only what
we hear at our workshops but a
matrix of how each of the 35
strategies scores on the four
criteria. For example, we're
looking at whether strategies
whether we have the authority to
advance a specific strategy in
an effective, efficient, and
equitable manner. An example of
a strategy where we have much
more limited authority would be
something like implementing a
universal statewide basic income
whereas we have greater
authority to expand clean
vehicle initiatives associated
with the air district and others
to fund that program.
furthermore the strategy
assessment is looking at whether
we have the funding to advance
each of the different strategies
and you can see some examples
there of a strategy like
targeted mortgage assistance for
which no current funding exists
or compared to a strategy like
advancing seamless mobility
where we could leverage existing
transportation funds to do so.
next slide please
third looking at for each
strategy whether mtc abag staff
have the technical capacity and
institutional wrap around to
successfully implement it.
currently we have very limited
capacity in an area like
expanding job training programs
and incubator programs. And
much greater capacity on a
strategy like, building express
lanes and express buses across
the bay area. And lastly, for
every strategy we're looking at
the level of public and
political support.
in some strategies there are
greater challenges in this
regard like implementing per
mile tolling on congested
freeways whereas there such
greater support for a strategy
like adapting to sea level rise.
just because there's a challenge
with a specific strategy doesn't
mean that strategy should not
move forward but really had
finishing how we can overcome
challenges in the next five year
of implementation actions. Next
slide.
the implementation plan phase
will continue to be a very
collaborative effort that
involves many different
stakeholders. This table here
shows examples of projects
internal and external as well as
key stakeholder we hope to
engage with over the course of
the implementation plan process,
but of course we're interested
in hearing any of your ideas
about other organizations or
groups that we should be
touching base with. We look
forward to local jurisdictions
and we know a number of
stakeholder groups will be
joining us for our meetings next
week. Next slide please this
brings me to the conclusion of
overview of the implementation
plan. If you have comments on
high priority implementation
areas or stakeholder us that
would like to add to the list to
bring to the table and just
overall approach to the
implementation plan phase. Next
slide.
we look forward to come back to
give you an update in
february 2021. And I'll take
comments or questions.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: do any
members of the committee have
questions for dave? Just raise
your hand.
>>sonja trauss: I have a
question.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: go
ahead sonja.
>>sonja trauss: hi. So first
of all, is there still a
work-from-home mandate in
planned bay area? And if there
is, how do you imagine
implementing that? Because it
seems like impossible. You
know, like, you would have to
track the location of workers
all over -- like, that's
ridiculous, logistically, and
also for civil liberties.
>dave vautin: thanks for that
question. In october we
presented some parametering to
the joint mtc planning and abag
administrative committees that
defined kind of guidelines for
any alternatives to the
telecommuting strategy. We do
anticipate bringing forward an
alternative to that strategy at
the november 20th commission
meeting, next week, is there
will be an opportunity for
further discussion on whether
that strategy should move
forward or be replaced with an
alternative approach.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: are
there any other questions?
any hands raised? I'm not
seeing any hands raised.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
sonja, you're finished. Okay.
then we'll go to public comment.
there are any members of the
public who wish to comment on
this report?
>>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: I
believe we have a member with
his hand up. Mr. Savay.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: here
is al. Sorry about that.
>>al savay: I had a question
with the significant changes
that were forecasted when the
plan was put together, do you
have capability to shift in
terms of priorities and
implementation based on
significant changes like the
pandemic response that could
ripple through the economy in
the bay area for years to come?
>dave vautin: that's a great
question. First of all I'll
note the blueprint phase we have
been working on since last fall
we incorporated a number of
different changes to it, because
we made refinements to it during
the course of the pandemic. So
a lot of the strategies were
updated or revised this summer.
again, taking into account what
we know, and also what we don't
know about the region's future,
but we were able to incorporate
some of those learnings into the
final blueprint. Furthermore,
the regional growth forecast was
updated to include covid impacts
and recession impacts into the
region's long-term trajectory.
and we worked closely with the
state to incorporate a faster
adoption rate of telecommuting
than the previous provision. So
there has been specific actions.
at the same time the plan
implements what key changes for
priorities in the next five
years defined by cove and after
effects of it including a weaker
economy. So as we think about
prioritizing which strategies
need to come first, I think that
lens along with our equity lens
along with some of our other key
areas to look at, that lens is
going to be really important.
and so, you know, we'll be
encouraging stakeholders as we
think about what is essential
for 2021, 2022, et cetera, to
keep that in mind.
>>al savay: have you, with that
response, you have talked to
experts in terms of forecasting
and futures and things like
that, you're asking about what
stakeholders should we talk to.
have you talked to some experts?
or academics? Or others in
terms of looking toward the
future in terms of how it
relates to the implementation?
>dave vautin: well we're just
at the -- we just kicked off the
implementation plan phase this
month but I think your
suggestion is well take taken
that we can look to engage folks
in academia and other in this
process.
>>speaker: thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: I know
there are members of the public
who wish to speak but I'm not
seeing any members of the
committee wishing to speak.
mr. Castro call on our first
speaker.
>>clerk of the board: first
speaker is samuel renos, please
unmute yourself and go ahead.
>>speaker: good afternoon
committee members and staff,
2020 survey of the bay area
local government asked to
identify major barriers to
producing all the housing the
region needs shortages of
skilled housing construction
workers was one of the top
responses. The northern
california carpenters doesn't
expect abag and the mtc to
design expanded training
programs, but the bay area 2050
implementation plan can help
guide jurisdictions towards best
practices for local government
agencies, and private developers
creating incentives for
developers and contractors to
make concrete commitments to
recruiting, training, and
retaining skilled construction
workers. The northern
california carpenters stand
ready to assist staff in
developing a work plan for
identifying and proliferating
those best practices. Thank
you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. Is there anyone else who
wishes to address us?
>>clerk of the board: yes. We
have one speaker with the
initials l. W. Go ahead.
>>speaker: hi. Can you hear
me?
>>clerk of the board: yes, sir.
>>speaker: hi. My name is
lakinder, and I'm looking at
your strategy document. I'm
sorry -- I haven't looked at
your past documents, but if the
idea was to present a
comprehensive background as to
how you came to this strategy,
then, I am not so well informed.
and I was wondering, just having
a couple of slides is okay, but
having a lot more detailed input
as to what the member cities
have, while participating, given
you as input, that would be good
to see. But I don't have any
idea what's the background here.
so thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
is there anyone else in the
public who wishes to address us?
do you see any?
>>clerk of the board: there is
one more person. Raleigh
graeber.
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
ms. Graeber.
>>clerk of the board: raleigh
graber, please unmute yourself.
she does not seem to be --
>>speaker: can you hear me?
>>clerk of the board: okay. Go
ahead.
>>speaker: can you hear me?
>>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
>>clerk of the board: go ahead.
>>speaker: okay. Thank you.
I'm going to read off a letter
to you from an edward singh who
also living in alameda. I'm
from alameda.
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
ms. Graber I'm going to be
limiting public comment to three
minutes. Is the letter longer
than three minutes?
>>speaker: no. It's one
type-written page. Dear
regional planning committee
chairperson mitchoff and
committee members -- okay. One
concern that arose during
discussions of the recently
defeated measure z in alameda, z
would have removed voter
approved development
restrictions in alameda and it
was defeated, is susceptibility
of alameda to natural hazards,
earthquake liquefaction, sea
level rise and tsunami surges?
although these hazards exist for
many cities adjacent to san
francisco bay, alameda is unique
and the egress from alameda
should such natural hazards
occur an emergency response
access to the city, to the
island is limited to aging
bridges and tunnels, which are
already overwhelmed during
normal rush hour conditions.
adding rhna 4900 housing units
from the period from 2023 to
2030 would require building
another 13,000 approximate
market rate units in order to
achieve the rhna target for
affordable homes.
this would increase the total
number of housing units in
alameda by over 30 percent,
approximately. Burdening an
already stressed infrastructure
as well as exasperating ingress
on to an egress off of the
island during emergency
conditions. Such concerns
should be reflected in the
process of determining rhna
requirements
>>clerk of the board: your time
is up.
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
ms. Graber, you're addressing us
on an item that we haven't
gotten to yet. Can you wrap up
your comment, please?
ms. Graber, you're back on mute
>>speaker: can you hear me now?
>>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
you're addressing us on an item,
this is not the item where you
should be addressing it. Can
you wrap up your comment,
please?
>>speaker: I'll finish it when
you come to the item then. I'll
finish it when you come to the
proper item. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. Is there anyone who wishes
to address us on this item.
>>clerk of the board: no other
hands raised from the attendees
and no written comments received
on this item.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
then we are moving on to item
6a, and I have -- my phone keeps
going out here. Okay. We will
now conduct the public hearing
-- this is item 6a public
hearing on regional housing
needs allocation proposed
methodology.
we will now conduct the public
hearing on the regional housing
needs allocation proposed
methodology. Is the court
reporter ready?
the court reporter: I am here
and ready. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
wonderful thank you. The public
hearing is now open. Good
afternoon I'm karen mitchoff
chair of the regional planning
committee also known as rpc I
would like to take up agenda
item 6a proposed hearing on the
proposed methodology for rhna
the hearing is now open and as
you heard a certified short hand
reporter is transcribing these
proceedings. If you wish to
testify please use the raised
hand feature or dial star nine
and please wait to be called
upon. We ask that each speaker
be brief, concise and keep
comments to no more than three
minutes if a previous speaker
has addressed your concern we
ask that you just say you
reiterate those comments rather
err than repeating them. By way
of background abag convened an
ad-hoc housing methodology
committee also known as hmc,
over the last year, to advise
staff on the methodology for
allocating a share of the
region's total housing need to
every local government in the
bay area.
I think this answers the
question from a previous public
speaker about whether the cities
were involved.
on october 15th the abag
regional executive board offered
to release a proposed
methodology for public comment.
a report on the proposed
methodology was posted on the
abag web site beginning on
october 24th, 2020. Also in
late october, legal notices were
published in multiple languages
in newspapers in each of the
nine counties of the bay area
announcing the opening of a
third day public comment period
for written comment ending
november 27th. And identifying
today's public hearing to
receive oral testimony and
written comments about the
proposed rhna methodology.
today's hearing fulfills the
requirement identified in
california government code
section 65584.04(d) written
comments can continue to be
submitted to rhna at
bayareametro.gov or by us mail
until the november 27th
deadline.
I'm going to call on gillian
adams who will give us a report
on this. Ms. Adams, would you
please give your report?
>>gillian adams: thank you
madam chair. My name is gillian
adams, project manager for the
regional housing needs
allocation or rhna process.
I'll be providing you with a
brief overview of the proposed
rhna methodology approved by the
abag executive board. Pull up
the slides, please.
okay. Next slide please.
so rhna is the state-mandated
process to identify the share of
the region's housing need that
each local jurisdiction must
plan for over an eight year
period. As part of this
process, in june 2020, the
california department of housing
and community development
determined that bay area
communities must plan for
441,176 housing units from 2023
to 2031. By law, abag is
required to develop a
methodology or formula that
divides the entire housing need
from the state among each city,
town and county in the region.
each local government will
receive a total number of units
by income category from abag and
then must update the housing
element of its general plan to
show how it can accommodate its
rhna allocation. It is in the
housing that local jurisdictions
choose the specific locations
within their communities that
will be zoned for housing. As
noted earlier, abag convened an
ad-hoc housing methodology
committee or hmc to advise staff
on the rhna methodology. The
hmc is made up of local elected
officials and staff representing
jurisdictions in every bay area
county and stakeholders from
multiple sectors to facilitate
sharing of different
perspectives. Hmc met 12 times
from october 2019 to
december 2020 and engaged in
robust discussions about how to
develop a methodology that
advances the five objectives
required by housing element law
and is consistent with the
forecasted development pattern
for planned bay area 2050 as
required by law.
the five statutory objectives
for rhna related to increasing
housing supply and mix of
housing types, promoting infill
development and socio-economic
equity, promoting an improved
inter-regional jobs/housing
relationship balancing
disproportionate household
income distributions and
affirmatively furthering fair
housing. Throughout the
methodology development process
both staff and hmc's decisions
were guided by evaluation
metrics that access how
successful different methodology
options chief the statutory
objectives.
these metric were based
primarily on how state hcd
evaluated other region's
methodologies. Results of the
evaluation demonstrate that the
proposed rhna methodology
advances the statutory rhna
objectives and is consistent
with planned bay area 2050. On
october 15th the abag executive
board voted to release the
proposed methodology for public
comment.
abag will be accepting written
comments until noon on
november 27th. Next slide
please
there are two primary components
of the proposed rhna
methodology. The first is the
baseline allocation, and the
second is factors and weights.
the baseline allocation is used
to assign each jurisdiction a
beginning share of the region's
housing needs.
the proposed rhna methodology
uses a jurisdiction's share of
the forecasted number of total
household in the year 2050 from
the planned bay area 2050
blueprint as the baseline
allocation hmc considered five
baselines for the allocation
including expected household
growth and households using 2050
as the baseline capturing the
benefits of using planned bay
area 2050 blueprint in the
methodology and because total
household in 2050 is the sum of
existing households plus
expected growth it provides a
compromise between baselines on
current number of household in a
jurisdiction and baseline based
solely on forecasted housing
growth in the blueprint. Second
forecast of the methodology was
selecting factors and weights
that best compliment the
baseline allocation. Factors
and weights adjust a baseline
allocation up or down. The
proposed methodology includes
one set of factors and weights
for allocating very low and low
income units and separate set
for above and moderate units.
this allocates for control over
a particular income category.
allocation to jurisdictions are
added together to determine each
jurisdiction's total allocation
the table at the bottom of the
slide shows factors and weights
for the methodology each
represents data related to the
methodology priorities access to
high opportunity areas and
proximity to jobs. Access to
high opportunity areas factor is
based on the jurisdictions with
the higher percentage of
households living in areas
designated high resource or
highest resource on the
opportunity map developed by the
state. The state evaluated
census tracts using index of 21
different indicators related to
economic, educational, and
health outcomes. Job proximate
factors identify the number of
jobs that can be accessed from a
jurisdiction by a 30 minute auto
commute or 45 minute transit
commute. Factors on
jurisdiction's allocation depend
on the scores factor relative to
other jurisdictions within the
region. Above average score on
a factor would get upwards
adjustment whereas a city below
average factor would get
downwards adjustment relative to
baseline allocation
representatives on the table
show weight to each factor
selected to the different income
groups weight assigned to each
factor represent the factor
importance in the overall
allocation as the weight
determines the share of the
region's housing need that will
be assigned by that particular
factor. Next slide please.
as mentioned earlier the
proposed rhna methodology uses
2050 households from the planned
bay area 2050 blueprint as the
baseline allocation this slide
reviews benefits of using
planned bay area as part of the
rhna methodology. Importantly,
incorporating planned bay area
2050 into the rhna methodology
communicates to our local
government partners and other
stakeholders that we're moving
toward a unified vision for the
bay area's future. Including
the blueprint in the
methodology, helps ensure equity
and sustainability outcomes
identified in planned bay area
2050 particularly those related
to greenhouse gas emissions
reductions the growth
geographies identified in the
blueprint priority housing
development in areas near
transit locations close to
existing job centers and high
resource areas.
using the blueprint in the rhna
methodology -- you can go back
to slide number four, please?
thank you.
using the blueprint in the rhna
methodology also addresses
concerns about natural hazards
as the growth geographies in the
blueprint exclude areas with
high wildfire risk and areas
outside urban growth boundaries.
local governments can also
consider the most appropriate
places for planning for housing
in areas with less risk from
wildfires and other hazards when
they update the housing elements
of their general plans.
using the year 2050 households
baseline result in an allocation
that reflects the blueprint's
focused growth pattern while the
allocation factors in the rhna
methodology address this
baseline to meet the fair
housing and equity goals
mandated by state law. As a
result the proposed methodology
will enable the region to
accelerate toward a more
equitable and less segregated
land use pattern in the near
term while building toward broad
range of pattern movement in the
long-term. It's important to
note in september abag executive
board and mtc commission adopted
a changes to inputs into the
planned bay area 2050 blueprint
since the blueprint is part of
the rhna methodology the final
blueprint growth pattern which
is slated for release in
december 2020 will affect the
rhna allocations. Next slide
please this graphic provides an
overview of the proposed rhna
methodology. At the top you can
see the regional housing need
determination of 441,176 units
by income category. State hcd
identified for the area. In
stage one you can see low and
low income units have been
grouped together and above mood
rat grouped together step two
shows factors and weights
proposed methodology is one
group of factors to allocate
very low and low income units
while another set of factors and
weights allocates moderate and
above moderate income units.
and the factors and weights and
resulting number of units
allocated by each factor three
factors for allocating low
income units are 70 percent
access to high opportunity areas
allocating 126,000 units 15
percent jobs prom auto and 15
percent jobs programs transit
factors to allocate higher
income units are 40 percent
access to high opportunity areas
allocating -- and one hadn't
60,000 units. Opportunities to
high opportunity areas factor
allocates 52 percent of the
region's rhna. In step three of
the methodology each
jurisdiction's baseline
allocation is adjusted based on
how it scores on different
allocation factors. If a
jurisdiction has more access to
opportunity or better job
proximity relative to the region
this allocation is adjusted
upward otherwise allocation
adjusted downward. The units
the jurisdictions receive with
different incomes added together
to determine a jurisdiction's
total rhna allocation. Next
slide please. As note the
earlier, the potential
allocation shown in these
materials are illustrative at
this point, there are many more
steps in the rhna process before
a jurisdiction will receive the
final allocation that needs to
be incorporated into the housing
updates. The map on the left
demonstrates the potential
growth rate each jurisdiction
would experience as a total
allocation from the proposed
methodology. This growth is
relative to the jurisdiction's
number of household in 2019.
jurisdictions with the darkest
brown experience the highest
growth rates while those in the
light gray experience the lowest
growth rates in general the
jurisdictions with the highest
growth rates in the south bay
and along the peninsula and
those with lowest growth rates
are in sonoma napa and solano
counties and northern and
eastern portions of contra costa
county. It's important to note
that the region as a whole will
grow by 16 percent a result of
the regional housing need
assigned by hcd for the 2023 to
2031 rhna cycle. Therefore any
receiving less than the
determined growth rate is being
asked to take on less than the
average. Highlighted speakers
to the 441,000 the bay area must
plan for and the statutory
requirement of rhna that all
communities throughout the
region do their fair share
toward meeting the region's
housing needs. The map on the
right shows potential total
allocation of rhna units to bay
area jurisdictions to the rhna
cycle as a result of the
proposed methodology.
jurisdictions with the darkest
purple receive the largest
allocations light gray receive
smaller allocations of rhna.
distribution of rhna is fairly
concentrated with the largest
cities receiving most
allocations accounting for a
third of all rhna units
jurisdictions with the highest
allocations from the proposed
methodology would account for 72
percent of all rhna units used
of the three largest cities the
largest rhna this allocations
are found in silicon valley
where there is proximity to
major employment centers and
high access to opportunity.
next slide please
this table shows how rhna units
are distributed by county. The
numbers in the first column
represent the sum of the rhna
allocations for all of the
jurisdictions in each county.
in a second column you can see
each county's share of rhna
units based on the proposed
methodology. You can compare
how the share of rhna units for
each county compares to its
share of rhna unit in the last
cycle in the middle column share
of existing households and share
of existing jobs.
san francisco and jurisdiction
in marin, san mateo, and santa
clara counties would receive a
larger share of the region's
housing need than they did in
the 2015 to 2023 rhna cycle.
jurisdiction in alameda, contra
costa, and solano counties
receive a smaller share of the
region's rhna from the proposed
methodology than they did from
the cycle five methodology.
while the share of the
allocation to jurisdictions in
sonoma and napa counties remains
unchanged.
when comparing the share of rhna
units from the proposed
methodology to the county's
share of existing households
only san francisco and
jurisdictions in san mateo and
santa clara receive a larger
share of the region's rhna
compared to their current share
of the region's households.
when looking at jobs only santa
clara and san mateo counties are
being asked to tear on a share
of rhna units that is larger
than their share of existing
jobs. The allocations from the
proposed rhna methodology would
result in jurisdictions in santa
clara county receiving 33
percent of the rhna compared to
its share of existing jobs of 27
percent. Slide lied
-- next slide please
looking at the next steps for
the rhna process. Abag is
accepting written comments on
the proposed methodology until
noon on november 27th. And I
notice here there's a typo on
our slide it should say the
public comment on proposed
methodology and draft ends on
november 27th. In december of
2020 the planned bay area 2050
final blueprint data for the
2050 household baseline is
anticipated to become available.
in january of 2021, the rpc and
the executive board will weigh
in on public feedback as well as
updates made to integrate the
final blueprint data into the
draft rhna methodology.
once the abag executive board
approves the draft rhna
methodology, it will be
submitted to state hcd for its
review. And that completes my
presentation.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. And I appreciate you
noting the typo.
since this will be on our web
site. I would request that
someone go through and correct
that before it's posted again.
okay. We will now receive oral
-- pardon me. There are any
comments by any members of our
committee before we go to public
testimony?
is there anyone?
>>julie pierce: yes. Sorry. I
couldn't get unmuted.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
go ahead.
>>julie pierce: yeah. I just
want to make a brief comment.
and first I want to reiterate my
thanks to staff and all of the
committee members for the
housing methodology committee
who spent the past year getting
us this far. It has been a
monumental lift, but I have to
say I'm not happy with the
results. And this is not a
surprise to staff. I have said
this at meetings before. I
think we're going to have to
agree to disagree. I'm afraid
that none of the options that
remained on the table at the end
of the process really adhered to
the stated goal to align with
planned bay area 2050.
the greenhouse gas and vehicle
miles traveled targets are going
to be nearly impossible to
reach, no matter how many people
we have telecommuting.
proximity to jobs by auto and
transit should be the heaviest
criteria for where now housing
should go. The quality of life
for our workers is severely
impacted by spending many hours
a day commuting. Families and
communities both suffer when
residents cannot participate.
the proposed methodology that is
before the public today, in this
public hearing, has dramatically
increased the housing
allocations to the
unincorporated areas of the
region, outside of urban growth
boundaries that were approved by
voters and many of those areas
are also high hazard areas.
indeed much of the bay area is a
high hazard area at this point.
it is also dramatically
increased the allocations to
small communities that are
further from high quality
transit and job centers rather
than a previous option that was
aligned closely with planned bay
area 2050 growth.
during the process, I have
frequently heard the charge that
some jurisdictions have not done
their fair share, and that they
should be forced to carry their
weight and even punished with
higher numbers.
in this current housing cycle,
cycle five, every one of our 101
cities and nine counties have
hcd certified housing elements,
which where they have identified
locations for the housing units
they have been allocated. Many,
many factors go into why those
units have not been built. We
all know what those are.
I have further heard that for
equity reasons the new housing
needs to be placed heavily in
high opportunity areas. I don't
disagree with that at all.
but since we're going to be
building thousands of new homes
in this plan and new homes near
jobs, wouldn't it make sense for
us to focus some of the
resources into making those
areas become high opportunity
areas? The existing high
opportunity areas do not have
the capacity to absorb all of
this growth.
and a high opportunity area that
is a two-hour commute from jobs,
does not produce a high-quality
life for our families. We heard
at abag that the estimated cost
of realizing planned bay area
2050 is $1.4 trillion.
at least part of that should go
to improving opportunities close
to the jobs, not in the far
flung suburbs from where those
are located. If we genuinely
want to align rhna and future
growth with planned bay area
2050, to accomplish the goals
that it sets out, then we
propose focusing new housing in
the areas that are currently big
job centers, which are sorely
lacking, in existing housing,
and are projected to grow their
jobs by over 40 percent over
what we have today. It only
makes sense that the
commensurate housing plus more
to make up for the backlog be
located near those jobs.
again, I sincerely appreciate
all of the work staff have done,
that all the housing methodology
committee has put in, this year
with covid-19 has made for a
convoluted process. I just
think we should think twice
about this. We're not required
to put the houses near jobs, but
continuing on the same path
we've done for the past many
years doesn't make sense. I
already voted no on this in abag
and I would vote no again today.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: are
there any other members who wish
to make comment before we go to
public testimony?
>>pat ecklund: pat. I had
raised my hand, chair mitchoff.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: go
ahead pat.
>>pat ecklund: I don't have a
question. I was going to make a
comment. And I also agree with
director pierce about the
methodology. I believe that the
increase of the housing
allocations to communities in
marin and other areas are
higher, actually allowed for
than in our generally plans. So
right off the bat, abag is
putting those cities and
counties that have a higher
allocation, that was in their
general plan, they're already
being setup for failure, in my
opinion. Also the increased
housing allocations to areas
that don't have the jobs in
short high quality transit which
means the 15-minute headways is
going to increase greenhouse gas
emissions therefore taking us
further way from the 19 percent
goal of greenhouse gas reduction
in planned bay area. So we're
going to be exasperating what
we're trying to help. And then
lastly, I think that this
methodology does not respect the
high-fire hazards in all aspects
of sea level rise and effective
climate change, which means
increased water coming down our
creeks and in our bays.
so I think that this methodology
should have been focusing on the
housing growth, not on both
existing as well as the housing
growth. So if we were voting on
it today, I too would also be
voting no.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you pat. Anyone else wishing to
make a comment before we go to
public comment?
>>sonja trauss: yeah. I will.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: sonja.
>>sonja trauss: there were only
a couple of letters ahead of
time, which I was sort of
surprised about. But I want to
address a couple of themes in
those. They seem to all be from
alameda for commenters coming up
too. So one of the things was
that alameda, the center of
alameda that's sort of the least
vulnerable to climate change
impacts is already very densely
built out, and I looked it up,
and the absolute maximum density
anywhere in alameda is the
equivalent to 20 units per acre
and most of it is much less. So
I just want to remind everybody
that this is a regional
conversation, and so you might
have some local idea about what
low density means in your town,
but remember who you're talking
to. You know? And so, just 20
minutes per acre is not low
density. If you have the idea
that's high density and you're
saying it, you're broadcasting
that you're not thinking at a
regional and you don't really
know what you're talking about.
keep that in mind all these
densities are relative at the
regional level high density are
definitely possible. The other
thing too that came up in the
previous two committee member's
comments. Which is that the
towns don't have capacity to
accommodate higher density
development if that's the kai
the town's job is to get that
capacity. In alameda they're
saying we only have two-ways off
the island. They have been
saying that for decades. You
have had decades to get another
way off the island, and you
should have done it years ago.
if you feel like there is not a
lot of jobs in your town look at
zoning. Are you zoning for
jobs. See what you can do to
make it possible for people to
locate their businesses closer.
that's the name of the game. We
really all have to be online
with getting more housing and if
you feel there are barriers and
you feel you don't have enough
transit, get more transit.
that's the housing solution.
thanks.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: are
from any other comments by
members of the committee?
marilyn, go ahead please.
>>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: thank
you chair mitchoff. There are
several of us with our hands
raised. Hello ms. Trauss. I
want people to understand that
the city council, last week,
voted 4 to 1 to support
methodology 8a that this
committee has also supported.
said that, I certainly recognize
and support the first amendment
right of the resident in my city
to speak their mind. Like many
groups, we don't all speak with
one voice. It is true that on
the last -- on the november 3rd
ballot, we had a measure that I
cochaired along with the vice
mayor to repeal to charter
amendments from 1973 and 1991,
that ban the construction of
multi-family housing in the city
of alameda and limit density to
no more than one housing unit
per 2,000 square feet of land.
unfortunately those did not
succeed at the ballot box. So
we're looking at our next steps
moving forward in this very
important issue. But I just
wanted you to know from an
official standpoint what the
city council has said when we
voted last week on this
particular housing methodology
that, again, this committee has
approved in the past. So, thank
you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: and I
just want to echo, there is a
number of communities throughout
the bay area that have done as
much as they can, but they have
small footprints and not
everybody is able to do that.
>>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: that
isn't what I just said if you
are referring to my remarks that
isn't what I just said.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: I was
referring to what sonja just
said. I know you're referring
to what's going on in alameda.
carlos romero?
>>carlos romero, vice chair:
madam chair, I have a few
comments to make, but I will
save them until the end because
it's important, we have all
weighed in the past on this
issue, and it's important to try
to get to the public, to the
extent possible. So I will hold
off, if there is time at the end
I will certainly chime in.
thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: neysa
fligor?
>>neysa fligor: thank you
chair. Neysa fligor mayor of
los altos and santa clara
community association
representative, on the housing
committee and regional planning
committee. First let me start
by thanking abag leadership and
staff in all their hard work,
including the housing
methodology committee members.
as I have stated before, we
support a rhna methodology that
advances the rhna statutory
objectives, allows for an
equitable distribution
throughout the region, preserves
open space, performs well in
reducing ghg emissions, allows
for consistency between rhna and
planned bay area 2050, and is a
strong methodology to submit to
the hcd for approval. The three
remaining methodology options
that were presented to hmc, as
we have all seen and as staff
has demonstrated repeatedly,
option 8a performed the best in
meeting these legal
requirements. It wasn't
perfect, as many have already
said. But it was the best
compromise and it definitely
meets the statutory objectives.
having said that, you know, as
the representative for the city
in santa clara county, we would
object to any option that
further allocates a larger share
to the santa clara county
region. Santa clara county is
one of only three jurisdictions
where its share of the rhna
allocation would exceed its
share of the bay area
households. And as gillian just
showed, the last cycle, santa
clara county also had the
largest share.
similar to other counties in the
region, and statewide, our
residents and elected officials
are also questioning where and
how they will be able to build
these large share of allocated
units, especially when they have
already struggled the last eight
years to meet much lower
numbers. So, you know, we can
discuss the 441,000 big number
that we received from hcd, and I
understand the challenges that
we will all face trying to meet
our allocations, but at this
point, with the remaining
solutions before us, option 8a
being the best one, when you
review the statutory objectives,
we believe the better solution
is for us to join together as a
region and figure out, is there
a way to delay this rhna
process. Is there a way for us
to join with abag and
communicate to hcd on other
solutions? But if the goal of
some of my colleagues is to
change the methodology at this
point, that is something that we
could not support. Thank you so
much, chair, for giving me this
opportunity.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you so much. Mark ross?
>>dir. Mark ross: thank you
madam chair. I will briefly
speak in support of what my --
most of the speakers before me,
julie and pat, and neysa have
said, 8a would be the preferable
option, speaking as the air
district representative to the
rpc, not meeting the vmt and the
ghg goals is of greatest concern
to this particular seat, and I
don't see how we're going to do
that with what is on the table,
which was very hard work, a lot
of work by staff, which I do
appreciate.
option 8a seems to be inching
closer to that endeavor, that
goal, of reducing ghgs and vmts
but it doesn't seem like we're
going that way. Being closer to
jobs or finding a solution to
that inequitism would be
helpful.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. I'm not seeing any raised
hands from committee members.
so at this time I will ask for
our first speaker. Again. I'm
going to have a timer. Three
minutes. Mr. Castro?
>>clerk of the board: yes. Our
first speaker is clayton
holstein. Please go ahead.
>>speaker: thank you, madam
chair, and committee members. I
am clayton holstine city manager
in brisbane california in
northern san mateo canyon. Back
on october 14th of this year we
sent a letter with regards to
the proposed rhna methodology to
the abag executive board. Since
then we have had an opportunity
to meet with mtc and abag staff,
those have been productive
meetings, but we still maintain
a concern with regards to some
of the areas in our town that
are being identified for
potential, future housing
development. These are areas
that were historical landfills
from the early part of last
century as well as part of a
tank farm area that serves san
francisco airport. We don't
believe these areas are suitable
for housing. We have gone
through a multi-year planning
process for the area that has
been identified as a high growth
area, and in 2018, our voters
approved a general plan
amendment that allowed up to
2200 housing units on that site.
we are actively involved with
the landowner to move that
forward so that can reach
fruition. The proposed
methodology, the output to that
-- from that, has us several
hundred units above that. I
would want to note that the 20
-- 200 housing units is
currently over our stock, and
we're a good player in the
process we would ask for some
future considerations with
regards to the inputs of the
model we're not arguing with the
model itself, but to the inputs
in terms of what available land
is suitable. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: next
speaker.
>>clerk of the board: david
foreman. Go ahead.
david, please unmute yourself.
>>speaker: okay. Thank you.
it's actually paul foreman.
david is my son. I happen to be
on his zoom. Okay.
the purpose of this statement is
to express my concern to abag of
the fact that your methodology
does not include natural hazards
in the allocation formula.
on page five of the october 15th
report of the executive
director, he comments on this
factor with the parting
sentence, local governments will
have the opportunity to consider
the most appropriate places for
planning for housing in lower
risk areas, when they update
their housing elements, their
general plans. That may be true
of most cities in the bay area,
but it's certainly not true of
my city of alameda. The abag
natural hazard map indicates
that alameda is among those of
the lowest percentage of the
urbanized area outside of a
hazard zone less than 50
percent. It's obvious if the
primary hazard that causes this
is sea level rise. A recent
study by bcdc indicates that
current projects from the year
2100 are 66 inches with a storm
surge level of 84 inches. A
review of flood visualization
maps shows that the portion of
alameda that is outside of a
hazard zone is the center of an
island which is already very
densely built up. And one of
your meet members talked about
20 units per acre current zoning
restriction which of course
doesn't apply to our housing
element. We are a ten square
mile island. We have 75,000
plus people. We have 7500
residents per square mile. That
is a little bit more than
oakland. There are very few
cities in the bay area that have
higher density than alameda.
so, that's what you have to look
at. Not our zoning ordinances.
with the fact that we have so
little area outside of a hazard
zone, and what we do have is
built up, alameda really has no
choice but to build new housing
directly in the flood hazard
zone. In fact of the 4,000 new
units being proposed and
approved, is a flood hazard
zone. Ingress and egress and
the fact that most police and
fire responders live off the
island and for someone to say
that it's our obligation too fix
our bridges as opposed to the
state and opposed to oakland, I
am sure it's not in this
condition for lack of trying,
none of the above is intended to
off alameda should not have a
significant rhna. We're a high
resource city that fits very
well into the equity factor.
>>clerk of the board: time is
up.
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
mr. Holstine, thank you for your
comments. You're welcome to
submit -- okay. Stop -- you're
welcome to submit the balance of
your comments or all of your
comment in writing. Next
caller, please, fred?
>>clerk of the board: joshua
hug. Go ahead.
>>speaker: good afternoon my
name is joshua hug speaking on
behalf of the peninsula regional
open space district. Thank you
for the opportunity to speak.
we're deeply concerned with the
steep increase of housing
allocations for unincorporated
areas opposition 8a and request
that these allocation in these
particular jurisdictions be
significantly reduced also
utilizing households as a base
for five growth no
unincorporated areas neglects to
protect these open space areas
and agriculture lands through
intensive [indiscernible]
significantly unurbanized areas.
high rhna allocations in
unincorporated counties will
force counties to look beyond
their limited urbanized areas
and into greenfield locations to
zone for new housing. We feel
an unincorporated approach
conflicts with government code
65584-d2, which states among the
goals of the housing element is
the protection of environmental
and agricultural resources. As
a steward for several priority
conservation areas for the last
50 years, we know the lands
provide critical ecosystem
services to support urban areas
with clean water, food, and
urban respite for the public.
our concern is housing in the
wildfire urban interface and
high severity zones
significantly increase risk for
fire ignition and poses a risk
for homes in and around a wui.
increased risk to sensitive
habitats and enhanced risk
exposure of predator populations
to rodenticides adjacent to
residential areas. Impacts to
regional critical habitat
linkages that serve to enable
wildlife movement across the
landscape to enable and adapt to
climate change and maintain
local genetic diversity and
finally new world growth
undermines vmt reduction goals
outlined in sb 375, as these
residents will likely be forced
into cars. We urge to you
maintain the delicate balance
between natural environment and
working lands that planned bay
area has successfully provided
until now and reduce pressure to
building in these ecologically
valuable areas. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. Next speaker.
>>clerk of the board: greg
schmidt.
>>karen mitchoff, chair:
mr. Schmidt?
>>speaker: yes. Thank you for
the opportunity.
the proposed rhna numbers for
the five cities of silicon
valley are overwhelming in size
and impact. They are also in
direct defiance of the
california government code.
first, the numbers.
the number of new housing units
required within the five cities
of silicon valley would equal a
32 percent increase in the
existing housing stock over the
next eight years.
it's a mandate for percentage
increase that is 60 percent
higher than the three largest
cities in the bay area. It's a
50 percent higher increase than
the largest cities of san mateo
county along the bay and 150
percent higher percentage
increase than the other east bay
cities along the bay.
where do these numbers come
from?
california government code
section 65584 mandates that the
rhna numbers be consistent with
abag's planned bay area 2050.
but the same code requires abag
to quote "explore alternative
ways of improving inter-regional
jobs/housing imbalances." they
have not done that. Abag's
planned bay area 2050
methodology uses a single, very
aggressive, jobs-based model
that focuses massive job growth
in the five cities of silicon
valley. That means, of course,
that housing for the new workers
is targeted within those same
cities. It has a very hard time
competing with new office space
for some of the most expensive
real estate in the country.
abag has refused repeated public
requests that they follow the
government code that requires a
serious look at realistic job
dispersion to other bay area job
centers. Neither the housing
committee, nor this committee,
nor other city councils in the
bay area has had a serious
public discussion of the impact
of jobs dispersion across the
bay area as required by code.
be clear request by the abag
rhna process should stop until
the government followed --
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you mr. Schmidt. That's three
minutes. Thank you. Next
speaker, fred.
>>clerk of the board: yes,
ma'am. Our next speaker is
aaron eckhouse. Go ahead.
>>speaker: hi. Thank you my
name is aaron eckhouse, I'm the
regional policy manager for
california yimby, yes in my
backyard. I want to say I think
-- I want to commend hmc for the
great work they did on this
draft methodology. I think they
did -- when faced with an
exceptionally difficult task
with competing interests they
did a great job. Scoring highly
on all of the statutory
objectives and performance
metrics that staff developed for
that. I want to address the
idea that this project does not
advance infill growth, jobs
oriented growth or transit
oriented growth because that is
simply not accurate. There is
simply higher growth in
transit-rich cities job rich
cities and low vmt cities under
this proposed methodology
compared to other cities in the
region. So I think you will
see, if you look at the
performance metrics that it
scores highly on that front.
some of the alternatives that
have been proposed particularly
shifting the baseline would be a
disaster for some of the
performance metrics particularly
to those facing equity and fair
housing. And I think would
leave abag either vulnerable to
rejection by hcd or a lawsuit
for failing to uphold their
legal obligation for
affirmatively furthering affair
housing. These issues can be
addressed through small targeted
adjustments such as a reduction
to the allocations specifically
for unincorporated areas. I
don't think we need to zero
those out because there are
places like stanford that are in
unincorporated areas and have
housing needs. But there can be
target adjustments made there.
there can be targeted
adjustments made to further
equity adjustment, representing
a minor change at the scale of
the methodology. But overall, I
think you should uphold the work
of the housing methodology
committee, I think it recognize
there is say need for housing
everywhere in our region. There
are jobs everywhere if our
region there are people in need
of housing everywhere in our
region, and it directs more
growth to jobs rich and
transit-rich areas, but it also
recognizes the fact that every
part of our region has a part to
play in addressing our housing
needs. And it shouldn't be
limited by the fact that the
current general plan is
inadequate. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. Next speaker please.
>>clerk of the board: grown --
greenbelt alliance. Go ahead.
>>speaker: amanda brown-stevens
from grown belt alliance.
executive director of greenbelt
alliance and was part of the
housing committee, I want to
thank staff for all the work you
have done. I think, overall, I
am proud of being part of this
process. The methodology is of
course a compromise, not
perfect, but just would agree
with aaron's comment that is it
absolutely moves in the right
direction planning for homes
near jobs and amenities where
people live. I am in favor of
making that relatively small
adjustment to address
unincorporated areas,
particularly as per the comments
by staff, around the goals of
planned bay area, and honoring
urban growth boundaries and not
inducing sprawl. I think there
are some ways to make those
adjustments using a data-driven
process to allocate the housing
in the manner of following
infill and the spirit of the
methodology. Thank you.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Next speaker is rodney
nickens.
>>speaker: thank you goods
afternoon everyone. Rodney
nickens. I was part of the
housing methodology committee.
I want to echo the comments of
my colleagues at greenbelt
alliance and yimby. I support,
use the planned bay area 2050
households baseline however the
methodology could be refined and
improved with an equity
adjustment that myself jeff
levin, carlos romero, all
advocated for. As has been
echoed, many of my colleagues
and housing advocates this
adjustment is critical to moving
us to a prosperous region where
all residents have a safe and
affordable home in access to
educational and economic
opportunities, as has been
mentioned option 8a was a
compromise and falls short of
the j equity adjustment. We
need to ensure that every
resident has a stable home that
they can afford. I would also
strongly urge abag to reject any
alternatives such as changing
the baseline which would perform
worse on the statutory
objectives performance metrics.
if adjustments are to be made
they should improve performance
on the objectives. The housing
element process is another
opportunity to also explore.
which will also include
equitable planning that accounts
for geographies that are
vulnerable to fire and flood
protect our open space while
also tackling our region's
long-standing problem with
segregation and exclusion. For
those reasons I mentioned above,
I strongly support option 8a
with the equity adjustment.
thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. Our next speaker, fred?
>>clerk of the board: paul
kermoyan.
>>speaker: thank you committee
members. My name is paul
kermoyan, I'm the community
development director for the
city of campbell. Thank you to
abag staff and hmc for advancing
the methodology; it's really
important. The pda 2050 growth
projections illustrate
geographical areas located
within one and a half miles of
transit stops and high
opportunity areas as being ripe
future housing growth.
unfortunately these areas, which
are defined as pda eligible
acres, in campbell, we have
about 2600 acres contain lands
that cannot be developed. This
is a common occurrence in many
you in municipalities. Although
the structure of the methodology
may be found sound the growth
projections data input used to
influence the outcome is not.
for example, acreage figure
should exclude more than
highways, roads, and parks, they
should exclude new developments
that will not it turn over in
the next 30 years, pg&e
substations, creeks, habitat
areas, conservation areas,
historical preservation
districts, valley water
percolation ponds, single family
zoning districts where a
developer would have to buy out
multi-million dollar singly
family homes and hope to build
multi-family development,
government owned properties,
abandoned vta, light rail
extensions et cetera. Why is
this important? Because state
housing law requires that
housing element specify site for
a number of units realistically
to be accommodated whether a
site is adequate. Please help
this region more realistically
realize our goal and modify the
pda2050 growth projections as an
element of the hmc methodology.
thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is shajuti hossain. Go
ahead.
>>speaker: hi I'm shajuti
hossain an attorney with public
advocates I want to echo
comments from rodney nickens. I
support the housing methodology
committee proposed methodology
but believe it needs to be
further refined with an equity
adjustment to further meet the
statutory objective of
affirmatively furthering affair
housing to reduce commutes
improve our environment and
ensure residents have a stable
environment they can afford.
make the baseline that homes are
close to jobs this equity
adjustment allocates 60 percent
of total rhna into san francisco
san mateo and santa clara
county. Other counties do have
jobs each day 180,000 people
commute into contra costa county
for work meaning there is still
need for more affordable homes
there as well. And access to
opportunity factor in the
methodology is important
especially for the affordable
allocations because it prompts
jurisdictions that have mostly
zoned for single family homes in
the past to now zone for
multi-family homes to meet those
affordable allocations
multi-family buildings are known
to be more efficient for land
and water than single family
neighborhoods. I strongly urge
alternatives on the stat owe
objective performance. There
are still 16 jurisdictions that
are not getting a fair share of
affordable allocations. Without
the equity adjustment, rhna will
exacerbate fair housing problems
in over 1/3 of our historically
exclusive jurisdictions. There
are planning objectives that
need to be advanced at the local
level through housing element
updates those include planning
that accounts for geographies
particularly for communities
vulnerable to fire and flood
protecting open space and
dismantling segregation within
local jurisdictions. I strongly
support the proposed methodology
with the 2050 households
baseline along with the equity
adjustment. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is elizabeth osborne.
go ahead.
>>speaker: hi. This is
actually derek sagehorn in
oakland. I want to express my
support for the hmc's work. And
I think that option 8a is really
the best compromise as well as
associate myself with comments
from california yimby and the
greenbelt alliance. I think to
the extent that changes need to
be made, they should be
adjustments rather than
wholesale changes to input on
the baseline as has been
suggested by others here. I
really think that this is a good
compromise. But we just need
more jobs near our housing. I
firmly reject the idea that job
dispersion needs to be part of
this plan. It's just absolutely
killer for vmt, we cannot
control the jobs sprawl that
would result from that. And I
also want to say from the
perspective of smaller
jurisdictions that are saying
they lack the resources, to one,
meet the infrastructure, or two
meet the subsidy needs for the
low income portion of this it's
really difficult to hear this
when some of the same people are
rejecting free money from the
state for things like permanent
supportive homeless housing
through operation home key. So
it's really difficult to hear
that and have these same
jurisdictions arguing for lower
homes overall. So thank you for
your time. And again, support
for option 8a.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is justine marcus. Go
ahead.
>>speaker: hi there my name is
justine marcus the policy
director for entirety partners I
am speak today in support of 8a
with 2050 households baseline
which was recommended by an
overwhelming majority of hmc,
rpc and abag executive board.
the proposed methodology will
improve our regional balance of
jobs and housing which we know
is essential to both reduce our
greenhouse gas emissions while
improving the quality of life
for thousands of workers who
commute long hours to their jobs
each day. Methodology accounts
for job growth, allocating about
60 percent of the total
allocation to the three counties
with the highest projected job
growth and it also accounts for
the existing imbalance between
jobs is housing in counties that
may not have the largest
projected growth into the
future, but where today hundreds
of thousands of people must
commute in from other counties
because they can't afford to
live near their jobs. I want to
echo the comments made by
partners at greenbelt alliance
and others that we support the
targeted data-driven approach
staff is pursuing to allocations
to unincorporated areas via
spheres of influence while
planning for homes in
unincorporated areas where it is
urbanized and appropriate for
new development. In addition I
want to associate myself with
our partners at nph and public
advocates for the first time in
this rhna cycle we are required
to affirmatively further fair
housing and while option a is
strong going forward it needs to
go further to address the
persons of racial and economic
patterns across the region.
this exclusion and segregation
undermines opportunity for all
bay area residents as well as
diversity and inclusivity in our
region. Therefore we urge abag
to consider the small but
meaningful equity adjustment
which would allocate a small
number of low income homes to
ensure there are ample
opportunities across the region
at all income levels of the
finally we urge abag to reject
alternatives to the baseline as
others have mentioned performing
overwhelmingly well in the last
performance metrics and put the
region in jeopardy of not
meeting statutory compliance.
finally there are objectives in
the rhna process that will be
advanced through the local
housing element update and we
look forward to working with
partners to engage in this work
as it moves forward over time.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you very much.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is zarina. Go ahead.
>>speaker: hi. I am -- I echo
what aaron of greenbelt
alliance, shajuti and justine
marcus stated earlier I strongly
support abag option 8a using
2050 household baseline but
methodology needs to go further
and basically deal with
affirmatively furthering fair
housing this will move us to a
closer and prosperous region
where all residents are where
they're working and living in
the same place and with access,
equity and access to
environmental economic and
educational opportunities.
option 8a performs well on all
five rhna statutory objectives.
this methodology with equity
adjustment will help our region
reduce our commutes improve our
environment and ensure every
resident has a stable home they
can afford. Jobs proximity
factor in planned bay area
household baseline ensures our
homes are closer to all kinds of
jobs. Each day thousands of
people commute to contra costa
county for work which means we
still need more homes for
clayton. And clayton has a lot
of open spaces I'm not saying to
go ahead and build everywhere
that you can find, but if they
have to rezone for affordable
housing, they have to do their
fair share for housing. Access
to opportunities, allocates more
homes in places with high
quality jobs, schools, and
environment.
I strongly urge abag to reject
alternatives such as changing
the baseline that performs worse
on statutory objectives
performance matrix. If there is
any adjustment it has to be to
make it more equitable,
basically affirmatively
furthering fair housing. And
thank you for your time. And I
am just tired of seeing the
nimbys coming and putting up,
lay over, lay over, we are in a
housing crisis. We are where we
are because of the nimbys if not
for them we wouldn't be forced
to build 40,000 homes. We have
crisis and pandemic. When are
you guys going to wake up? The
nimbys. I am tired of the
elected's starting the
conversation that we can't have
it because if there is an I
fire. There is going to be
exception for groups in the fire
zones, places that cannot be
built, that's logical. Right.
but we need to make houses for
people and they have to be close
to jobs. Quality of life.
thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: victoria
fierce. Go ahead.
>>speaker: I live in downtown
oakland. I am a former member
of hmc housing methodology
committee and the person who
actually made the motion for 8a,
the proposal before you now.
you also know me from previous
films such as carlos versus los
altos where we beat them up.
it's quite boring at this point
and we don't have time to play
such games. I agree with what
zarin just said I'm tired of the
nimbys I'm tired of them saying
we want to do something about
housing then there is an idea,
then deciding not to do it. A
eight is the best solution we
spent a year surviving through
the pandemic to get this before
you. Please don't make all that
go to waste. The thing about
rhna is it establishes minimums
for cities and if we want to end
the housing crisis we are
setting an aspirational goal,
and if people think the numbers
are too high you should have
thought about building more
housing in the last 20 years
unfortunately that's not the
case. So we have this plan in
front of us. This the bay area,
we built the internet and put
people on the moon we can solve
this problem of the human rights
housing. I support 8a. It's a
great idea. Of course it is I'm
asking you to be bold and take a
step solving the crisis don't do
this backing off because you're
terrified of tall buildings.
it's fine. I live in a three
story building. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: next
speaker.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker kelsey banes.
>>speaker: I am kelsey banes
regional executive director with
yimby action. Peninsula group
for everyone prohousing. I want
to thank hmc for all their work
and coming to a compromise that
will help us grow in a
sustainable and equity way in
the future. I support the
compromise but will associate
myself also with the comment
errs that are urging to do an
equity adjustment because I do
think this plan could be
improved in terms of where the
allocations are going and making
sure we are affirmatively
furthering fair housing. But I
will also accept what we have as
a compromise if necessary. So
I'm also going to speak as a
resident of palo alto. We have
had a lot of our local
elected's, and some of my
neighbors saying that we
couldn't possibly build this
many homes. And, to me, when I
hear that, it's a little bit
like we have tried nothing, and
we're all out of ideas because I
have been watching palo alto
politics for several years now,
and I haven't seen palo alto
take much many meaningful steps
to protect housing production,
tenants or preserve existing
housing. I believe we have a
lot of work to do but I believe
we can do it and it's just pay
matter of doing the work and
locating the sites, and we can
absolutely accomplish building
more housing on the peninsula.
this is not app impossible task.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is hector malvido.
>>speaker: can you hear me?
>>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
>>speaker: I want to thank,
everyone, staff, rhna folks for
working so hard on this. And
also, to my colleagues at home
and others for really supporting
option a, the rhna methodology,
but also calling for the equity
adjustment. It's so necessary
to improve this methodology's
performance and in furthering
fair housing objectives. We
need to ensure that we're
considering the entire bay area
in this process including the 17
jurisdictions that are under the
current proposed methodology
that without adjustment would
not receive their proportion at
share of very low and low income
allocation. The bay area
residents have access to high
opportunity areas and
jurisdictions which would
provide high quality education
and environmental opportunity.
newly allocated hopeless would
be allocated to jurisdictions
with adequate jobs and schools
and minimum pollution. Ensuring
bright equitable futures for all
residents. Currently many of
our jurisdictions have severely
unbalanced jobs/housing fit.
it's crucial in the wake of
covid-19 pandemic has laid bare
many of the inequities. We have
driven a policy that makes sense
is inclusive and transformative.
thank you for your time.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is ken chan. Go ahead.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: you're
on mute.
>>speaker: can you hear me?
>>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
>>speaker: hello members of the
abag planning committee. Thank
you for your participating as we
endure this pandemic together.
my name is ken chan. And I am a
housing advocate with san mateo
we work to preserve quality and
affordable housing. We would
like to echo what has been
previously mentioned today and
voice support for rhna
methodology 8a using plan 2050
household baseline however could
be refined with equity
adjustment to fully meet the
statutory equity objectives for
affirmatively furthering fair
housing. It is the people that
make this region what it is in
the long run nobody thrives if
we price out our children who
have the talent to strengthen
our businesses. No one thrives
if families struggle to put a
roof over their heads and
parents can't provide roof over
the heads of their children. We
urge you to support option 8a
with a methodology adjustment.
we urge you to reject the
alternatives to change the
baseline.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you mr. Chan.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is vicki parker.
unmute yourself please.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: you
there are. Thank you.
>>speaker: vicki parker
community development director
for the city of novato. I want
to, as many other speakers, have
acknowledged the complexity and
difficulty of the task, in the
enormous amount of effort that
abag staff and the hmc have put
into development of the
methodology. I also want to say
that we generally support the
goals and the methodology, and
especially the focus on regional
equity. We agree with comments,
however, by several other
speakers, that we think the -- a
focus on natural hazards and
other regulatory constraints
when looking at land inventories
needs to be better acknowledged.
and we have some suggestions for
that, that we have put into our
letter. Specifically, though, I
want to focus on one thing, and
that is, our city's concern is
that the use of 2050 future
households as the baseline does
not acknowledge the realities of
missing or inadequate
infrastructure. By that, I
mean, water, sewer, streets,
storm drains, using this future
number, we feel escalates the
growth far more quickly than our
capital budgets and programs can
keep pace with and we fully
knowledge this may be hard for
some folks to understand if
you're not on the front lines of
small city budgeting and
priority setting. It doesn't
necessarily make sense to folks.
but, our draft numbers mean that
we would be asked to provide two
and a half times our total, 15
year build-out, and we would be
asked to produce it in eight
years, so half of the time. So
that may put it in some
perspective that that's really
unrealistic to think that
jurisdictions can produce
additional revenues to push
capital projects forward at
double the pace. We simply
don't have the ability to
produce new revenues. We feel
like use of 2050 households as
the baseline sets us up to fail
and we respectfully request that
the methodology, instead,
utilize 2050 household growth as
that baseline. As its been said
by many others, none of the
methodologies are perfect. We
also agree that everyone has to
do their part, and we're happy
to do our part. However, use of
growth rates instead of future
households as the baseline would
allocate rhna at rates that are
consistent with planned bay
area.
>>clerk of the board: thank
you. Our next speaker is sidhar
kapur. Go ahead.
>>speaker: hi. My name is syd
kapur. I live in oakland and
volunteer with yimby action. I
am here again after several
meetings of this to again say I
support the 8a proposed
methodology. I would also
support an adjustment of
targeted adjustments of housing
relief from unincorporated areas
and the inequity adjustments
proposed by others. So far this
is the proposed methodology is
really good. It has all the
metrics we all want to meet, and
there is no reason to delay this
decision any more. All right.
thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is jordan grimes. Go
ahead.
unmute yourself, please.
>>speaker: yes. Good
afternoon. My name is jordan
grimes a lead member of
peninsula for everyone. We're a
grassroots housing advocacy
group from daly city to
sunnyvale here to reiterate our
strong support for option 8a.
our members participated in
housing methodology committee
meetings and are impressed by
hmc and staff, mostly people who
participate in these meetings
are affluent, white, and older.
option 8a provides compromise on
the housing and urban sprawl. I
want to support comment in
support of the equity
adjustment. To the other
comments no one's being setup to
fail here. Literally every city
can meet their targets if they
meet the appropriate zoning
permitting and process changes.
it's on them to do so. And then
just one last thing I would like
to note. I have heard it
repeatedly and tired of hearing
it. Having a certified housing
element doesn't mean you're
building your fair share of
housing it means you're having
to jump through a specific
bureaucracy hoop. We have built
2,000 units of housing over the
last decade and adding more than
20,000 jobs in the same time
frame both have certified
housing elements and far too
many in other cities have
housing ratios. I cannot
imagine anyone who would not
agree to do their fair share.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is salim.
>>speaker: hi. I'm salim, a
bay area native and supportive
of california yimby. I support
the 8a methodology for targeted
adjustments for unincorporated
areas I am supported of
adjustments for equity concerns.
so, no one's perfectly happy
with the proposal. It's not
perfect. Trying to find
something that works for
everybody. I understand some
neighborhoods are not perfectly
satisfied with what's on the
table but I feel it's good with
as much work that's gone into
it, I have heard rhna numbers
are too large or unfeasible.
you have to keep in mind it has
to match scale of the problem.
climate change is going to be
one of the defining problems of
our generation we're the first
generation that can see the
crippling effects of climate
change with the forest fires and
we're the last generation that
can do something about it.
building more housing where
there are jobs, building more
housing in infill areas instead
of creating more sprawl, those
are all important goals, and the
other crisis that, you know, we
have to meet is the housing
crisis.
so, I am part of a younger
generation than I think maybe
the majority of people on the
call, and if I think about my
friends, you know, the
majorities of them have either
moved back in with their family
after college or they have moved
to an area that's more
affordable. They have had to
leave the bay area. It's not
sustainable. The bay area has
to be inhabitable for our own
children otherwise they're not
going to be able to enjoy the
same quality of life that we
have. I hope that when towns
find themselves disappoints they
will keep this in mind that it
will help with their climate
action plan and help them
keeping their own children in
their community and the benefits
outweigh the costs. Thank you.
>>clerk of the board: our next
speaker is daryl owens, go
ahead.
>>speaker: yes. I'm daryl
owens from berkeley, california.
I want to say I support 8a. I
hope this is the last time I
have to call in and say I'm in
support of 8a. I support any
methodology changes that shift
more of the housing closer to
the west bay and shift out of
unincorporated areas. I think
it's important from an equity
standpoint and feasibility
standpoint. Demand is highest
and if you want allocation to
materialize you want to put it
in place where is demand is pent
up. You do not want it to be
sitting there and unbuilt. I
support item 8a.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is rayla graber, go
ahead.
>>speaker: okay. I would just
like to add my support to a
prior speaker, paul foreman, and
his comments regarding alameda
and some of its special
characteristics should be taken
into account when figuring the
rhna figures. But I want to
finish mr. Edward singh's letter
they started reading previously.
I'll just finish t.
mr. Singh from alameda said the
rhna requirements stress
proximity to major city center
this might have been a fact pre
covid but now it demonstrates
the need for telecommute working
has greatly decreased the
opportunity for major city
centers and will inevitably
create a need for more jobs in
professional and service
industries in more outlying
cities. Such changing
employment and housing needed
characteristic should be
reflected in the process of
determining rhna requirements
for bay area cities. Even
discounting potential changes in
employment centers due to covid,
giving more weight to proximity
to major business centers is
somewhat tenuous as pre covid
over 400,000 commuters use mass
transit to commute from outlying
cities into the major business
centers.
mr. Singh finishes by saying, I
fully support the concept of
social equity, however I ask
that you consider paul foreman's
and my concerns and viewpoints
regarding the proposed rhna
requirements for alameda, the
city of. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: the next
speaker is sam deutsche. Go
ahead.
>>speaker: hi my name is sam,
and I am a san francisco
resident and also a member of
yimby action. And I am calling
to support the hmc methodology,
and furthermore support the
equity and unincorporated area
adjustments as well. I mean, we
have had so many of these
meetings already, and I have
already voiced my support for,
you know, putting more housing
in places that are after fluent,
have good transit, have good
climate, and are lower density
than they should be. But also I
want to respond to a comment I
heard earlier about, oh, you
know, we don't have the
infrastructure for this, blah,
blah, blah, if you look at prop
13, the fact that so much of our
housing stock was built so long
ago is artificially depressing
the amount of property tax that
could be collected is spent on
infrastructure regardless of
prop 13 it's a reality we face
and as a result the only way to
adequately fund new
infrastructure is to build a ton
of more new housing that is
assessed at market rate for
taxing. So I find that to be an
incredibly specious argument and
one that does not hold up to any
scrutiny, and yeah, just
reiterating my support for the
hmc methodology, and building
more housing in the bay area.
thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is kevin mah.
>>speaker: hello. My name is
kevin mah. I am a resident of
palo alto in santa clara county.
I support hmc's proposal for 8a.
it is done in a consensus
manner. The issue of
unincorporated is a wide bucket
for many communities would like
perhaps in the future to be
broken down in designate the
places. In santa clara we have
coyote valley and creek which is
an unincorporated areas that
people would like to protect,
and other areas than
unincorporated. There are
adjustments that need to be
done, and in the sense that we
should be furthering anything to
do with affirmatively furthering
fair housing. That being said I
also -- for all the speakers who
talk about, we can't build.
we're till -- still in a housing
crisis and telework isn't going
to help those who are searching
for a job when their rent is
still due. There are still
quite a bit of people burdened
that honestly is immoral for the
region we're living in. We
should be building housing so
that everyone can have a decent
place to work and live rather
than just depending property
values in the sense they just
don't like neighbors. Thank
you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is sherry l jensen go
ahead.
>>speaker: hi. The allocation
of 2100 dwelling units to
saratoga is made by people who
have not done the careful work
of planning and siting homes in
our city. Half of saratoga
consists of steep hills with
extreme fire dangers, ongoing
soil creep, slides fault zone
and rain fall compared to half
of the valley floor and the
other half, meaning we have to
recharge our aquifer. Unlike
san francisco in the east bay
which have commandeered
substantial sierra water supply
not us 50 percent of our local
water comes from our local
sources hence vital to our life.
for san jose and county of santa
clara we saw from the early 70s
what a critically important task
this was. We learned the hard
way the lessons of building
homes on land slides and faults.
boulder creek homes in san jose
and eastern hills the land began
to collapse, houses collapse,
utilities have to be built above
ground so when it failed it was
visible and could be fixed right
away. Houses are built over and
over continuing to collapse as
families lose just about
everything. The roads are
continually rebuilt. Successful
homeowner lost everything. The
public paid and paid and paid
for this mistake. Simoni drive
was next to fall eventually
geo-technical work on both sides
of our valley showed
instability, and in addition
high fire danger, we developed a
slope to keep development out of
the risky areas, and about late
1980 to the lower density in
these highly unstable lands and
through citizen initiatives we
lowered densities we had to it
was costing us a forgotten --
fortune to rebuild the roads.
santa clara valley water agency
based on their value in
percolating rail fall into the
aquifer. Cities and county --
bay lands -- restoring aquifers
for the county so they can hole
water 50 of our county's water
comes from this system to
accommodate this process
saratoga has had a hard scape of
development of 30 percent per
parcel this proposal --
[indiscernible].
>>karen mitchoff, chair: time
is up. Ms. Jensen that's three
minutes. Thank you.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is rob nielsen. Go
ahead.
>>clerk of the board: james
baxter's -- [indiscernible].
>>speaker: hello. There is
cross talk here. My name is rob
nielsen. I support 8a from the
methodology committee. I
attended some of the meetings
this summer and fall and I am
very impressed by all the hard
work that was done in the back
and forth to reach a compromise
that met all the statutory
requirements. I want to point
out the high opportunity
requirement. Since I moved here
there has been less opportunity
because of the high cost of
housing. I am glad you're going
to start talking about issue
that so there is opportunity for
all people to live here and to
add benefits to the bay area.
and I'm glad you're taking steps
to correct it. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: last
speaker is adam buckbinder. Go
ahead.
>>clerk of the board: hello I'm
adam, from the city of campbell
speaking for myself here. As a
commissioner I am familiar with
campbell the idea that we
shouldn't have an ambitious
housing target because we are
mostly single family homes is
nonsensical. The housing
doesn't care about the rezoning
map. This is what the housing
process is for what the general
update when we are in the middle
of campbell is for it's morally
horrible to place the aesthetic
whims over the needs community.
it's perfectly reasonable to
make targets adjustments to
reduce allocations in
unincorporated areas but
changing the baseline metrics
undermines the work and will
lead to worse outcomes. It's
vital we find a way forward.
hmc has provided that I
encourage abag to use it. Thank
you for your time.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you.
>>clerk of the board: chair
mitchoff, this is fred. Two
additional members of the public
have raised their hands.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: go
ahead please.
>>clerk of the board: next
speaker is joanna. Go ahead.
please unmute yourself.
>>speaker: sorry. Hi my name
is joanna. I am a colead with
urban environmentalists. I am
calling in out of my work day to
say we support the hmc proposal
it's also illegal to place our
plans on regulatory constraints
like existing land use
restrictions because it
reinforces exclusionary
patterns. Thank you very much.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you very much.
>>clerk of the board: last
speaker is zack boling. Go
ahead.
>>speaker: hi there. I am a
resident of alameda and I want
to voice my disagreement of the
statements made by foreman. I
want to support my support for
hmc proposal. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: fred,
is it my understanding there are
no more public speakers.
>>clerk of the board: no other
speakers. I have a list of
public comments received. I
would like to read the names.
david howard, paul foreman,
public advocates, singh bardin,
val e.a. Ebert, edward singh,
public advocates and daniel
staub. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: I will
close the public hearing.
>>carlos romero, vice chair:
excuse me, madam chair. May I
just make a comment? I know I
wanted to reserve two minute was
of my time. I want to support
8a to affirmatively further fair
housing in the nine county bay
area. It is essential to do
that. 8a is a compromise from
6a as many of the speakers have
said it took us a while to get
here. We agree on that and any
wholesale change to this process
and/or another option at this
point really would serve neither
the public, nor, for that
matter, any of us, any of the
residents of the nine bay area
county area because it would not
have been a vetted discussion
and more importantly, there is
no way that any other option
introduced today would be able
to have the widespread
discussion and ultimately,
approval of, as you heard today,
many of those folks speaking.
so, again, I urge that we do
move forward with 8a with an
equity adjustment, and lastly
I'll say I was pleased to hear
greenbelt alliance speak in
favor of 8a, certainly I know
our staff is working diligently
with the three counties that
have a concern about the
allocation ever units to the
unincorporated areas, and I
think that issue is surmountable
by utilizing our staff smarts as
well as applying and approving
8a. Thank you.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you carlos. All right. Now I
will close the public hearing.
just as a reminder for anyone
listening in who wants to
comment. You have until
november 27th, and the
information on how to do so is
on the web site.
all right. We're going to move
on to --
>>rick bonilla: madam chair,
rick bonilla, if I may, now that
I have heard extensive public
comment, I would like to make a
statement.
>>speaker: likewise.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: rick
please keep it short we have got
another hearing.
>>rick bonilla: thank you of
course. After hearing extensive
public comment, after taking
part in the housing methodology
committee, which was a long and
informing process. I believe
that we came forth with the best
recommendation possible that
will go and do the best at
meeting the housing, the
affirmatively furthering fair
housing mandate and will meet
the goals necessary to provide
the housing that we need in the
locations where we need it. I
understand other jurisdictions
have some issues, those can be
worked through. I believe that
we're going to be able to go
forward with this, and I
recommend for everybody, if you
don't understand it, please take
a closer look. This is a great
option. Thank you very much.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. And melissa.
>>speaker: also I want to lend
my comment to the equity and
proposed 8a. We are living
through perhaps the most
fundamental demonstration of the
inequities in our system. The
pandemic has had a huge
percentage of the population
working from home, and many more
in the very jobs that would
qualify folks for affordable
fair housing out at work and
exposed. And this is a moment
where the least we can do I
think, is make sure that we have
I strategy that gets us to full
affordable housing for those
people who have worked so hard.
and the existence of
exclusionary communities that
have benefitted from the hard
work of those families, it
really is time to figure out how
those exclusionary communities
start to create the housing in
their communities for the
families whose labor they
benefit from.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. David rabbit?
>>david rabbit: thank you madam
chair. I want to again make
sure I get this on the record.
I want to thank staff and the
housing methodology committee.
I want supportive of the
methodology moving forward. Of
course I do remain concerned
about the errors in urban sim
and I know that our staff is
working on that. For instance,
in our county, it identifies
high density housing assumption
in grave yards and floodways and
rural regulation land many miles
in services there is 20
instances of that in our county
alone. Adjacent freeways and
basins and noxious lands, there
have been five wildfires in the
county in the last three years
and has burned 300,000 acres of
land and nearly 900 total
structures. Our population has
decreased since the first major
wildfire that is some of the, we
are moving forward. We just put
$10 million into a housing fund
to keep moving forward on center
city growth. There is nearly a
thousand percent increase in the
cycles allocation for the
unincorporated areas ever sonoma
a that includes basically where
water and sewer is. We're more
than willing to take our fair
share and push ourselves, we
want to make sure we doing it
with correct, error free data.
and we want to make sure that we
can not con addict our other
goals of greenhouse gas
emissions because that's what's
happening in the higher numbers
of the unincorporated area and
one last thing that's relatively
new development every county is
going to find this out, the safe
roads standards that you need to
get approved by the california
department of forestry have all
been stopped, and that means
that you cannot build a building
on a non-standard street of
which the unincorporated
counties around the bay area
probably have thousands and
thousands of miles, unless you
improve that street segment all
the way down to the next safe
street getting towards a fire
station. This is prohibitively
expensive, and it will be a
state issue for probably some
years to come. I don't know
what the right answer is but I
know that it's going to prohibit
a lot of growth in
unincorporated areas. So again,
I just want to make sure that
the errors are going to be
corrected before we move
forward, and if staff can talk
about how that's going to get
factored in, that, and I know
the sphere of influence with
which we will work, with this
county in the city of santa
rosa, and those areas that are
going to be shortly annexed to
make sure we're going to push
just right and we want more
housing but we want to make sure
we're not at odds with
ourselves.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
you. I'm not seeing any other
raised hands. Let me check one
more time. Nope. Okay. I'm
now going to close the public
hearing. And we're moving to
item 6b for the sake of time, I
really don't -- does anybody
want a staff presentation, or
would you like to go directly to
comments of the commissioners
and the public?
>>pat ecklund: madam chair?
>>karen mitchoff, chair: go
ahead.
>>pat ecklund: I think -- we
had a presentation at the last
meeting. So is it possible for
us to go to public comment and
then discussion?
>>karen mitchoff, chair: that's
what I was hoping for is that we
have all -- susan, you're okay
with that?
>>susan adams: I'll second that
yes.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: we're
all on the same page. And staff
that doesn't take away from all
the hard work you have done.
matt, do I need to repeat
everything I said before
relative to the court reporter
and the county this one
government code section is one
digit off it's 65584.03 (c)and
again on this one, we can accept
and be accepting any mailed in
comments until november 27th.
so with that, are there any
commissioner -- committee member
comments before we go to the
public hearing?
>>clerk of the board: chair
mitchoff, this is fred, could I
just confirm that the court
reporter is still with us.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
the court reporter: I am here.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: do you
need a break?
the court reporter: I really
appreciate that. I'm doing my
best. I think I will be okay.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
I don't think there are going to
be as many public speakers on
this as there were on the last
one. But believe me, I come
from a legal background so all
you got to do is say hey I got
to take a break.
let's go directly to public
comment. Again, you have three
minutes to make your comments.
fred, do we have members of the
public who wish to speak?
>>clerk of the board: at this
point there are no raised hands
from the attendees.
>>rick bonilla: do I have a
question about the material
that's presented before we go to
comments. I think it's
important.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: all
right. Go ahead rick.
>>rick bonilla: on the
subregions, if we look at slide
-- what is it? The slide that
shows the subregions and the
amounts, their total
allocations, if we look at napa
county, and in paragraph three,
on the page above, it says that
there will be no harm nor
benefit to member jurisdictions.
and yet if we look at the
allocation totals, napa county
shows 3436 on slide four of this
presentation yet if you look at
the subregion -- I mean the
regional regular share is shows
3816. I think this might be an
error because when I look at the
same information for solano
county, those two numbers are
the same.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: staff,
can you address that concern?
>>gillian adams: I'm not sure
where year looking at.
>>rick bonilla: slide three of
the presentation for this item.
>>gillian adams: okay.
>>rick bonilla: if you look at
the bottom bullet point, it says
that this confirms no harm nor
benefit. Go to the next slide.
okay. Look at the total
allocation for napa and solano.
solano county, the total
allocation, there is no change
between this and the regular
allocation shown on the
presentation. The numbers are
both 11,906.
on napa county, here it shows
3436, but on the regular
allocation it shows 3816.
>>gillian adams: so the reason
-- I'm sorry. I wasn't sure
what other number you were
referring to but it's from the
previous presentation. The
reason for that is because not
all jurisdictions in napa county
are part of the subregion.
>>rick bonilla: all right.
>>gillian adams: if you look at
slide number two of the
subregion's presentation, you
will see that calistoga and st.
helena are participating in the
regional process, not the
subregional process.
>>rick bonilla: thank you.
just checking. Thank you very
much.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: all
right. Great question. Thank
you for the clarification. All
right we're going to go to
public comment. Julie just said
she has to drop off and I'm
look, take care julie.
[laughter]
but anyway, let's go led with
public comment. Fred, you said
there weren't anybody -- there
weren't any individuals who wish
to provide public testimony on
this item? Just confirming
that?
>>clerk of the board: that is
correct. No hands raised.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: then
would you go ahead and read, if
there have been written comments
made?
>>clerk of the board: the
comments, the names of the
people that have submitted
public comments were mostly for
6a and I think there was one for
6b, but I couldn't find that
reference those were the only
submitted public comments that
we received for item six.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: then
monica, you're just happy.
okay. And I -- okay. So with
that --
>>monica brown: this is coming
across at least in solano county
as noise.
>>karen mitchoff, chair: what
is that? You're hearing some
background noise? Okay. Well,
we're almost finished. So
that's the good news. So, again
to reiterate, there were no
individuals of the public who
wished to testify, and
mr. Castro read into the record,
those who have given written
comment. Again, reiterating,
anyone can provide written
comments through november 7th,
2020, and with that, I will
close that public hearing on 6b,
and our next is the adjournment,
and I have lost my calendar. Or
my agenda here. So I just want
to make sure, do we have another
meeting scheduled? Yes. We are
next scheduled to have a special
meeting of this committee on
december 2020. And with that, I
say goodbye, and nice to see you
all. Take care, stay well. And
we will see you, if not sooner,
at least on december 20th --
10th. All right. Thank you
all. Good night.
[adjourned]