[0:04] >>karen mitchoff, chair: good
[0:04] afternoon I'm going to convene
[0:06] the abag plan for thursday
[0:11] november 12, 2020. Mr. Castro
[0:12] would you call the roll call,
[0:14] please?
[0:15] >>clerk of the board: yes,
[0:16] ma'am. But may we play the
[0:17] covid announcement?
[0:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: sure.
[1:01] due to covid-19, this meeting
[1:02] will be conducted as a zoom
[1:02] webinar, pursuant to the
[1:03] governor's executive order
[1:04] n-29-20 which suspends certain
[1:04] requirements of the brown act.
[1:05] this meeting is being webcast on
[1:06] the abag web site. The chair
[1:06] will call upon commissioners,
[1:07] presenters, staff, and other
[1:08] speakers by name, and ask that
[1:08] they speak clearly and state
[1:09] their names before giving
[1:10] comments or remarks. Persons
[1:10] participating via webcast and
[1:11] zoom, with their cameras
[1:12] enabled, are reminded that their
[1:12] activities are visible to
[1:13] viewers.
[1:13] commissioners and members of the
[1:14] public participating via zoom
[1:15] wishing to speak should use the
[1:15] raised hand feature or dial star
[1:16] nine, and the chair will call
[1:17] upon them at the appropriate
[1:17] time.
[1:18] teleconference attendees will be
[1:18] called upon by the last four
[1:19] digits of their phone number.
[1:20] it is requested that public
[1:20] speakers state their names and
[1:21] organization, but providing such
[1:22] information is voluntary.
[1:22] written public comments received
[1:23] at info@bayareametro.gov by 5:00
[1:24] p.m. Yesterday will be posted to
[1:25] the online agenda and entered
[1:25] into the record, but will not be
[1:26] read out loud. If authors of
[1:27] the written correspondence would
[1:27] like to speak, they are free to
[1:28] do so, and should raise their
[1:29] hand and the chair will call
[1:29] upon them on the appropriate
[1:30] time.
[1:30] a roll call vote will be taken
[1:31] for all action items.
[1:32] panelists should note that the
[1:32] chat feature is not active to
[1:33] attendees. In order to get the
[1:34] full zoom experience, please
[1:34] make sure your application is up
[1:35] to date.
[2:03] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
[2:03] can you hear me?
[2:06] >>clerk of the board: yes,
[2:06] ma'am.
[2:07] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[2:07] wonderful.
[2:09] mr. Castro will you take the
[2:11] roll please?
[2:12] >>clerk of the board: yes,
[2:13] ma'am. Councilmember adams?
[2:18] yes, I see you. Thank you.
[2:20] mayor arreguin?
[2:23] >>jesse arreguin: here.
[2:24] >>clerk of the board: mayor
[2:25] ashcraft?
[2:26] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft:
[2:28] present.
[2:28] >>clerk of the board:
[2:30] councilmember bonilla.
[2:36] >>rick bonilla: yes. I'm here.
[2:36] >>clerk of the board: mr.
[2:37] [indiscernible].
[2:37] >>speaker: here.
[2:38] supervisor canepa? Is absent.
[2:42] ms. Cha?
[2:45] >>kathleen cha: present.
[2:46] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:47] you. Supervisor chavez?
[2:49] >>cindy chavez: here.
[2:50] >>clerk of the board: crabbe?
[2:50] >>speaker: here.
[2:51] >>clerk of the board:
[2:51] supervisor dillon is absent.
[2:54] mayor pro tempore eklund?
[2:57] >>pat ecklund: present.
[2:58] >>clerk of the board: thank
[2:58] you. Vice mayor
[3:02] [indiscernible]?
[3:03] >>speaker: here.
[3:04] >>clerk of the board:
[3:04] supervisor haggerty?
[3:05] >>scott haggerty: here.
[3:06] >>clerk of the board:
[3:06] mr. Hancock?
[3:09] >>russell hancock: yes. Good
[3:10] afternoon.
[3:10] >>clerk of the board: good
[3:11] afternoon, sir.
[3:12] ms. Jones?
[3:15] >>speaker: present.
[3:15] >>clerk of the board:
[3:17] supervisor mandelman?
[3:17] >>speaker: present.
[3:18] >>clerk of the board: miley is
[3:19] absent.
[3:20] supervisor mitchoff?
[3:21] >>karen mitchoff: here.
[3:22] >>clerk of the board: thank
[3:23] you.
[3:23] mayor pierce?
[3:24] >>julie pierce: here.
[3:24] >>clerk of the board:
[3:25] supervisor rabbit?
[3:26] >>david rabbit: here.
[3:27] >>clerk of the board:
[3:27] supervisor ramos is absent.
[3:29] mr. Regan? Is absent.
[3:34] supervisor rice?
[3:36] >>katie rice: here.
[3:37] >>clerk of the board:
[3:38] mr. Romero?
[3:40] >>carlos romero, vice chair: in
[3:41] attendance.
[3:42] >>clerk of the board: thank
[3:43] you. Councilmember ross is
[3:45] absent. Mr. Savay?
[3:53] >>speaker: present.
[3:54] >>clerk of the board: mr.
[3:54] schaarf is absent.
[3:55] councilmember sedgley is absent.
[3:56] supervisor spering is absent.
[4:00] ms. Trauss?
[4:05] >>sonja trauss: here.
[4:06] >>clerk of the board: thank you
[4:06] very much.
[4:07] mayor wilson?
[4:09] >>lori wilson: here.
[4:10] >>clerk of the board: thank
[4:10] you. Quorum is present.
[4:13] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[4:14] you.
[4:14] >>james p. Spering: karen?
[4:15] spering is present.
[4:16] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[4:17] you jim. Fred's got that.
[4:20] thank you so much. All right
[4:21] we're going to move into item
[4:22] two on the agenda, public
[4:24] comment. This is an opportunity
[4:25] for anyone listening to us to
[4:28] speak on any item not on today
[4:30] agenda. There will be much time
[4:33] afforded to public comment on
[4:34] our agenda items. Mr. Castro, I
[4:36] have three participant' raised
[4:41] hands. Do you see that also?
[4:43] >>clerk of the board: yes I do.
[4:44] >>karen mitchoff, chair: call
[4:45] on them, please?
[4:46] >>clerk of the board: first
[4:47] speak is clayton holstein. Go
[4:51] ahead and unmute yourself.
[4:53] >>speaker: thank you. I will
[4:54] speak later under the item on
[4:58] your agenda. Thank you.
[5:02] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[5:03] you.
[5:04] >>clerk of the board: next
[5:05] speaker is sherry jensen.
[5:09] >>scott haggerty: mark ross
[5:11] probably wants to be moved over.
[5:14] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[5:14] you scott. Who did you just
[5:16] call?
[5:20] >>clerk of the board: jensen.
[5:20] >>speaker: the allocation of
[5:22] 200,000 --
[5:22] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[5:23] ms. Jensen that's for the public
[5:25] hearing. That's for items on
[5:27] our agenda. Did you wish to
[5:31] address us on items not on
[5:32] today's agenda?
[5:34] >>speaker: no. I didn't see
[5:35] the agenda.
[5:36] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay
[5:37] great. We'll call on you at
[5:39] this time. Thank you very much.
[5:41] item three is the chair's report
[5:42] -- I don't have any -- I'm
[5:44] sorry. Is somebody talking?
[5:49] make sure you put yourself on
[5:50] mute, everybody, if you're not
[5:52] going to speak. Thank you very
[5:53] much. All right. I would like
[5:54] to thank my colleagues here for
[5:57] participating in today's
[5:58] meeting. We are at an important
[6:00] milestone in the regional
[6:02] housing needs allocation
[6:03] process. On our agenda are the
[6:05] two public hearings on the rhna
[6:07] proposed methodology and the
[6:09] rhna draft subregional shares.
[6:12] the outcome of the rhna process
[6:14] impacts all our counties, cities
[6:17] and towns, and all of us who
[6:19] live and work in the bay area.
[6:20] it is important for us to hear
[6:22] from the public, and we expect
[6:24] considerable public
[6:28] participation today. I will
[6:29] keep my report brief so we can
[6:31] get to the business. Are there
[6:32] any discussion by members on
[6:34] this item? I'm assuming not.
[6:36] anybody want to comment from the
[6:38] public on my comments?
[6:41] and mr. Castro, I don't think
[6:43] you received any public comments
[6:44] on my report.
[6:46] >>clerk of the board: no.
[6:46] there were none received.
[6:48] >>karen mitchoff, chair: all
[6:49] right. So we have the consent
[6:50] calendar. May I have -- this is
[6:54] for the approval of the abag
[6:56] regional committee minutes of
[6:58] october 1st. Are there any
[7:00] members of the committee who
[7:01] wish to make any comments?
[7:06] marilyn?
[7:07] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: I'll
[7:08] move approval madam chair.
[7:10] >>karen mitchoff, chair: fine.
[7:10] can I have a second. I will
[7:12] take public comment.
[7:14] >>julie pierce: pierce seconds.
[7:19] >>karen mitchoff, chair: pierce
[7:19] seconds. Thank you. Are there
[7:21] any members of the public who
[7:23] wish to comment on this?
[7:25] >>clerk of the board: no
[7:26] speakers.
[7:27] >>karen mitchoff, chair: moved
[7:28] by ashcraft, second by pierce.
[7:31] roll call please.
[7:33] >>clerk of the board: [roll
[7:34] call vote].
[9:34] motion passes with one
[9:38] abstention.
[10:02] >>karen mitchoff, chair: we're
[10:02] going to move to item five which
[10:05] is planned bay area 2050 we're
[10:07] getting information on the 2050
[10:11] plan. Who is giving this
[10:13] report? Is that you gillian?
[10:16] or is that matt?
[10:19] >dave vautin: good afternoon
[10:20] chair, this is dave vautin, I
[10:22] will be filling in for chirag
[10:39] rabari this afternoon. We
[10:42] wanted to give you all a final
[10:44] update on the planned bay area
[10:46] 2050, which will focus on three
[10:49] components. Document,
[10:52] environmental impact report, and
[10:54] most importantly what we're
[10:55] calling the implementation plan.
[10:57] as you are aware we're working
[10:59] on planned bay area and horizon
[11:01] for nearly three years now with
[11:04] the final blueprint approved in
[11:06] september 2020 by the abag board
[11:09] and the commission. We
[11:10] anticipate bringing back the
[11:12] outcomes of that analysis of the
[11:14] final blueprint in the next
[11:15] month. We're also working to
[11:18] kick off the implementation plan
[11:20] this fall with the intent of
[11:22] finishing planned bay area 2050
[11:24] including this implementation
[11:25] plan component by fall of 2021.
[11:27] next slide.
[11:33] for a little bit of context the
[11:37] implementation plan builds on
[11:38] the action plan that we believe
[11:40] was well received in the planned
[11:42] bay area 2040 process. The
[11:43] implementation plan will focus
[11:45] on near term tangible actions
[11:47] that abag, mtc, and partners can
[11:49] take to advanced adopted 35
[11:55] strategies across the four core
[11:58] elements of planned bay area
[11:59] 2050. We look forward to a
[12:01] process that will engage local
[12:03] residents local governments
[12:04] civic organizations business
[12:07] interests and non-profits to
[12:10] involve take shoulders to
[12:11] identify and tackle shared
[12:14] challenges over the next five
[12:15] years. Given that all
[12:17] strategies in planned bay area
[12:18] 2050 require some theme of
[12:20] partnership and collaboration
[12:22] that will be central to the
[12:24] implementation plan process.
[12:26] next slide. We see four key
[12:28] goals for this phase of the
[12:29] planned bay area 2050 effort.
[12:32] first, the implementation plan
[12:34] will work to maximize the
[12:35] viability of the plan's
[12:36] strategies. We want to ensure
[12:38] that the benefit in those
[12:42] strategies are equitable,
[12:43] effective, and that they're
[12:45] realized and that we can chart a
[12:47] path towards addressing
[12:48] challenges that might exist with
[12:50] strategies. Second the
[12:52] implementation plan will
[12:53] reinforce recommendations of
[12:55] existing initiatives whether
[12:56] those are internal to mtc and
[12:58] abag, external, or hybrid
[13:00] initiatives. This includes mtc
[13:02] and abag convening task forces
[13:07] and committees third the
[13:08] implementation plan will work to
[13:09] address emerging and
[13:15] cross-cutting issues, and
[13:17] finally to implement the
[13:19] technical assumptions included
[13:21] within the plan something that
[13:22] our regulators on the state
[13:24] level will be looking at to
[13:26] understand the near term actions
[13:27] we're taking to advance the 30
[13:30] year visionary strategies in the
[13:31] plan itself. Next slide.
[13:33] it's important to just
[13:34] acknowledge the difference
[13:35] between a strategy and an
[13:37] implementation action.
[13:38] so we have been talking about
[13:40] the blueprint for planned bay
[13:41] area 2050 for many months now,
[13:43] and it includes 35 strategies.
[13:45] those strategies are public
[13:47] policies or sets of investments
[13:48] that can be implemented in the
[13:50] bay area over the next three
[13:52] decades at many different levels
[13:55] of government. Those are not
[13:58] near term actions or legislative
[14:01] proposals. Features in this
[14:03] component of planned bay area
[14:04] 2050 are specific actions that
[14:05] will be required to advance the
[14:07] blueprint over a shorter time
[14:10] period of five years
[14:12] specifically identifying what
[14:13] mtc and abag will do to support
[14:15] our partners and work
[14:18] collaboratively to bring the
[14:21] strategies forward each
[14:23] including one or more
[14:24] implementation actions. Next
[14:25] slide.
[14:28] the implementation plan will
[14:29] work to identify requirements
[14:30] for strategy success both
[14:34] identifying areas where we have
[14:35] met those requirements or have a
[14:37] good opportunity to meet them
[14:39] but also challenge areas for
[14:40] each strategy. Second, for each
[14:43] strategy will identify mtc
[14:46] abag's role, do we lead,
[14:48] partner, or support? For a
[14:51] strategy that we lead we'll play
[14:53] a primary role while still
[14:55] working with partners for
[14:57] strategies it might involve a
[14:59] different group of partners or
[15:01] agencies for the strategy and
[15:03] there might be agencies playing
[15:09] a supportive role like state or
[15:12] federal government to advance
[15:14] that strategy. Third the
[15:15] implementation plan will
[15:16] identify different vehicles for
[15:18] strategy implementation could
[15:20] this range from advocacy and
[15:22] legislation to new initiatives
[15:23] or even planning and research
[15:25] efforts at mtc and abag and
[15:28] lastly identify timeline and
[15:30] actions for the next five years.
[15:31] next slide.
[15:34] just to give you a sense of how
[15:36] the months ahead are anticipate
[15:38] to roll out, as you will note
[15:41] here, there are some stars
[15:43] showing when we will be
[15:44] presenting to this committee,
[15:46] the board, the commission, et
[15:48] cetera. We're really here in
[15:50] the second phase of the process
[15:51] right now, after completing some
[15:53] internal analysis during the
[15:54] summer and fall.
[15:57] to describe how this
[15:58] implementation plan will work.
[16:00] next week we'll be having two
[16:02] stakeholder meetings in a
[16:04] virtual format. We are almost
[16:06] fully subscribed to those at
[16:09] this point with almost 80
[16:11] attendees anticipated for both
[16:12] of the different events as we go
[16:15] into december we'll be holding
[16:17] smaller group meetings, office
[16:18] hours, to try to understand
[16:20] specific actions and further
[16:22] refine what comes out of the
[16:23] workshops.
[16:24] going into the winter in phase
[16:26] three we'll begin to draft the
[16:29] implementation plan, we plan on
[16:30] providing an update to this
[16:32] complete and other in february
[16:33] and we'll do some engagement
[16:35] with the public and
[16:36] community-based organizations to
[16:37] continue to refine the
[16:38] implementation actions.
[16:40] in the final phases, we'll also
[16:42] begin to look at potential
[16:44] partnerships to advance specific
[16:46] strategies, we'll put forward
[16:47] the draft implementation plan in
[16:49] april or may of 2021 for public
[16:52] review and discussion. And we
[16:54] anticipate the implementation
[16:55] plan being approved concurrently
[16:58] with planned bay area 2050 in
[16:59] the fall of 2021.
[17:02] next slide.
[17:06] we have begun the strategic
[17:08] assessment of our strategies to
[17:10] understand whether we have the
[17:12] four key criteria for success to
[17:14] advance the particular strategy.
[17:16] while this analysis is still
[17:19] ongoing but we want to give you
[17:20] a bit of a flavor of how
[17:22] different strategies might shake
[17:23] out. When we come back to this
[17:25] committee in february we'll be
[17:27] bringing forward not only what
[17:28] we hear at our workshops but a
[17:31] matrix of how each of the 35
[17:33] strategies scores on the four
[17:35] criteria. For example, we're
[17:36] looking at whether strategies
[17:37] whether we have the authority to
[17:39] advance a specific strategy in
[17:41] an effective, efficient, and
[17:43] equitable manner. An example of
[17:45] a strategy where we have much
[17:46] more limited authority would be
[17:48] something like implementing a
[17:50] universal statewide basic income
[17:53] whereas we have greater
[17:55] authority to expand clean
[17:56] vehicle initiatives associated
[17:58] with the air district and others
[17:59] to fund that program.
[18:01] furthermore the strategy
[18:02] assessment is looking at whether
[18:03] we have the funding to advance
[18:05] each of the different strategies
[18:06] and you can see some examples
[18:07] there of a strategy like
[18:10] targeted mortgage assistance for
[18:12] which no current funding exists
[18:14] or compared to a strategy like
[18:16] advancing seamless mobility
[18:18] where we could leverage existing
[18:20] transportation funds to do so.
[18:22] next slide please
[18:24] third looking at for each
[18:26] strategy whether mtc abag staff
[18:28] have the technical capacity and
[18:29] institutional wrap around to
[18:31] successfully implement it.
[18:33] currently we have very limited
[18:35] capacity in an area like
[18:37] expanding job training programs
[18:38] and incubator programs. And
[18:40] much greater capacity on a
[18:42] strategy like, building express
[18:44] lanes and express buses across
[18:45] the bay area. And lastly, for
[18:48] every strategy we're looking at
[18:49] the level of public and
[18:51] political support.
[18:52] in some strategies there are
[18:54] greater challenges in this
[18:56] regard like implementing per
[18:57] mile tolling on congested
[18:59] freeways whereas there such
[19:00] greater support for a strategy
[19:02] like adapting to sea level rise.
[19:04] just because there's a challenge
[19:06] with a specific strategy doesn't
[19:08] mean that strategy should not
[19:10] move forward but really had
[19:11] finishing how we can overcome
[19:15] challenges in the next five year
[19:16] of implementation actions. Next
[19:19] slide.
[19:21] the implementation plan phase
[19:22] will continue to be a very
[19:24] collaborative effort that
[19:25] involves many different
[19:27] stakeholders. This table here
[19:28] shows examples of projects
[19:31] internal and external as well as
[19:33] key stakeholder we hope to
[19:34] engage with over the course of
[19:36] the implementation plan process,
[19:37] but of course we're interested
[19:39] in hearing any of your ideas
[19:42] about other organizations or
[19:43] groups that we should be
[19:45] touching base with. We look
[19:49] forward to local jurisdictions
[19:54] and we know a number of
[19:55] stakeholder groups will be
[19:57] joining us for our meetings next
[20:00] week. Next slide please this
[20:02] brings me to the conclusion of
[20:06] overview of the implementation
[20:08] plan. If you have comments on
[20:10] high priority implementation
[20:12] areas or stakeholder us that
[20:13] would like to add to the list to
[20:15] bring to the table and just
[20:17] overall approach to the
[20:18] implementation plan phase. Next
[20:20] slide.
[20:21] we look forward to come back to
[20:23] give you an update in
[20:31] february 2021. And I'll take
[20:33] comments or questions.
[20:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair: do any
[20:35] members of the committee have
[20:37] questions for dave? Just raise
[20:38] your hand.
[20:40] >>sonja trauss: I have a
[20:41] question.
[20:42] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go
[20:42] ahead sonja.
[20:44] >>sonja trauss: hi. So first
[20:44] of all, is there still a
[20:47] work-from-home mandate in
[20:48] planned bay area? And if there
[20:51] is, how do you imagine
[20:55] implementing that? Because it
[20:56] seems like impossible. You
[20:58] know, like, you would have to
[20:59] track the location of workers
[21:04] all over -- like, that's
[21:06] ridiculous, logistically, and
[21:09] also for civil liberties.
[21:14] >dave vautin: thanks for that
[21:15] question. In october we
[21:17] presented some parametering to
[21:18] the joint mtc planning and abag
[21:21] administrative committees that
[21:22] defined kind of guidelines for
[21:25] any alternatives to the
[21:27] telecommuting strategy. We do
[21:28] anticipate bringing forward an
[21:31] alternative to that strategy at
[21:33] the november 20th commission
[21:35] meeting, next week, is there
[21:38] will be an opportunity for
[21:40] further discussion on whether
[21:41] that strategy should move
[21:42] forward or be replaced with an
[21:45] alternative approach.
[21:46] >>karen mitchoff, chair: are
[21:47] there any other questions?
[21:51] any hands raised? I'm not
[21:53] seeing any hands raised.
[22:03] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
[22:04] sonja, you're finished. Okay.
[22:06] then we'll go to public comment.
[22:07] there are any members of the
[22:08] public who wish to comment on
[22:10] this report?
[22:12] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: I
[22:12] believe we have a member with
[22:13] his hand up. Mr. Savay.
[22:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: here
[22:19] is al. Sorry about that.
[22:34] >>al savay: I had a question
[22:36] with the significant changes
[22:37] that were forecasted when the
[22:39] plan was put together, do you
[22:40] have capability to shift in
[22:42] terms of priorities and
[22:43] implementation based on
[22:44] significant changes like the
[22:47] pandemic response that could
[22:48] ripple through the economy in
[22:49] the bay area for years to come?
[22:55] >dave vautin: that's a great
[22:55] question. First of all I'll
[22:57] note the blueprint phase we have
[22:59] been working on since last fall
[23:01] we incorporated a number of
[23:02] different changes to it, because
[23:04] we made refinements to it during
[23:06] the course of the pandemic. So
[23:08] a lot of the strategies were
[23:10] updated or revised this summer.
[23:12] again, taking into account what
[23:14] we know, and also what we don't
[23:16] know about the region's future,
[23:17] but we were able to incorporate
[23:19] some of those learnings into the
[23:22] final blueprint. Furthermore,
[23:24] the regional growth forecast was
[23:26] updated to include covid impacts
[23:28] and recession impacts into the
[23:30] region's long-term trajectory.
[23:32] and we worked closely with the
[23:36] state to incorporate a faster
[23:38] adoption rate of telecommuting
[23:41] than the previous provision. So
[23:43] there has been specific actions.
[23:45] at the same time the plan
[23:49] implements what key changes for
[23:51] priorities in the next five
[23:53] years defined by cove and after
[23:56] effects of it including a weaker
[23:57] economy. So as we think about
[24:00] prioritizing which strategies
[24:00] need to come first, I think that
[24:04] lens along with our equity lens
[24:06] along with some of our other key
[24:08] areas to look at, that lens is
[24:09] going to be really important.
[24:11] and so, you know, we'll be
[24:13] encouraging stakeholders as we
[24:15] think about what is essential
[24:16] for 2021, 2022, et cetera, to
[24:18] keep that in mind.
[24:25] >>al savay: have you, with that
[24:29] response, you have talked to
[24:31] experts in terms of forecasting
[24:33] and futures and things like
[24:34] that, you're asking about what
[24:36] stakeholders should we talk to.
[24:39] have you talked to some experts?
[24:41] or academics? Or others in
[24:44] terms of looking toward the
[24:46] future in terms of how it
[24:48] relates to the implementation?
[24:52] >dave vautin: well we're just
[24:53] at the -- we just kicked off the
[24:56] implementation plan phase this
[24:57] month but I think your
[24:58] suggestion is well take taken
[25:03] that we can look to engage folks
[25:05] in academia and other in this
[25:08] process.
[25:10] >>speaker: thank you.
[25:11] >>karen mitchoff, chair: I know
[25:11] there are members of the public
[25:13] who wish to speak but I'm not
[25:15] seeing any members of the
[25:17] committee wishing to speak.
[25:18] mr. Castro call on our first
[25:20] speaker.
[25:21] >>clerk of the board: first
[25:22] speaker is samuel renos, please
[25:25] unmute yourself and go ahead.
[25:30] >>speaker: good afternoon
[25:32] committee members and staff,
[25:34] 2020 survey of the bay area
[25:36] local government asked to
[25:37] identify major barriers to
[25:39] producing all the housing the
[25:40] region needs shortages of
[25:42] skilled housing construction
[25:43] workers was one of the top
[25:45] responses. The northern
[25:46] california carpenters doesn't
[25:49] expect abag and the mtc to
[25:51] design expanded training
[25:53] programs, but the bay area 2050
[25:56] implementation plan can help
[25:58] guide jurisdictions towards best
[26:01] practices for local government
[26:02] agencies, and private developers
[26:05] creating incentives for
[26:07] developers and contractors to
[26:08] make concrete commitments to
[26:11] recruiting, training, and
[26:12] retaining skilled construction
[26:15] workers. The northern
[26:16] california carpenters stand
[26:18] ready to assist staff in
[26:19] developing a work plan for
[26:21] identifying and proliferating
[26:24] those best practices. Thank
[26:26] you.
[26:28] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[26:28] you. Is there anyone else who
[26:30] wishes to address us?
[26:32] >>clerk of the board: yes. We
[26:32] have one speaker with the
[26:34] initials l. W. Go ahead.
[26:37] >>speaker: hi. Can you hear
[26:38] me?
[26:39] >>clerk of the board: yes, sir.
[26:40] >>speaker: hi. My name is
[26:42] lakinder, and I'm looking at
[26:44] your strategy document. I'm
[26:46] sorry -- I haven't looked at
[26:48] your past documents, but if the
[26:50] idea was to present a
[26:51] comprehensive background as to
[26:52] how you came to this strategy,
[26:54] then, I am not so well informed.
[26:59] and I was wondering, just having
[27:03] a couple of slides is okay, but
[27:05] having a lot more detailed input
[27:07] as to what the member cities
[27:09] have, while participating, given
[27:12] you as input, that would be good
[27:14] to see. But I don't have any
[27:16] idea what's the background here.
[27:19] so thank you.
[27:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[27:22] you.
[27:23] is there anyone else in the
[27:24] public who wishes to address us?
[27:26] do you see any?
[27:27] >>clerk of the board: there is
[27:28] one more person. Raleigh
[27:34] graeber.
[27:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[27:37] ms. Graeber.
[27:41] >>clerk of the board: raleigh
[27:44] graber, please unmute yourself.
[27:47] she does not seem to be --
[27:50] >>speaker: can you hear me?
[27:51] >>clerk of the board: okay. Go
[27:52] ahead.
[27:53] >>speaker: can you hear me?
[27:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
[27:55] >>clerk of the board: go ahead.
[27:56] >>speaker: okay. Thank you.
[27:58] I'm going to read off a letter
[28:00] to you from an edward singh who
[28:07] also living in alameda. I'm
[28:09] from alameda.
[28:10] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[28:12] ms. Graber I'm going to be
[28:14] limiting public comment to three
[28:16] minutes. Is the letter longer
[28:17] than three minutes?
[28:19] >>speaker: no. It's one
[28:20] type-written page. Dear
[28:23] regional planning committee
[28:24] chairperson mitchoff and
[28:25] committee members -- okay. One
[28:31] concern that arose during
[28:34] discussions of the recently
[28:35] defeated measure z in alameda, z
[28:39] would have removed voter
[28:44] approved development
[28:45] restrictions in alameda and it
[28:47] was defeated, is susceptibility
[28:49] of alameda to natural hazards,
[28:54] earthquake liquefaction, sea
[28:56] level rise and tsunami surges?
[28:59] although these hazards exist for
[29:02] many cities adjacent to san
[29:05] francisco bay, alameda is unique
[29:06] and the egress from alameda
[29:08] should such natural hazards
[29:10] occur an emergency response
[29:12] access to the city, to the
[29:14] island is limited to aging
[29:16] bridges and tunnels, which are
[29:18] already overwhelmed during
[29:20] normal rush hour conditions.
[29:29] adding rhna 4900 housing units
[29:32] from the period from 2023 to
[29:34] 2030 would require building
[29:35] another 13,000 approximate
[29:38] market rate units in order to
[29:40] achieve the rhna target for
[29:43] affordable homes.
[29:45] this would increase the total
[29:47] number of housing units in
[29:49] alameda by over 30 percent,
[29:51] approximately. Burdening an
[29:54] already stressed infrastructure
[29:55] as well as exasperating ingress
[29:59] on to an egress off of the
[30:02] island during emergency
[30:03] conditions. Such concerns
[30:05] should be reflected in the
[30:06] process of determining rhna
[30:09] requirements
[30:10] >>clerk of the board: your time
[30:11] is up.
[30:11] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[30:11] ms. Graber, you're addressing us
[30:13] on an item that we haven't
[30:15] gotten to yet. Can you wrap up
[30:17] your comment, please?
[30:23] ms. Graber, you're back on mute
[30:30] >>speaker: can you hear me now?
[30:31] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
[30:32] you're addressing us on an item,
[30:34] this is not the item where you
[30:36] should be addressing it. Can
[30:37] you wrap up your comment,
[30:39] please?
[30:40] >>speaker: I'll finish it when
[30:41] you come to the item then. I'll
[30:43] finish it when you come to the
[30:44] proper item. Thank you.
[30:46] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[30:46] you. Is there anyone who wishes
[30:48] to address us on this item.
[30:49] >>clerk of the board: no other
[30:50] hands raised from the attendees
[30:52] and no written comments received
[30:53] on this item.
[30:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
[30:55] then we are moving on to item
[31:01] 6a, and I have -- my phone keeps
[31:05] going out here. Okay. We will
[31:08] now conduct the public hearing
[31:10] -- this is item 6a public
[31:12] hearing on regional housing
[31:13] needs allocation proposed
[31:15] methodology.
[31:16] we will now conduct the public
[31:18] hearing on the regional housing
[31:19] needs allocation proposed
[31:22] methodology. Is the court
[31:24] reporter ready?
[31:29] the court reporter: I am here
[31:30] and ready. Thank you.
[31:30] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[31:32] wonderful thank you. The public
[31:33] hearing is now open. Good
[31:35] afternoon I'm karen mitchoff
[31:38] chair of the regional planning
[31:42] committee also known as rpc I
[31:45] would like to take up agenda
[31:46] item 6a proposed hearing on the
[31:49] proposed methodology for rhna
[31:50] the hearing is now open and as
[31:52] you heard a certified short hand
[31:55] reporter is transcribing these
[31:58] proceedings. If you wish to
[31:59] testify please use the raised
[32:01] hand feature or dial star nine
[32:04] and please wait to be called
[32:06] upon. We ask that each speaker
[32:08] be brief, concise and keep
[32:11] comments to no more than three
[32:13] minutes if a previous speaker
[32:16] has addressed your concern we
[32:18] ask that you just say you
[32:20] reiterate those comments rather
[32:22] err than repeating them. By way
[32:24] of background abag convened an
[32:26] ad-hoc housing methodology
[32:27] committee also known as hmc,
[32:30] over the last year, to advise
[32:32] staff on the methodology for
[32:33] allocating a share of the
[32:34] region's total housing need to
[32:37] every local government in the
[32:38] bay area.
[32:39] I think this answers the
[32:40] question from a previous public
[32:42] speaker about whether the cities
[32:43] were involved.
[32:45] on october 15th the abag
[32:50] regional executive board offered
[32:53] to release a proposed
[32:54] methodology for public comment.
[32:56] a report on the proposed
[32:58] methodology was posted on the
[33:00] abag web site beginning on
[33:03] october 24th, 2020. Also in
[33:05] late october, legal notices were
[33:07] published in multiple languages
[33:09] in newspapers in each of the
[33:11] nine counties of the bay area
[33:13] announcing the opening of a
[33:14] third day public comment period
[33:16] for written comment ending
[33:19] november 27th. And identifying
[33:21] today's public hearing to
[33:23] receive oral testimony and
[33:25] written comments about the
[33:26] proposed rhna methodology.
[33:29] today's hearing fulfills the
[33:30] requirement identified in
[33:32] california government code
[33:34] section 65584.04(d) written
[33:43] comments can continue to be
[33:45] submitted to rhna at
[33:48] bayareametro.gov or by us mail
[33:51] until the november 27th
[33:53] deadline.
[33:54] I'm going to call on gillian
[33:57] adams who will give us a report
[33:58] on this. Ms. Adams, would you
[34:01] please give your report?
[34:03] >>gillian adams: thank you
[34:04] madam chair. My name is gillian
[34:06] adams, project manager for the
[34:08] regional housing needs
[34:09] allocation or rhna process.
[34:11] I'll be providing you with a
[34:12] brief overview of the proposed
[34:14] rhna methodology approved by the
[34:16] abag executive board. Pull up
[34:18] the slides, please.
[34:23] okay. Next slide please.
[34:27] so rhna is the state-mandated
[34:30] process to identify the share of
[34:31] the region's housing need that
[34:33] each local jurisdiction must
[34:35] plan for over an eight year
[34:36] period. As part of this
[34:38] process, in june 2020, the
[34:40] california department of housing
[34:42] and community development
[34:45] determined that bay area
[34:46] communities must plan for
[34:50] 441,176 housing units from 2023
[34:52] to 2031. By law, abag is
[34:55] required to develop a
[34:56] methodology or formula that
[34:59] divides the entire housing need
[35:01] from the state among each city,
[35:03] town and county in the region.
[35:05] each local government will
[35:06] receive a total number of units
[35:09] by income category from abag and
[35:12] then must update the housing
[35:14] element of its general plan to
[35:16] show how it can accommodate its
[35:17] rhna allocation. It is in the
[35:20] housing that local jurisdictions
[35:22] choose the specific locations
[35:23] within their communities that
[35:25] will be zoned for housing. As
[35:27] noted earlier, abag convened an
[35:30] ad-hoc housing methodology
[35:32] committee or hmc to advise staff
[35:34] on the rhna methodology. The
[35:36] hmc is made up of local elected
[35:39] officials and staff representing
[35:41] jurisdictions in every bay area
[35:42] county and stakeholders from
[35:44] multiple sectors to facilitate
[35:46] sharing of different
[35:48] perspectives. Hmc met 12 times
[35:50] from october 2019 to
[35:54] december 2020 and engaged in
[35:55] robust discussions about how to
[35:57] develop a methodology that
[35:58] advances the five objectives
[36:00] required by housing element law
[36:02] and is consistent with the
[36:04] forecasted development pattern
[36:05] for planned bay area 2050 as
[36:07] required by law.
[36:08] the five statutory objectives
[36:10] for rhna related to increasing
[36:12] housing supply and mix of
[36:14] housing types, promoting infill
[36:16] development and socio-economic
[36:18] equity, promoting an improved
[36:22] inter-regional jobs/housing
[36:24] relationship balancing
[36:25] disproportionate household
[36:27] income distributions and
[36:30] affirmatively furthering fair
[36:32] housing. Throughout the
[36:34] methodology development process
[36:35] both staff and hmc's decisions
[36:38] were guided by evaluation
[36:40] metrics that access how
[36:42] successful different methodology
[36:44] options chief the statutory
[36:46] objectives.
[36:47] these metric were based
[36:50] primarily on how state hcd
[36:52] evaluated other region's
[36:54] methodologies. Results of the
[36:55] evaluation demonstrate that the
[36:57] proposed rhna methodology
[36:58] advances the statutory rhna
[37:01] objectives and is consistent
[37:02] with planned bay area 2050. On
[37:05] october 15th the abag executive
[37:07] board voted to release the
[37:08] proposed methodology for public
[37:09] comment.
[37:11] abag will be accepting written
[37:12] comments until noon on
[37:18] november 27th. Next slide
[37:18] please
[37:20] there are two primary components
[37:22] of the proposed rhna
[37:23] methodology. The first is the
[37:25] baseline allocation, and the
[37:27] second is factors and weights.
[37:30] the baseline allocation is used
[37:31] to assign each jurisdiction a
[37:33] beginning share of the region's
[37:35] housing needs.
[37:36] the proposed rhna methodology
[37:39] uses a jurisdiction's share of
[37:41] the forecasted number of total
[37:42] household in the year 2050 from
[37:45] the planned bay area 2050
[37:50] blueprint as the baseline
[37:52] allocation hmc considered five
[37:54] baselines for the allocation
[37:56] including expected household
[37:58] growth and households using 2050
[38:04] as the baseline capturing the
[38:06] benefits of using planned bay
[38:08] area 2050 blueprint in the
[38:09] methodology and because total
[38:11] household in 2050 is the sum of
[38:14] existing households plus
[38:15] expected growth it provides a
[38:17] compromise between baselines on
[38:20] current number of household in a
[38:21] jurisdiction and baseline based
[38:23] solely on forecasted housing
[38:26] growth in the blueprint. Second
[38:28] forecast of the methodology was
[38:30] selecting factors and weights
[38:31] that best compliment the
[38:33] baseline allocation. Factors
[38:34] and weights adjust a baseline
[38:37] allocation up or down. The
[38:39] proposed methodology includes
[38:40] one set of factors and weights
[38:42] for allocating very low and low
[38:46] income units and separate set
[38:48] for above and moderate units.
[38:53] this allocates for control over
[38:56] a particular income category.
[39:00] allocation to jurisdictions are
[39:02] added together to determine each
[39:04] jurisdiction's total allocation
[39:05] the table at the bottom of the
[39:07] slide shows factors and weights
[39:10] for the methodology each
[39:13] represents data related to the
[39:15] methodology priorities access to
[39:17] high opportunity areas and
[39:18] proximity to jobs. Access to
[39:19] high opportunity areas factor is
[39:21] based on the jurisdictions with
[39:23] the higher percentage of
[39:25] households living in areas
[39:26] designated high resource or
[39:28] highest resource on the
[39:28] opportunity map developed by the
[39:30] state. The state evaluated
[39:33] census tracts using index of 21
[39:36] different indicators related to
[39:37] economic, educational, and
[39:40] health outcomes. Job proximate
[39:44] factors identify the number of
[39:46] jobs that can be accessed from a
[39:48] jurisdiction by a 30 minute auto
[39:50] commute or 45 minute transit
[39:52] commute. Factors on
[39:54] jurisdiction's allocation depend
[39:56] on the scores factor relative to
[39:59] other jurisdictions within the
[40:01] region. Above average score on
[40:03] a factor would get upwards
[40:06] adjustment whereas a city below
[40:07] average factor would get
[40:10] downwards adjustment relative to
[40:12] baseline allocation
[40:13] representatives on the table
[40:14] show weight to each factor
[40:17] selected to the different income
[40:19] groups weight assigned to each
[40:20] factor represent the factor
[40:22] importance in the overall
[40:23] allocation as the weight
[40:24] determines the share of the
[40:25] region's housing need that will
[40:27] be assigned by that particular
[40:29] factor. Next slide please.
[40:34] as mentioned earlier the
[40:35] proposed rhna methodology uses
[40:38] 2050 households from the planned
[40:40] bay area 2050 blueprint as the
[40:42] baseline allocation this slide
[40:44] reviews benefits of using
[40:45] planned bay area as part of the
[40:47] rhna methodology. Importantly,
[40:49] incorporating planned bay area
[40:50] 2050 into the rhna methodology
[40:52] communicates to our local
[40:53] government partners and other
[40:55] stakeholders that we're moving
[40:57] toward a unified vision for the
[40:59] bay area's future. Including
[41:00] the blueprint in the
[41:01] methodology, helps ensure equity
[41:08] and sustainability outcomes
[41:10] identified in planned bay area
[41:12] 2050 particularly those related
[41:13] to greenhouse gas emissions
[41:15] reductions the growth
[41:16] geographies identified in the
[41:17] blueprint priority housing
[41:19] development in areas near
[41:21] transit locations close to
[41:22] existing job centers and high
[41:24] resource areas.
[41:25] using the blueprint in the rhna
[41:27] methodology -- you can go back
[41:31] to slide number four, please?
[41:34] thank you.
[41:35] using the blueprint in the rhna
[41:37] methodology also addresses
[41:39] concerns about natural hazards
[41:40] as the growth geographies in the
[41:42] blueprint exclude areas with
[41:44] high wildfire risk and areas
[41:46] outside urban growth boundaries.
[41:48] local governments can also
[41:49] consider the most appropriate
[41:51] places for planning for housing
[41:52] in areas with less risk from
[41:54] wildfires and other hazards when
[41:56] they update the housing elements
[41:57] of their general plans.
[42:00] using the year 2050 households
[42:02] baseline result in an allocation
[42:03] that reflects the blueprint's
[42:06] focused growth pattern while the
[42:07] allocation factors in the rhna
[42:09] methodology address this
[42:10] baseline to meet the fair
[42:11] housing and equity goals
[42:14] mandated by state law. As a
[42:15] result the proposed methodology
[42:17] will enable the region to
[42:20] accelerate toward a more
[42:21] equitable and less segregated
[42:23] land use pattern in the near
[42:25] term while building toward broad
[42:28] range of pattern movement in the
[42:30] long-term. It's important to
[42:31] note in september abag executive
[42:34] board and mtc commission adopted
[42:36] a changes to inputs into the
[42:39] planned bay area 2050 blueprint
[42:40] since the blueprint is part of
[42:42] the rhna methodology the final
[42:43] blueprint growth pattern which
[42:44] is slated for release in
[42:46] december 2020 will affect the
[42:50] rhna allocations. Next slide
[42:52] please this graphic provides an
[42:54] overview of the proposed rhna
[42:56] methodology. At the top you can
[42:57] see the regional housing need
[43:00] determination of 441,176 units
[43:03] by income category. State hcd
[43:09] identified for the area. In
[43:10] stage one you can see low and
[43:12] low income units have been
[43:14] grouped together and above mood
[43:16] rat grouped together step two
[43:19] shows factors and weights
[43:21] proposed methodology is one
[43:23] group of factors to allocate
[43:25] very low and low income units
[43:27] while another set of factors and
[43:29] weights allocates moderate and
[43:31] above moderate income units.
[43:33] and the factors and weights and
[43:35] resulting number of units
[43:37] allocated by each factor three
[43:38] factors for allocating low
[43:41] income units are 70 percent
[43:43] access to high opportunity areas
[43:44] allocating 126,000 units 15
[43:48] percent jobs prom auto and 15
[43:53] percent jobs programs transit
[43:59] factors to allocate higher
[44:01] income units are 40 percent
[44:03] access to high opportunity areas
[44:05] allocating -- and one hadn't
[44:14] 60,000 units. Opportunities to
[44:15] high opportunity areas factor
[44:18] allocates 52 percent of the
[44:20] region's rhna. In step three of
[44:26] the methodology each
[44:26] jurisdiction's baseline
[44:28] allocation is adjusted based on
[44:30] how it scores on different
[44:33] allocation factors. If a
[44:35] jurisdiction has more access to
[44:36] opportunity or better job
[44:37] proximity relative to the region
[44:40] this allocation is adjusted
[44:41] upward otherwise allocation
[44:43] adjusted downward. The units
[44:47] the jurisdictions receive with
[44:49] different incomes added together
[44:50] to determine a jurisdiction's
[44:52] total rhna allocation. Next
[44:54] slide please. As note the
[44:56] earlier, the potential
[44:58] allocation shown in these
[44:59] materials are illustrative at
[45:01] this point, there are many more
[45:02] steps in the rhna process before
[45:03] a jurisdiction will receive the
[45:05] final allocation that needs to
[45:09] be incorporated into the housing
[45:10] updates. The map on the left
[45:13] demonstrates the potential
[45:14] growth rate each jurisdiction
[45:16] would experience as a total
[45:18] allocation from the proposed
[45:19] methodology. This growth is
[45:21] relative to the jurisdiction's
[45:22] number of household in 2019.
[45:24] jurisdictions with the darkest
[45:26] brown experience the highest
[45:28] growth rates while those in the
[45:30] light gray experience the lowest
[45:32] growth rates in general the
[45:34] jurisdictions with the highest
[45:35] growth rates in the south bay
[45:36] and along the peninsula and
[45:38] those with lowest growth rates
[45:40] are in sonoma napa and solano
[45:42] counties and northern and
[45:43] eastern portions of contra costa
[45:45] county. It's important to note
[45:46] that the region as a whole will
[45:48] grow by 16 percent a result of
[45:51] the regional housing need
[45:53] assigned by hcd for the 2023 to
[45:57] 2031 rhna cycle. Therefore any
[46:01] receiving less than the
[46:03] determined growth rate is being
[46:04] asked to take on less than the
[46:07] average. Highlighted speakers
[46:10] to the 441,000 the bay area must
[46:13] plan for and the statutory
[46:15] requirement of rhna that all
[46:16] communities throughout the
[46:17] region do their fair share
[46:19] toward meeting the region's
[46:21] housing needs. The map on the
[46:22] right shows potential total
[46:24] allocation of rhna units to bay
[46:27] area jurisdictions to the rhna
[46:29] cycle as a result of the
[46:30] proposed methodology.
[46:32] jurisdictions with the darkest
[46:34] purple receive the largest
[46:36] allocations light gray receive
[46:38] smaller allocations of rhna.
[46:40] distribution of rhna is fairly
[46:43] concentrated with the largest
[46:46] cities receiving most
[46:48] allocations accounting for a
[46:49] third of all rhna units
[46:51] jurisdictions with the highest
[46:53] allocations from the proposed
[46:54] methodology would account for 72
[46:56] percent of all rhna units used
[46:58] of the three largest cities the
[47:00] largest rhna this allocations
[47:02] are found in silicon valley
[47:04] where there is proximity to
[47:06] major employment centers and
[47:08] high access to opportunity.
[47:09] next slide please
[47:12] this table shows how rhna units
[47:14] are distributed by county. The
[47:15] numbers in the first column
[47:17] represent the sum of the rhna
[47:18] allocations for all of the
[47:20] jurisdictions in each county.
[47:21] in a second column you can see
[47:23] each county's share of rhna
[47:26] units based on the proposed
[47:27] methodology. You can compare
[47:29] how the share of rhna units for
[47:30] each county compares to its
[47:33] share of rhna unit in the last
[47:35] cycle in the middle column share
[47:37] of existing households and share
[47:38] of existing jobs.
[47:41] san francisco and jurisdiction
[47:42] in marin, san mateo, and santa
[47:44] clara counties would receive a
[47:46] larger share of the region's
[47:47] housing need than they did in
[47:49] the 2015 to 2023 rhna cycle.
[47:53] jurisdiction in alameda, contra
[47:55] costa, and solano counties
[47:56] receive a smaller share of the
[47:57] region's rhna from the proposed
[47:59] methodology than they did from
[48:01] the cycle five methodology.
[48:02] while the share of the
[48:03] allocation to jurisdictions in
[48:05] sonoma and napa counties remains
[48:08] unchanged.
[48:09] when comparing the share of rhna
[48:12] units from the proposed
[48:13] methodology to the county's
[48:14] share of existing households
[48:15] only san francisco and
[48:17] jurisdictions in san mateo and
[48:18] santa clara receive a larger
[48:20] share of the region's rhna
[48:21] compared to their current share
[48:23] of the region's households.
[48:25] when looking at jobs only santa
[48:28] clara and san mateo counties are
[48:29] being asked to tear on a share
[48:31] of rhna units that is larger
[48:33] than their share of existing
[48:34] jobs. The allocations from the
[48:36] proposed rhna methodology would
[48:38] result in jurisdictions in santa
[48:40] clara county receiving 33
[48:41] percent of the rhna compared to
[48:43] its share of existing jobs of 27
[48:46] percent. Slide lied
[48:50] -- next slide please
[48:51] looking at the next steps for
[48:52] the rhna process. Abag is
[48:55] accepting written comments on
[48:56] the proposed methodology until
[48:57] noon on november 27th. And I
[49:01] notice here there's a typo on
[49:03] our slide it should say the
[49:05] public comment on proposed
[49:06] methodology and draft ends on
[49:09] november 27th. In december of
[49:10] 2020 the planned bay area 2050
[49:12] final blueprint data for the
[49:14] 2050 household baseline is
[49:16] anticipated to become available.
[49:18] in january of 2021, the rpc and
[49:21] the executive board will weigh
[49:23] in on public feedback as well as
[49:24] updates made to integrate the
[49:27] final blueprint data into the
[49:28] draft rhna methodology.
[49:30] once the abag executive board
[49:32] approves the draft rhna
[49:33] methodology, it will be
[49:34] submitted to state hcd for its
[49:37] review. And that completes my
[49:39] presentation.
[49:40] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[49:41] you. And I appreciate you
[49:42] noting the typo.
[49:44] since this will be on our web
[49:46] site. I would request that
[49:47] someone go through and correct
[49:49] that before it's posted again.
[49:54] okay. We will now receive oral
[49:57] -- pardon me. There are any
[50:00] comments by any members of our
[50:02] committee before we go to public
[50:04] testimony?
[50:09] is there anyone?
[50:13] >>julie pierce: yes. Sorry. I
[50:14] couldn't get unmuted.
[50:16] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
[50:17] go ahead.
[50:18] >>julie pierce: yeah. I just
[50:19] want to make a brief comment.
[50:20] and first I want to reiterate my
[50:22] thanks to staff and all of the
[50:24] committee members for the
[50:25] housing methodology committee
[50:27] who spent the past year getting
[50:29] us this far. It has been a
[50:32] monumental lift, but I have to
[50:37] say I'm not happy with the
[50:39] results. And this is not a
[50:41] surprise to staff. I have said
[50:42] this at meetings before. I
[50:44] think we're going to have to
[50:45] agree to disagree. I'm afraid
[50:48] that none of the options that
[50:49] remained on the table at the end
[50:51] of the process really adhered to
[50:54] the stated goal to align with
[50:57] planned bay area 2050.
[50:59] the greenhouse gas and vehicle
[51:01] miles traveled targets are going
[51:03] to be nearly impossible to
[51:05] reach, no matter how many people
[51:08] we have telecommuting.
[51:11] proximity to jobs by auto and
[51:14] transit should be the heaviest
[51:16] criteria for where now housing
[51:19] should go. The quality of life
[51:20] for our workers is severely
[51:23] impacted by spending many hours
[51:26] a day commuting. Families and
[51:27] communities both suffer when
[51:30] residents cannot participate.
[51:32] the proposed methodology that is
[51:35] before the public today, in this
[51:37] public hearing, has dramatically
[51:39] increased the housing
[51:40] allocations to the
[51:42] unincorporated areas of the
[51:43] region, outside of urban growth
[51:48] boundaries that were approved by
[51:50] voters and many of those areas
[51:51] are also high hazard areas.
[51:53] indeed much of the bay area is a
[51:55] high hazard area at this point.
[51:57] it is also dramatically
[51:59] increased the allocations to
[52:00] small communities that are
[52:02] further from high quality
[52:04] transit and job centers rather
[52:06] than a previous option that was
[52:09] aligned closely with planned bay
[52:12] area 2050 growth.
[52:14] during the process, I have
[52:16] frequently heard the charge that
[52:18] some jurisdictions have not done
[52:19] their fair share, and that they
[52:22] should be forced to carry their
[52:24] weight and even punished with
[52:26] higher numbers.
[52:28] in this current housing cycle,
[52:31] cycle five, every one of our 101
[52:34] cities and nine counties have
[52:36] hcd certified housing elements,
[52:39] which where they have identified
[52:41] locations for the housing units
[52:43] they have been allocated. Many,
[52:46] many factors go into why those
[52:48] units have not been built. We
[52:50] all know what those are.
[52:53] I have further heard that for
[52:54] equity reasons the new housing
[52:57] needs to be placed heavily in
[52:59] high opportunity areas. I don't
[53:01] disagree with that at all.
[53:02] but since we're going to be
[53:04] building thousands of new homes
[53:07] in this plan and new homes near
[53:11] jobs, wouldn't it make sense for
[53:13] us to focus some of the
[53:15] resources into making those
[53:17] areas become high opportunity
[53:21] areas? The existing high
[53:23] opportunity areas do not have
[53:25] the capacity to absorb all of
[53:28] this growth.
[53:30] and a high opportunity area that
[53:31] is a two-hour commute from jobs,
[53:35] does not produce a high-quality
[53:37] life for our families. We heard
[53:40] at abag that the estimated cost
[53:42] of realizing planned bay area
[53:46] 2050 is $1.4 trillion.
[53:51] at least part of that should go
[53:53] to improving opportunities close
[53:54] to the jobs, not in the far
[53:57] flung suburbs from where those
[53:58] are located. If we genuinely
[54:01] want to align rhna and future
[54:03] growth with planned bay area
[54:05] 2050, to accomplish the goals
[54:08] that it sets out, then we
[54:11] propose focusing new housing in
[54:13] the areas that are currently big
[54:15] job centers, which are sorely
[54:18] lacking, in existing housing,
[54:21] and are projected to grow their
[54:23] jobs by over 40 percent over
[54:25] what we have today. It only
[54:27] makes sense that the
[54:29] commensurate housing plus more
[54:31] to make up for the backlog be
[54:34] located near those jobs.
[54:36] again, I sincerely appreciate
[54:44] all of the work staff have done,
[54:46] that all the housing methodology
[54:50] committee has put in, this year
[54:52] with covid-19 has made for a
[54:56] convoluted process. I just
[54:57] think we should think twice
[54:59] about this. We're not required
[55:00] to put the houses near jobs, but
[55:03] continuing on the same path
[55:06] we've done for the past many
[55:09] years doesn't make sense. I
[55:10] already voted no on this in abag
[55:14] and I would vote no again today.
[55:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: are
[55:19] there any other members who wish
[55:20] to make comment before we go to
[55:22] public testimony?
[55:25] >>pat ecklund: pat. I had
[55:27] raised my hand, chair mitchoff.
[55:29] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go
[55:30] ahead pat.
[55:32] >>pat ecklund: I don't have a
[55:32] question. I was going to make a
[55:34] comment. And I also agree with
[55:37] director pierce about the
[55:38] methodology. I believe that the
[55:43] increase of the housing
[55:46] allocations to communities in
[55:48] marin and other areas are
[55:51] higher, actually allowed for
[55:54] than in our generally plans. So
[55:56] right off the bat, abag is
[55:59] putting those cities and
[56:01] counties that have a higher
[56:05] allocation, that was in their
[56:09] general plan, they're already
[56:11] being setup for failure, in my
[56:13] opinion. Also the increased
[56:15] housing allocations to areas
[56:16] that don't have the jobs in
[56:21] short high quality transit which
[56:22] means the 15-minute headways is
[56:25] going to increase greenhouse gas
[56:28] emissions therefore taking us
[56:31] further way from the 19 percent
[56:33] goal of greenhouse gas reduction
[56:35] in planned bay area. So we're
[56:36] going to be exasperating what
[56:40] we're trying to help. And then
[56:41] lastly, I think that this
[56:43] methodology does not respect the
[56:46] high-fire hazards in all aspects
[56:51] of sea level rise and effective
[56:54] climate change, which means
[56:56] increased water coming down our
[56:57] creeks and in our bays.
[56:59] so I think that this methodology
[57:04] should have been focusing on the
[57:06] housing growth, not on both
[57:11] existing as well as the housing
[57:14] growth. So if we were voting on
[57:15] it today, I too would also be
[57:18] voting no.
[57:20] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[57:21] you pat. Anyone else wishing to
[57:22] make a comment before we go to
[57:24] public comment?
[57:27] >>sonja trauss: yeah. I will.
[57:28] >>karen mitchoff, chair: sonja.
[57:29] >>sonja trauss: there were only
[57:30] a couple of letters ahead of
[57:32] time, which I was sort of
[57:34] surprised about. But I want to
[57:36] address a couple of themes in
[57:38] those. They seem to all be from
[57:40] alameda for commenters coming up
[57:42] too. So one of the things was
[57:45] that alameda, the center of
[57:49] alameda that's sort of the least
[57:51] vulnerable to climate change
[57:52] impacts is already very densely
[57:54] built out, and I looked it up,
[57:57] and the absolute maximum density
[57:59] anywhere in alameda is the
[58:01] equivalent to 20 units per acre
[58:03] and most of it is much less. So
[58:05] I just want to remind everybody
[58:07] that this is a regional
[58:08] conversation, and so you might
[58:09] have some local idea about what
[58:11] low density means in your town,
[58:13] but remember who you're talking
[58:15] to. You know? And so, just 20
[58:20] minutes per acre is not low
[58:22] density. If you have the idea
[58:24] that's high density and you're
[58:26] saying it, you're broadcasting
[58:28] that you're not thinking at a
[58:30] regional and you don't really
[58:31] know what you're talking about.
[58:33] keep that in mind all these
[58:36] densities are relative at the
[58:37] regional level high density are
[58:39] definitely possible. The other
[58:41] thing too that came up in the
[58:43] previous two committee member's
[58:46] comments. Which is that the
[58:48] towns don't have capacity to
[58:50] accommodate higher density
[58:53] development if that's the kai
[58:55] the town's job is to get that
[58:57] capacity. In alameda they're
[58:59] saying we only have two-ways off
[59:01] the island. They have been
[59:02] saying that for decades. You
[59:05] have had decades to get another
[59:06] way off the island, and you
[59:09] should have done it years ago.
[59:10] if you feel like there is not a
[59:13] lot of jobs in your town look at
[59:15] zoning. Are you zoning for
[59:17] jobs. See what you can do to
[59:19] make it possible for people to
[59:20] locate their businesses closer.
[59:22] that's the name of the game. We
[59:24] really all have to be online
[59:27] with getting more housing and if
[59:28] you feel there are barriers and
[59:29] you feel you don't have enough
[59:32] transit, get more transit.
[59:35] that's the housing solution.
[59:36] thanks.
[59:37] >>karen mitchoff, chair: are
[59:38] from any other comments by
[59:39] members of the committee?
[59:40] marilyn, go ahead please.
[59:46] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: thank
[59:47] you chair mitchoff. There are
[59:51] several of us with our hands
[59:53] raised. Hello ms. Trauss. I
[59:56] want people to understand that
[59:58] the city council, last week,
[1:00:01] voted 4 to 1 to support
[1:00:03] methodology 8a that this
[1:00:09] committee has also supported.
[1:00:11] said that, I certainly recognize
[1:00:13] and support the first amendment
[1:00:14] right of the resident in my city
[1:00:16] to speak their mind. Like many
[1:00:20] groups, we don't all speak with
[1:00:22] one voice. It is true that on
[1:00:24] the last -- on the november 3rd
[1:00:27] ballot, we had a measure that I
[1:00:31] cochaired along with the vice
[1:00:33] mayor to repeal to charter
[1:00:37] amendments from 1973 and 1991,
[1:00:41] that ban the construction of
[1:00:43] multi-family housing in the city
[1:00:45] of alameda and limit density to
[1:00:49] no more than one housing unit
[1:00:50] per 2,000 square feet of land.
[1:00:53] unfortunately those did not
[1:00:54] succeed at the ballot box. So
[1:00:57] we're looking at our next steps
[1:01:01] moving forward in this very
[1:01:03] important issue. But I just
[1:01:07] wanted you to know from an
[1:01:09] official standpoint what the
[1:01:11] city council has said when we
[1:01:13] voted last week on this
[1:01:14] particular housing methodology
[1:01:15] that, again, this committee has
[1:01:18] approved in the past. So, thank
[1:01:19] you.
[1:01:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: and I
[1:01:22] just want to echo, there is a
[1:01:23] number of communities throughout
[1:01:24] the bay area that have done as
[1:01:26] much as they can, but they have
[1:01:30] small footprints and not
[1:01:31] everybody is able to do that.
[1:01:35] >>marilyn ezzy ashcraft: that
[1:01:36] isn't what I just said if you
[1:01:37] are referring to my remarks that
[1:01:39] isn't what I just said.
[1:01:41] >>karen mitchoff, chair: I was
[1:01:42] referring to what sonja just
[1:01:44] said. I know you're referring
[1:01:46] to what's going on in alameda.
[1:01:48] carlos romero?
[1:01:49] >>carlos romero, vice chair:
[1:01:51] madam chair, I have a few
[1:01:52] comments to make, but I will
[1:01:53] save them until the end because
[1:01:56] it's important, we have all
[1:01:57] weighed in the past on this
[1:01:59] issue, and it's important to try
[1:02:00] to get to the public, to the
[1:02:02] extent possible. So I will hold
[1:02:04] off, if there is time at the end
[1:02:06] I will certainly chime in.
[1:02:08] thank you.
[1:02:09] >>karen mitchoff, chair: neysa
[1:02:10] fligor?
[1:02:11] >>neysa fligor: thank you
[1:02:12] chair. Neysa fligor mayor of
[1:02:16] los altos and santa clara
[1:02:17] community association
[1:02:18] representative, on the housing
[1:02:21] committee and regional planning
[1:02:22] committee. First let me start
[1:02:24] by thanking abag leadership and
[1:02:25] staff in all their hard work,
[1:02:28] including the housing
[1:02:29] methodology committee members.
[1:02:30] as I have stated before, we
[1:02:33] support a rhna methodology that
[1:02:35] advances the rhna statutory
[1:02:37] objectives, allows for an
[1:02:39] equitable distribution
[1:02:41] throughout the region, preserves
[1:02:42] open space, performs well in
[1:02:45] reducing ghg emissions, allows
[1:02:47] for consistency between rhna and
[1:02:49] planned bay area 2050, and is a
[1:02:51] strong methodology to submit to
[1:02:54] the hcd for approval. The three
[1:02:56] remaining methodology options
[1:02:58] that were presented to hmc, as
[1:03:01] we have all seen and as staff
[1:03:03] has demonstrated repeatedly,
[1:03:06] option 8a performed the best in
[1:03:08] meeting these legal
[1:03:09] requirements. It wasn't
[1:03:10] perfect, as many have already
[1:03:12] said. But it was the best
[1:03:14] compromise and it definitely
[1:03:15] meets the statutory objectives.
[1:03:18] having said that, you know, as
[1:03:20] the representative for the city
[1:03:23] in santa clara county, we would
[1:03:26] object to any option that
[1:03:27] further allocates a larger share
[1:03:29] to the santa clara county
[1:03:31] region. Santa clara county is
[1:03:33] one of only three jurisdictions
[1:03:35] where its share of the rhna
[1:03:38] allocation would exceed its
[1:03:40] share of the bay area
[1:03:42] households. And as gillian just
[1:03:44] showed, the last cycle, santa
[1:03:46] clara county also had the
[1:03:47] largest share.
[1:03:49] similar to other counties in the
[1:03:50] region, and statewide, our
[1:03:54] residents and elected officials
[1:03:55] are also questioning where and
[1:03:57] how they will be able to build
[1:03:58] these large share of allocated
[1:04:01] units, especially when they have
[1:04:03] already struggled the last eight
[1:04:04] years to meet much lower
[1:04:06] numbers. So, you know, we can
[1:04:09] discuss the 441,000 big number
[1:04:12] that we received from hcd, and I
[1:04:15] understand the challenges that
[1:04:16] we will all face trying to meet
[1:04:19] our allocations, but at this
[1:04:21] point, with the remaining
[1:04:23] solutions before us, option 8a
[1:04:27] being the best one, when you
[1:04:28] review the statutory objectives,
[1:04:30] we believe the better solution
[1:04:32] is for us to join together as a
[1:04:34] region and figure out, is there
[1:04:36] a way to delay this rhna
[1:04:38] process. Is there a way for us
[1:04:41] to join with abag and
[1:04:42] communicate to hcd on other
[1:04:45] solutions? But if the goal of
[1:04:49] some of my colleagues is to
[1:04:50] change the methodology at this
[1:04:52] point, that is something that we
[1:04:55] could not support. Thank you so
[1:04:57] much, chair, for giving me this
[1:04:59] opportunity.
[1:05:00] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:05:01] you so much. Mark ross?
[1:05:03] >>dir. Mark ross: thank you
[1:05:04] madam chair. I will briefly
[1:05:05] speak in support of what my --
[1:05:08] most of the speakers before me,
[1:05:10] julie and pat, and neysa have
[1:05:13] said, 8a would be the preferable
[1:05:16] option, speaking as the air
[1:05:18] district representative to the
[1:05:19] rpc, not meeting the vmt and the
[1:05:22] ghg goals is of greatest concern
[1:05:25] to this particular seat, and I
[1:05:29] don't see how we're going to do
[1:05:30] that with what is on the table,
[1:05:34] which was very hard work, a lot
[1:05:36] of work by staff, which I do
[1:05:38] appreciate.
[1:05:39] option 8a seems to be inching
[1:05:47] closer to that endeavor, that
[1:05:49] goal, of reducing ghgs and vmts
[1:05:54] but it doesn't seem like we're
[1:05:56] going that way. Being closer to
[1:05:58] jobs or finding a solution to
[1:06:00] that inequitism would be
[1:06:07] helpful.
[1:06:08] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:06:09] you. I'm not seeing any raised
[1:06:10] hands from committee members.
[1:06:12] so at this time I will ask for
[1:06:14] our first speaker. Again. I'm
[1:06:16] going to have a timer. Three
[1:06:18] minutes. Mr. Castro?
[1:06:20] >>clerk of the board: yes. Our
[1:06:20] first speaker is clayton
[1:06:23] holstein. Please go ahead.
[1:06:27] >>speaker: thank you, madam
[1:06:29] chair, and committee members. I
[1:06:31] am clayton holstine city manager
[1:06:38] in brisbane california in
[1:06:40] northern san mateo canyon. Back
[1:06:42] on october 14th of this year we
[1:06:44] sent a letter with regards to
[1:06:46] the proposed rhna methodology to
[1:06:49] the abag executive board. Since
[1:06:50] then we have had an opportunity
[1:06:52] to meet with mtc and abag staff,
[1:06:54] those have been productive
[1:06:56] meetings, but we still maintain
[1:06:58] a concern with regards to some
[1:07:00] of the areas in our town that
[1:07:02] are being identified for
[1:07:03] potential, future housing
[1:07:06] development. These are areas
[1:07:08] that were historical landfills
[1:07:12] from the early part of last
[1:07:19] century as well as part of a
[1:07:21] tank farm area that serves san
[1:07:23] francisco airport. We don't
[1:07:24] believe these areas are suitable
[1:07:26] for housing. We have gone
[1:07:27] through a multi-year planning
[1:07:28] process for the area that has
[1:07:30] been identified as a high growth
[1:07:32] area, and in 2018, our voters
[1:07:38] approved a general plan
[1:07:39] amendment that allowed up to
[1:07:43] 2200 housing units on that site.
[1:07:45] we are actively involved with
[1:07:48] the landowner to move that
[1:07:50] forward so that can reach
[1:07:53] fruition. The proposed
[1:07:55] methodology, the output to that
[1:07:58] -- from that, has us several
[1:08:00] hundred units above that. I
[1:08:04] would want to note that the 20
[1:08:06] -- 200 housing units is
[1:08:12] currently over our stock, and
[1:08:19] we're a good player in the
[1:08:21] process we would ask for some
[1:08:23] future considerations with
[1:08:24] regards to the inputs of the
[1:08:26] model we're not arguing with the
[1:08:28] model itself, but to the inputs
[1:08:30] in terms of what available land
[1:08:33] is suitable. Thank you.
[1:08:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair: next
[1:08:36] speaker.
[1:08:36] >>clerk of the board: david
[1:08:37] foreman. Go ahead.
[1:08:41] david, please unmute yourself.
[1:08:44] >>speaker: okay. Thank you.
[1:08:45] it's actually paul foreman.
[1:08:48] david is my son. I happen to be
[1:08:49] on his zoom. Okay.
[1:08:53] the purpose of this statement is
[1:08:56] to express my concern to abag of
[1:09:02] the fact that your methodology
[1:09:04] does not include natural hazards
[1:09:06] in the allocation formula.
[1:09:08] on page five of the october 15th
[1:09:10] report of the executive
[1:09:12] director, he comments on this
[1:09:15] factor with the parting
[1:09:17] sentence, local governments will
[1:09:18] have the opportunity to consider
[1:09:19] the most appropriate places for
[1:09:22] planning for housing in lower
[1:09:24] risk areas, when they update
[1:09:26] their housing elements, their
[1:09:28] general plans. That may be true
[1:09:30] of most cities in the bay area,
[1:09:31] but it's certainly not true of
[1:09:33] my city of alameda. The abag
[1:09:36] natural hazard map indicates
[1:09:39] that alameda is among those of
[1:09:41] the lowest percentage of the
[1:09:42] urbanized area outside of a
[1:09:44] hazard zone less than 50
[1:09:46] percent. It's obvious if the
[1:09:48] primary hazard that causes this
[1:09:50] is sea level rise. A recent
[1:09:52] study by bcdc indicates that
[1:09:55] current projects from the year
[1:10:00] 2100 are 66 inches with a storm
[1:10:02] surge level of 84 inches. A
[1:10:04] review of flood visualization
[1:10:06] maps shows that the portion of
[1:10:09] alameda that is outside of a
[1:10:10] hazard zone is the center of an
[1:10:13] island which is already very
[1:10:15] densely built up. And one of
[1:10:17] your meet members talked about
[1:10:19] 20 units per acre current zoning
[1:10:22] restriction which of course
[1:10:23] doesn't apply to our housing
[1:10:25] element. We are a ten square
[1:10:27] mile island. We have 75,000
[1:10:31] plus people. We have 7500
[1:10:34] residents per square mile. That
[1:10:37] is a little bit more than
[1:10:38] oakland. There are very few
[1:10:41] cities in the bay area that have
[1:10:43] higher density than alameda.
[1:10:46] so, that's what you have to look
[1:10:48] at. Not our zoning ordinances.
[1:10:51] with the fact that we have so
[1:10:55] little area outside of a hazard
[1:10:58] zone, and what we do have is
[1:11:00] built up, alameda really has no
[1:11:02] choice but to build new housing
[1:11:04] directly in the flood hazard
[1:11:09] zone. In fact of the 4,000 new
[1:11:11] units being proposed and
[1:11:15] approved, is a flood hazard
[1:11:18] zone. Ingress and egress and
[1:11:22] the fact that most police and
[1:11:24] fire responders live off the
[1:11:26] island and for someone to say
[1:11:27] that it's our obligation too fix
[1:11:29] our bridges as opposed to the
[1:11:33] state and opposed to oakland, I
[1:11:36] am sure it's not in this
[1:11:37] condition for lack of trying,
[1:11:38] none of the above is intended to
[1:11:41] off alameda should not have a
[1:11:43] significant rhna. We're a high
[1:11:44] resource city that fits very
[1:11:46] well into the equity factor.
[1:11:49] >>clerk of the board: time is
[1:11:50] up.
[1:11:50] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[1:11:51] mr. Holstine, thank you for your
[1:11:54] comments. You're welcome to
[1:11:55] submit -- okay. Stop -- you're
[1:11:57] welcome to submit the balance of
[1:11:58] your comments or all of your
[1:12:00] comment in writing. Next
[1:12:02] caller, please, fred?
[1:12:09] >>clerk of the board: joshua
[1:12:11] hug. Go ahead.
[1:12:13] >>speaker: good afternoon my
[1:12:14] name is joshua hug speaking on
[1:12:17] behalf of the peninsula regional
[1:12:19] open space district. Thank you
[1:12:20] for the opportunity to speak.
[1:12:22] we're deeply concerned with the
[1:12:23] steep increase of housing
[1:12:26] allocations for unincorporated
[1:12:28] areas opposition 8a and request
[1:12:31] that these allocation in these
[1:12:33] particular jurisdictions be
[1:12:34] significantly reduced also
[1:12:35] utilizing households as a base
[1:12:37] for five growth no
[1:12:42] unincorporated areas neglects to
[1:12:44] protect these open space areas
[1:12:46] and agriculture lands through
[1:12:48] intensive [indiscernible]
[1:12:49] significantly unurbanized areas.
[1:12:50] high rhna allocations in
[1:12:50] unincorporated counties will
[1:12:56] force counties to look beyond
[1:13:00] their limited urbanized areas
[1:13:00] and into greenfield locations to
[1:13:01] zone for new housing. We feel
[1:13:03] an unincorporated approach
[1:13:09] conflicts with government code
[1:13:12] 65584-d2, which states among the
[1:13:15] goals of the housing element is
[1:13:18] the protection of environmental
[1:13:19] and agricultural resources. As
[1:13:21] a steward for several priority
[1:13:23] conservation areas for the last
[1:13:26] 50 years, we know the lands
[1:13:28] provide critical ecosystem
[1:13:32] services to support urban areas
[1:13:35] with clean water, food, and
[1:13:37] urban respite for the public.
[1:13:39] our concern is housing in the
[1:13:40] wildfire urban interface and
[1:13:42] high severity zones
[1:13:46] significantly increase risk for
[1:13:48] fire ignition and poses a risk
[1:13:52] for homes in and around a wui.
[1:13:52] increased risk to sensitive
[1:13:57] habitats and enhanced risk
[1:13:58] exposure of predator populations
[1:13:58] to rodenticides adjacent to
[1:13:59] residential areas. Impacts to
[1:14:00] regional critical habitat
[1:14:03] linkages that serve to enable
[1:14:06] wildlife movement across the
[1:14:10] landscape to enable and adapt to
[1:14:13] climate change and maintain
[1:14:14] local genetic diversity and
[1:14:17] finally new world growth
[1:14:20] undermines vmt reduction goals
[1:14:23] outlined in sb 375, as these
[1:14:24] residents will likely be forced
[1:14:25] into cars. We urge to you
[1:14:27] maintain the delicate balance
[1:14:29] between natural environment and
[1:14:32] working lands that planned bay
[1:14:33] area has successfully provided
[1:14:34] until now and reduce pressure to
[1:14:38] building in these ecologically
[1:14:41] valuable areas. Thank you.
[1:14:43] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:14:44] you. Next speaker.
[1:14:46] >>clerk of the board: greg
[1:14:47] schmidt.
[1:14:48] >>karen mitchoff, chair:
[1:14:49] mr. Schmidt?
[1:14:50] >>speaker: yes. Thank you for
[1:14:51] the opportunity.
[1:14:53] the proposed rhna numbers for
[1:14:55] the five cities of silicon
[1:14:58] valley are overwhelming in size
[1:15:00] and impact. They are also in
[1:15:04] direct defiance of the
[1:15:06] california government code.
[1:15:08] first, the numbers.
[1:15:10] the number of new housing units
[1:15:13] required within the five cities
[1:15:15] of silicon valley would equal a
[1:15:19] 32 percent increase in the
[1:15:22] existing housing stock over the
[1:15:25] next eight years.
[1:15:28] it's a mandate for percentage
[1:15:30] increase that is 60 percent
[1:15:32] higher than the three largest
[1:15:35] cities in the bay area. It's a
[1:15:40] 50 percent higher increase than
[1:15:44] the largest cities of san mateo
[1:15:48] county along the bay and 150
[1:15:50] percent higher percentage
[1:15:51] increase than the other east bay
[1:15:54] cities along the bay.
[1:15:56] where do these numbers come
[1:15:57] from?
[1:16:01] california government code
[1:16:02] section 65584 mandates that the
[1:16:07] rhna numbers be consistent with
[1:16:09] abag's planned bay area 2050.
[1:16:13] but the same code requires abag
[1:16:21] to quote "explore alternative
[1:16:23] ways of improving inter-regional
[1:16:26] jobs/housing imbalances." they
[1:16:30] have not done that. Abag's
[1:16:32] planned bay area 2050
[1:16:33] methodology uses a single, very
[1:16:37] aggressive, jobs-based model
[1:16:40] that focuses massive job growth
[1:16:44] in the five cities of silicon
[1:16:47] valley. That means, of course,
[1:16:48] that housing for the new workers
[1:16:50] is targeted within those same
[1:16:53] cities. It has a very hard time
[1:16:57] competing with new office space
[1:16:59] for some of the most expensive
[1:17:02] real estate in the country.
[1:17:07] abag has refused repeated public
[1:17:10] requests that they follow the
[1:17:13] government code that requires a
[1:17:15] serious look at realistic job
[1:17:23] dispersion to other bay area job
[1:17:25] centers. Neither the housing
[1:17:26] committee, nor this committee,
[1:17:28] nor other city councils in the
[1:17:30] bay area has had a serious
[1:17:33] public discussion of the impact
[1:17:35] of jobs dispersion across the
[1:17:42] bay area as required by code.
[1:17:47] be clear request by the abag
[1:17:51] rhna process should stop until
[1:17:52] the government followed --
[1:17:55] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:17:56] you mr. Schmidt. That's three
[1:17:58] minutes. Thank you. Next
[1:17:59] speaker, fred.
[1:18:01] >>clerk of the board: yes,
[1:18:01] ma'am. Our next speaker is
[1:18:03] aaron eckhouse. Go ahead.
[1:18:05] >>speaker: hi. Thank you my
[1:18:06] name is aaron eckhouse, I'm the
[1:18:08] regional policy manager for
[1:18:10] california yimby, yes in my
[1:18:14] backyard. I want to say I think
[1:18:16] -- I want to commend hmc for the
[1:18:18] great work they did on this
[1:18:19] draft methodology. I think they
[1:18:21] did -- when faced with an
[1:18:26] exceptionally difficult task
[1:18:28] with competing interests they
[1:18:31] did a great job. Scoring highly
[1:18:35] on all of the statutory
[1:18:37] objectives and performance
[1:18:38] metrics that staff developed for
[1:18:40] that. I want to address the
[1:18:42] idea that this project does not
[1:18:44] advance infill growth, jobs
[1:18:47] oriented growth or transit
[1:18:49] oriented growth because that is
[1:18:50] simply not accurate. There is
[1:18:53] simply higher growth in
[1:18:55] transit-rich cities job rich
[1:18:57] cities and low vmt cities under
[1:18:59] this proposed methodology
[1:19:00] compared to other cities in the
[1:19:02] region. So I think you will
[1:19:03] see, if you look at the
[1:19:06] performance metrics that it
[1:19:07] scores highly on that front.
[1:19:09] some of the alternatives that
[1:19:11] have been proposed particularly
[1:19:16] shifting the baseline would be a
[1:19:18] disaster for some of the
[1:19:19] performance metrics particularly
[1:19:20] to those facing equity and fair
[1:19:23] housing. And I think would
[1:19:25] leave abag either vulnerable to
[1:19:28] rejection by hcd or a lawsuit
[1:19:30] for failing to uphold their
[1:19:32] legal obligation for
[1:19:37] affirmatively furthering affair
[1:19:39] housing. These issues can be
[1:19:40] addressed through small targeted
[1:19:42] adjustments such as a reduction
[1:19:44] to the allocations specifically
[1:19:45] for unincorporated areas. I
[1:19:48] don't think we need to zero
[1:19:49] those out because there are
[1:19:51] places like stanford that are in
[1:19:53] unincorporated areas and have
[1:19:54] housing needs. But there can be
[1:19:56] target adjustments made there.
[1:19:59] there can be targeted
[1:20:00] adjustments made to further
[1:20:03] equity adjustment, representing
[1:20:05] a minor change at the scale of
[1:20:07] the methodology. But overall, I
[1:20:09] think you should uphold the work
[1:20:11] of the housing methodology
[1:20:13] committee, I think it recognize
[1:20:15] there is say need for housing
[1:20:16] everywhere in our region. There
[1:20:18] are jobs everywhere if our
[1:20:19] region there are people in need
[1:20:20] of housing everywhere in our
[1:20:22] region, and it directs more
[1:20:23] growth to jobs rich and
[1:20:25] transit-rich areas, but it also
[1:20:27] recognizes the fact that every
[1:20:28] part of our region has a part to
[1:20:30] play in addressing our housing
[1:20:32] needs. And it shouldn't be
[1:20:37] limited by the fact that the
[1:20:38] current general plan is
[1:20:40] inadequate. Thank you.
[1:20:42] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:20:43] you. Next speaker please.
[1:20:44] >>clerk of the board: grown --
[1:20:48] greenbelt alliance. Go ahead.
[1:20:50] >>speaker: amanda brown-stevens
[1:20:52] from grown belt alliance.
[1:20:54] executive director of greenbelt
[1:20:56] alliance and was part of the
[1:20:59] housing committee, I want to
[1:21:00] thank staff for all the work you
[1:21:02] have done. I think, overall, I
[1:21:04] am proud of being part of this
[1:21:05] process. The methodology is of
[1:21:07] course a compromise, not
[1:21:08] perfect, but just would agree
[1:21:10] with aaron's comment that is it
[1:21:15] absolutely moves in the right
[1:21:17] direction planning for homes
[1:21:18] near jobs and amenities where
[1:21:20] people live. I am in favor of
[1:21:22] making that relatively small
[1:21:24] adjustment to address
[1:21:26] unincorporated areas,
[1:21:27] particularly as per the comments
[1:21:29] by staff, around the goals of
[1:21:31] planned bay area, and honoring
[1:21:33] urban growth boundaries and not
[1:21:36] inducing sprawl. I think there
[1:21:38] are some ways to make those
[1:21:40] adjustments using a data-driven
[1:21:43] process to allocate the housing
[1:21:47] in the manner of following
[1:21:51] infill and the spirit of the
[1:21:54] methodology. Thank you.
[1:22:03] >>clerk of the board: thank
[1:22:03] you. Next speaker is rodney
[1:22:05] nickens.
[1:22:06] >>speaker: thank you goods
[1:22:09] afternoon everyone. Rodney
[1:22:14] nickens. I was part of the
[1:22:15] housing methodology committee.
[1:22:16] I want to echo the comments of
[1:22:19] my colleagues at greenbelt
[1:22:22] alliance and yimby. I support,
[1:22:27] use the planned bay area 2050
[1:22:31] households baseline however the
[1:22:32] methodology could be refined and
[1:22:34] improved with an equity
[1:22:35] adjustment that myself jeff
[1:22:38] levin, carlos romero, all
[1:22:42] advocated for. As has been
[1:22:50] echoed, many of my colleagues
[1:22:53] and housing advocates this
[1:22:55] adjustment is critical to moving
[1:22:57] us to a prosperous region where
[1:23:01] all residents have a safe and
[1:23:03] affordable home in access to
[1:23:05] educational and economic
[1:23:09] opportunities, as has been
[1:23:11] mentioned option 8a was a
[1:23:14] compromise and falls short of
[1:23:17] the j equity adjustment. We
[1:23:21] need to ensure that every
[1:23:22] resident has a stable home that
[1:23:24] they can afford. I would also
[1:23:27] strongly urge abag to reject any
[1:23:31] alternatives such as changing
[1:23:32] the baseline which would perform
[1:23:35] worse on the statutory
[1:23:37] objectives performance metrics.
[1:23:39] if adjustments are to be made
[1:23:41] they should improve performance
[1:23:43] on the objectives. The housing
[1:23:49] element process is another
[1:23:50] opportunity to also explore.
[1:23:52] which will also include
[1:23:54] equitable planning that accounts
[1:23:55] for geographies that are
[1:23:57] vulnerable to fire and flood
[1:23:58] protect our open space while
[1:24:01] also tackling our region's
[1:24:03] long-standing problem with
[1:24:04] segregation and exclusion. For
[1:24:06] those reasons I mentioned above,
[1:24:07] I strongly support option 8a
[1:24:10] with the equity adjustment.
[1:24:11] thank you.
[1:24:12] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:24:13] you. Our next speaker, fred?
[1:24:16] >>clerk of the board: paul
[1:24:19] kermoyan.
[1:24:20] >>speaker: thank you committee
[1:24:21] members. My name is paul
[1:24:29] kermoyan, I'm the community
[1:24:29] development director for the
[1:24:31] city of campbell. Thank you to
[1:24:31] abag staff and hmc for advancing
[1:24:32] the methodology; it's really
[1:24:33] important. The pda 2050 growth
[1:24:35] projections illustrate
[1:24:36] geographical areas located
[1:24:37] within one and a half miles of
[1:24:39] transit stops and high
[1:24:41] opportunity areas as being ripe
[1:24:45] future housing growth.
[1:24:46] unfortunately these areas, which
[1:24:47] are defined as pda eligible
[1:24:51] acres, in campbell, we have
[1:24:53] about 2600 acres contain lands
[1:24:56] that cannot be developed. This
[1:24:58] is a common occurrence in many
[1:25:01] you in municipalities. Although
[1:25:06] the structure of the methodology
[1:25:10] may be found sound the growth
[1:25:13] projections data input used to
[1:25:15] influence the outcome is not.
[1:25:18] for example, acreage figure
[1:25:20] should exclude more than
[1:25:22] highways, roads, and parks, they
[1:25:24] should exclude new developments
[1:25:26] that will not it turn over in
[1:25:28] the next 30 years, pg&e
[1:25:30] substations, creeks, habitat
[1:25:33] areas, conservation areas,
[1:25:35] historical preservation
[1:25:37] districts, valley water
[1:25:39] percolation ponds, single family
[1:25:41] zoning districts where a
[1:25:43] developer would have to buy out
[1:25:46] multi-million dollar singly
[1:25:47] family homes and hope to build
[1:25:49] multi-family development,
[1:25:50] government owned properties,
[1:25:53] abandoned vta, light rail
[1:25:57] extensions et cetera. Why is
[1:25:58] this important? Because state
[1:26:00] housing law requires that
[1:26:02] housing element specify site for
[1:26:05] a number of units realistically
[1:26:09] to be accommodated whether a
[1:26:11] site is adequate. Please help
[1:26:22] this region more realistically
[1:26:25] realize our goal and modify the
[1:26:26] pda2050 growth projections as an
[1:26:30] element of the hmc methodology.
[1:26:33] thank you.
[1:26:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:26:34] you.
[1:26:35] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:26:35] speaker is shajuti hossain. Go
[1:26:39] ahead.
[1:26:39] >>speaker: hi I'm shajuti
[1:26:41] hossain an attorney with public
[1:26:43] advocates I want to echo
[1:26:45] comments from rodney nickens. I
[1:26:49] support the housing methodology
[1:26:50] committee proposed methodology
[1:26:52] but believe it needs to be
[1:26:54] further refined with an equity
[1:26:56] adjustment to further meet the
[1:27:00] statutory objective of
[1:27:02] affirmatively furthering affair
[1:27:04] housing to reduce commutes
[1:27:06] improve our environment and
[1:27:07] ensure residents have a stable
[1:27:12] environment they can afford.
[1:27:13] make the baseline that homes are
[1:27:18] close to jobs this equity
[1:27:22] adjustment allocates 60 percent
[1:27:24] of total rhna into san francisco
[1:27:27] san mateo and santa clara
[1:27:28] county. Other counties do have
[1:27:30] jobs each day 180,000 people
[1:27:33] commute into contra costa county
[1:27:35] for work meaning there is still
[1:27:37] need for more affordable homes
[1:27:39] there as well. And access to
[1:27:41] opportunity factor in the
[1:27:42] methodology is important
[1:27:43] especially for the affordable
[1:27:45] allocations because it prompts
[1:27:46] jurisdictions that have mostly
[1:27:48] zoned for single family homes in
[1:27:49] the past to now zone for
[1:27:51] multi-family homes to meet those
[1:27:55] affordable allocations
[1:27:56] multi-family buildings are known
[1:27:59] to be more efficient for land
[1:28:02] and water than single family
[1:28:04] neighborhoods. I strongly urge
[1:28:13] alternatives on the stat owe
[1:28:15] objective performance. There
[1:28:19] are still 16 jurisdictions that
[1:28:21] are not getting a fair share of
[1:28:23] affordable allocations. Without
[1:28:25] the equity adjustment, rhna will
[1:28:26] exacerbate fair housing problems
[1:28:28] in over 1/3 of our historically
[1:28:32] exclusive jurisdictions. There
[1:28:34] are planning objectives that
[1:28:35] need to be advanced at the local
[1:28:36] level through housing element
[1:28:38] updates those include planning
[1:28:39] that accounts for geographies
[1:28:42] particularly for communities
[1:28:43] vulnerable to fire and flood
[1:28:45] protecting open space and
[1:28:47] dismantling segregation within
[1:28:48] local jurisdictions. I strongly
[1:28:51] support the proposed methodology
[1:28:52] with the 2050 households
[1:28:53] baseline along with the equity
[1:28:55] adjustment. Thank you.
[1:28:56] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:28:57] you.
[1:28:58] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:28:59] speaker is elizabeth osborne.
[1:29:01] go ahead.
[1:29:05] >>speaker: hi. This is
[1:29:06] actually derek sagehorn in
[1:29:09] oakland. I want to express my
[1:29:12] support for the hmc's work. And
[1:29:14] I think that option 8a is really
[1:29:17] the best compromise as well as
[1:29:20] associate myself with comments
[1:29:22] from california yimby and the
[1:29:24] greenbelt alliance. I think to
[1:29:26] the extent that changes need to
[1:29:29] be made, they should be
[1:29:31] adjustments rather than
[1:29:33] wholesale changes to input on
[1:29:35] the baseline as has been
[1:29:37] suggested by others here. I
[1:29:38] really think that this is a good
[1:29:40] compromise. But we just need
[1:29:42] more jobs near our housing. I
[1:29:45] firmly reject the idea that job
[1:29:49] dispersion needs to be part of
[1:29:50] this plan. It's just absolutely
[1:29:53] killer for vmt, we cannot
[1:29:55] control the jobs sprawl that
[1:29:59] would result from that. And I
[1:30:01] also want to say from the
[1:30:02] perspective of smaller
[1:30:03] jurisdictions that are saying
[1:30:04] they lack the resources, to one,
[1:30:07] meet the infrastructure, or two
[1:30:08] meet the subsidy needs for the
[1:30:10] low income portion of this it's
[1:30:13] really difficult to hear this
[1:30:14] when some of the same people are
[1:30:16] rejecting free money from the
[1:30:17] state for things like permanent
[1:30:20] supportive homeless housing
[1:30:22] through operation home key. So
[1:30:24] it's really difficult to hear
[1:30:25] that and have these same
[1:30:27] jurisdictions arguing for lower
[1:30:29] homes overall. So thank you for
[1:30:30] your time. And again, support
[1:30:32] for option 8a.
[1:30:35] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:30:35] you.
[1:30:36] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:30:36] speaker is justine marcus. Go
[1:30:40] ahead.
[1:30:42] >>speaker: hi there my name is
[1:30:44] justine marcus the policy
[1:30:47] director for entirety partners I
[1:30:50] am speak today in support of 8a
[1:30:53] with 2050 households baseline
[1:30:55] which was recommended by an
[1:30:57] overwhelming majority of hmc,
[1:31:00] rpc and abag executive board.
[1:31:02] the proposed methodology will
[1:31:04] improve our regional balance of
[1:31:05] jobs and housing which we know
[1:31:07] is essential to both reduce our
[1:31:09] greenhouse gas emissions while
[1:31:11] improving the quality of life
[1:31:12] for thousands of workers who
[1:31:14] commute long hours to their jobs
[1:31:16] each day. Methodology accounts
[1:31:17] for job growth, allocating about
[1:31:19] 60 percent of the total
[1:31:21] allocation to the three counties
[1:31:22] with the highest projected job
[1:31:25] growth and it also accounts for
[1:31:27] the existing imbalance between
[1:31:28] jobs is housing in counties that
[1:31:30] may not have the largest
[1:31:32] projected growth into the
[1:31:32] future, but where today hundreds
[1:31:34] of thousands of people must
[1:31:36] commute in from other counties
[1:31:38] because they can't afford to
[1:31:39] live near their jobs. I want to
[1:31:41] echo the comments made by
[1:31:43] partners at greenbelt alliance
[1:31:45] and others that we support the
[1:31:47] targeted data-driven approach
[1:31:49] staff is pursuing to allocations
[1:31:51] to unincorporated areas via
[1:31:55] spheres of influence while
[1:31:56] planning for homes in
[1:31:58] unincorporated areas where it is
[1:32:00] urbanized and appropriate for
[1:32:01] new development. In addition I
[1:32:04] want to associate myself with
[1:32:05] our partners at nph and public
[1:32:09] advocates for the first time in
[1:32:11] this rhna cycle we are required
[1:32:13] to affirmatively further fair
[1:32:16] housing and while option a is
[1:32:18] strong going forward it needs to
[1:32:19] go further to address the
[1:32:21] persons of racial and economic
[1:32:23] patterns across the region.
[1:32:24] this exclusion and segregation
[1:32:29] undermines opportunity for all
[1:32:32] bay area residents as well as
[1:32:35] diversity and inclusivity in our
[1:32:37] region. Therefore we urge abag
[1:32:39] to consider the small but
[1:32:41] meaningful equity adjustment
[1:32:43] which would allocate a small
[1:32:45] number of low income homes to
[1:32:46] ensure there are ample
[1:32:48] opportunities across the region
[1:32:50] at all income levels of the
[1:32:55] finally we urge abag to reject
[1:32:58] alternatives to the baseline as
[1:33:00] others have mentioned performing
[1:33:03] overwhelmingly well in the last
[1:33:05] performance metrics and put the
[1:33:07] region in jeopardy of not
[1:33:09] meeting statutory compliance.
[1:33:12] finally there are objectives in
[1:33:14] the rhna process that will be
[1:33:16] advanced through the local
[1:33:17] housing element update and we
[1:33:19] look forward to working with
[1:33:21] partners to engage in this work
[1:33:24] as it moves forward over time.
[1:33:27] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:33:27] you very much.
[1:33:28] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:33:28] speaker is zarina. Go ahead.
[1:33:33] >>speaker: hi. I am -- I echo
[1:33:37] what aaron of greenbelt
[1:33:39] alliance, shajuti and justine
[1:33:42] marcus stated earlier I strongly
[1:33:47] support abag option 8a using
[1:33:51] 2050 household baseline but
[1:33:53] methodology needs to go further
[1:33:55] and basically deal with
[1:33:57] affirmatively furthering fair
[1:33:59] housing this will move us to a
[1:34:02] closer and prosperous region
[1:34:03] where all residents are where
[1:34:05] they're working and living in
[1:34:07] the same place and with access,
[1:34:09] equity and access to
[1:34:10] environmental economic and
[1:34:12] educational opportunities.
[1:34:13] option 8a performs well on all
[1:34:15] five rhna statutory objectives.
[1:34:17] this methodology with equity
[1:34:19] adjustment will help our region
[1:34:21] reduce our commutes improve our
[1:34:23] environment and ensure every
[1:34:26] resident has a stable home they
[1:34:29] can afford. Jobs proximity
[1:34:31] factor in planned bay area
[1:34:33] household baseline ensures our
[1:34:36] homes are closer to all kinds of
[1:34:37] jobs. Each day thousands of
[1:34:39] people commute to contra costa
[1:34:41] county for work which means we
[1:34:42] still need more homes for
[1:34:45] clayton. And clayton has a lot
[1:34:46] of open spaces I'm not saying to
[1:34:48] go ahead and build everywhere
[1:34:50] that you can find, but if they
[1:34:51] have to rezone for affordable
[1:34:52] housing, they have to do their
[1:34:54] fair share for housing. Access
[1:34:56] to opportunities, allocates more
[1:34:58] homes in places with high
[1:35:00] quality jobs, schools, and
[1:35:02] environment.
[1:35:03] I strongly urge abag to reject
[1:35:06] alternatives such as changing
[1:35:08] the baseline that performs worse
[1:35:10] on statutory objectives
[1:35:12] performance matrix. If there is
[1:35:15] any adjustment it has to be to
[1:35:16] make it more equitable,
[1:35:20] basically affirmatively
[1:35:21] furthering fair housing. And
[1:35:23] thank you for your time. And I
[1:35:24] am just tired of seeing the
[1:35:29] nimbys coming and putting up,
[1:35:31] lay over, lay over, we are in a
[1:35:33] housing crisis. We are where we
[1:35:36] are because of the nimbys if not
[1:35:40] for them we wouldn't be forced
[1:35:42] to build 40,000 homes. We have
[1:35:44] crisis and pandemic. When are
[1:35:46] you guys going to wake up? The
[1:35:49] nimbys. I am tired of the
[1:35:52] elected's starting the
[1:35:53] conversation that we can't have
[1:35:54] it because if there is an I
[1:35:56] fire. There is going to be
[1:36:01] exception for groups in the fire
[1:36:02] zones, places that cannot be
[1:36:05] built, that's logical. Right.
[1:36:07] but we need to make houses for
[1:36:08] people and they have to be close
[1:36:11] to jobs. Quality of life.
[1:36:14] thank you.
[1:36:16] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:36:16] you.
[1:36:18] >>clerk of the board: victoria
[1:36:19] fierce. Go ahead.
[1:36:24] >>speaker: I live in downtown
[1:36:26] oakland. I am a former member
[1:36:28] of hmc housing methodology
[1:36:30] committee and the person who
[1:36:31] actually made the motion for 8a,
[1:36:34] the proposal before you now.
[1:36:36] you also know me from previous
[1:36:39] films such as carlos versus los
[1:36:43] altos where we beat them up.
[1:36:52] it's quite boring at this point
[1:36:55] and we don't have time to play
[1:36:57] such games. I agree with what
[1:36:59] zarin just said I'm tired of the
[1:37:03] nimbys I'm tired of them saying
[1:37:05] we want to do something about
[1:37:07] housing then there is an idea,
[1:37:10] then deciding not to do it. A
[1:37:14] eight is the best solution we
[1:37:15] spent a year surviving through
[1:37:18] the pandemic to get this before
[1:37:20] you. Please don't make all that
[1:37:22] go to waste. The thing about
[1:37:24] rhna is it establishes minimums
[1:37:26] for cities and if we want to end
[1:37:29] the housing crisis we are
[1:37:31] setting an aspirational goal,
[1:37:34] and if people think the numbers
[1:37:36] are too high you should have
[1:37:38] thought about building more
[1:37:39] housing in the last 20 years
[1:37:41] unfortunately that's not the
[1:37:42] case. So we have this plan in
[1:37:44] front of us. This the bay area,
[1:37:46] we built the internet and put
[1:37:48] people on the moon we can solve
[1:37:49] this problem of the human rights
[1:37:52] housing. I support 8a. It's a
[1:37:56] great idea. Of course it is I'm
[1:37:58] asking you to be bold and take a
[1:38:00] step solving the crisis don't do
[1:38:02] this backing off because you're
[1:38:08] terrified of tall buildings.
[1:38:09] it's fine. I live in a three
[1:38:11] story building. Thank you.
[1:38:13] >>karen mitchoff, chair: next
[1:38:14] speaker.
[1:38:15] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:38:16] speaker kelsey banes.
[1:38:18] >>speaker: I am kelsey banes
[1:38:20] regional executive director with
[1:38:25] yimby action. Peninsula group
[1:38:27] for everyone prohousing. I want
[1:38:31] to thank hmc for all their work
[1:38:34] and coming to a compromise that
[1:38:35] will help us grow in a
[1:38:40] sustainable and equity way in
[1:38:41] the future. I support the
[1:38:43] compromise but will associate
[1:38:45] myself also with the comment
[1:38:46] errs that are urging to do an
[1:38:49] equity adjustment because I do
[1:38:51] think this plan could be
[1:38:54] improved in terms of where the
[1:38:56] allocations are going and making
[1:38:59] sure we are affirmatively
[1:39:01] furthering fair housing. But I
[1:39:03] will also accept what we have as
[1:39:06] a compromise if necessary. So
[1:39:08] I'm also going to speak as a
[1:39:10] resident of palo alto. We have
[1:39:13] had a lot of our local
[1:39:16] elected's, and some of my
[1:39:18] neighbors saying that we
[1:39:20] couldn't possibly build this
[1:39:20] many homes. And, to me, when I
[1:39:24] hear that, it's a little bit
[1:39:25] like we have tried nothing, and
[1:39:27] we're all out of ideas because I
[1:39:29] have been watching palo alto
[1:39:31] politics for several years now,
[1:39:33] and I haven't seen palo alto
[1:39:36] take much many meaningful steps
[1:39:41] to protect housing production,
[1:39:44] tenants or preserve existing
[1:39:47] housing. I believe we have a
[1:39:49] lot of work to do but I believe
[1:39:50] we can do it and it's just pay
[1:39:52] matter of doing the work and
[1:39:54] locating the sites, and we can
[1:39:56] absolutely accomplish building
[1:39:57] more housing on the peninsula.
[1:40:00] this is not app impossible task.
[1:40:04] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:40:04] you.
[1:40:06] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:40:06] speaker is hector malvido.
[1:40:17] >>speaker: can you hear me?
[1:40:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
[1:40:18] >>speaker: I want to thank,
[1:40:20] everyone, staff, rhna folks for
[1:40:22] working so hard on this. And
[1:40:24] also, to my colleagues at home
[1:40:28] and others for really supporting
[1:40:30] option a, the rhna methodology,
[1:40:32] but also calling for the equity
[1:40:34] adjustment. It's so necessary
[1:40:36] to improve this methodology's
[1:40:39] performance and in furthering
[1:40:42] fair housing objectives. We
[1:40:43] need to ensure that we're
[1:40:45] considering the entire bay area
[1:40:46] in this process including the 17
[1:40:48] jurisdictions that are under the
[1:40:49] current proposed methodology
[1:40:53] that without adjustment would
[1:40:55] not receive their proportion at
[1:40:57] share of very low and low income
[1:40:59] allocation. The bay area
[1:41:01] residents have access to high
[1:41:02] opportunity areas and
[1:41:03] jurisdictions which would
[1:41:05] provide high quality education
[1:41:07] and environmental opportunity.
[1:41:09] newly allocated hopeless would
[1:41:11] be allocated to jurisdictions
[1:41:12] with adequate jobs and schools
[1:41:17] and minimum pollution. Ensuring
[1:41:20] bright equitable futures for all
[1:41:23] residents. Currently many of
[1:41:25] our jurisdictions have severely
[1:41:27] unbalanced jobs/housing fit.
[1:41:30] it's crucial in the wake of
[1:41:32] covid-19 pandemic has laid bare
[1:41:38] many of the inequities. We have
[1:41:42] driven a policy that makes sense
[1:41:43] is inclusive and transformative.
[1:41:46] thank you for your time.
[1:41:48] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:41:48] you.
[1:41:49] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:41:49] speaker is ken chan. Go ahead.
[1:41:59] >>karen mitchoff, chair: you're
[1:41:59] on mute.
[1:42:02] >>speaker: can you hear me?
[1:42:03] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
[1:42:04] >>speaker: hello members of the
[1:42:05] abag planning committee. Thank
[1:42:07] you for your participating as we
[1:42:09] endure this pandemic together.
[1:42:11] my name is ken chan. And I am a
[1:42:14] housing advocate with san mateo
[1:42:16] we work to preserve quality and
[1:42:18] affordable housing. We would
[1:42:20] like to echo what has been
[1:42:22] previously mentioned today and
[1:42:24] voice support for rhna
[1:42:26] methodology 8a using plan 2050
[1:42:32] household baseline however could
[1:42:34] be refined with equity
[1:42:35] adjustment to fully meet the
[1:42:38] statutory equity objectives for
[1:42:44] affirmatively furthering fair
[1:42:46] housing. It is the people that
[1:42:51] make this region what it is in
[1:42:53] the long run nobody thrives if
[1:42:55] we price out our children who
[1:42:57] have the talent to strengthen
[1:42:59] our businesses. No one thrives
[1:43:07] if families struggle to put a
[1:43:08] roof over their heads and
[1:43:11] parents can't provide roof over
[1:43:18] the heads of their children. We
[1:43:20] urge you to support option 8a
[1:43:23] with a methodology adjustment.
[1:43:26] we urge you to reject the
[1:43:33] alternatives to change the
[1:43:34] baseline.
[1:43:37] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:43:39] you mr. Chan.
[1:43:40] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:43:41] speaker is vicki parker.
[1:43:52] unmute yourself please.
[1:43:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: you
[1:43:55] there are. Thank you.
[1:43:56] >>speaker: vicki parker
[1:43:57] community development director
[1:43:59] for the city of novato. I want
[1:44:01] to, as many other speakers, have
[1:44:04] acknowledged the complexity and
[1:44:06] difficulty of the task, in the
[1:44:07] enormous amount of effort that
[1:44:11] abag staff and the hmc have put
[1:44:13] into development of the
[1:44:14] methodology. I also want to say
[1:44:16] that we generally support the
[1:44:18] goals and the methodology, and
[1:44:20] especially the focus on regional
[1:44:23] equity. We agree with comments,
[1:44:27] however, by several other
[1:44:29] speakers, that we think the -- a
[1:44:32] focus on natural hazards and
[1:44:34] other regulatory constraints
[1:44:36] when looking at land inventories
[1:44:38] needs to be better acknowledged.
[1:44:41] and we have some suggestions for
[1:44:42] that, that we have put into our
[1:44:44] letter. Specifically, though, I
[1:44:48] want to focus on one thing, and
[1:44:50] that is, our city's concern is
[1:44:53] that the use of 2050 future
[1:44:56] households as the baseline does
[1:44:58] not acknowledge the realities of
[1:45:01] missing or inadequate
[1:45:03] infrastructure. By that, I
[1:45:04] mean, water, sewer, streets,
[1:45:07] storm drains, using this future
[1:45:09] number, we feel escalates the
[1:45:12] growth far more quickly than our
[1:45:18] capital budgets and programs can
[1:45:20] keep pace with and we fully
[1:45:23] knowledge this may be hard for
[1:45:25] some folks to understand if
[1:45:26] you're not on the front lines of
[1:45:28] small city budgeting and
[1:45:29] priority setting. It doesn't
[1:45:31] necessarily make sense to folks.
[1:45:32] but, our draft numbers mean that
[1:45:36] we would be asked to provide two
[1:45:38] and a half times our total, 15
[1:45:42] year build-out, and we would be
[1:45:44] asked to produce it in eight
[1:45:46] years, so half of the time. So
[1:45:49] that may put it in some
[1:45:51] perspective that that's really
[1:45:54] unrealistic to think that
[1:45:55] jurisdictions can produce
[1:45:57] additional revenues to push
[1:46:01] capital projects forward at
[1:46:03] double the pace. We simply
[1:46:05] don't have the ability to
[1:46:06] produce new revenues. We feel
[1:46:09] like use of 2050 households as
[1:46:12] the baseline sets us up to fail
[1:46:15] and we respectfully request that
[1:46:17] the methodology, instead,
[1:46:19] utilize 2050 household growth as
[1:46:22] that baseline. As its been said
[1:46:28] by many others, none of the
[1:46:30] methodologies are perfect. We
[1:46:31] also agree that everyone has to
[1:46:33] do their part, and we're happy
[1:46:35] to do our part. However, use of
[1:46:37] growth rates instead of future
[1:46:39] households as the baseline would
[1:46:41] allocate rhna at rates that are
[1:46:44] consistent with planned bay
[1:46:45] area.
[1:46:49] >>clerk of the board: thank
[1:46:50] you. Our next speaker is sidhar
[1:46:55] kapur. Go ahead.
[1:47:00] >>speaker: hi. My name is syd
[1:47:04] kapur. I live in oakland and
[1:47:06] volunteer with yimby action. I
[1:47:07] am here again after several
[1:47:10] meetings of this to again say I
[1:47:12] support the 8a proposed
[1:47:14] methodology. I would also
[1:47:16] support an adjustment of
[1:47:17] targeted adjustments of housing
[1:47:20] relief from unincorporated areas
[1:47:21] and the inequity adjustments
[1:47:26] proposed by others. So far this
[1:47:29] is the proposed methodology is
[1:47:31] really good. It has all the
[1:47:36] metrics we all want to meet, and
[1:47:38] there is no reason to delay this
[1:47:39] decision any more. All right.
[1:47:41] thank you.
[1:47:45] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:47:45] you.
[1:47:46] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:47:46] speaker is jordan grimes. Go
[1:47:48] ahead.
[1:47:58] unmute yourself, please.
[1:48:00] >>speaker: yes. Good
[1:48:01] afternoon. My name is jordan
[1:48:02] grimes a lead member of
[1:48:04] peninsula for everyone. We're a
[1:48:06] grassroots housing advocacy
[1:48:09] group from daly city to
[1:48:11] sunnyvale here to reiterate our
[1:48:13] strong support for option 8a.
[1:48:15] our members participated in
[1:48:20] housing methodology committee
[1:48:21] meetings and are impressed by
[1:48:24] hmc and staff, mostly people who
[1:48:31] participate in these meetings
[1:48:33] are affluent, white, and older.
[1:48:35] option 8a provides compromise on
[1:48:41] the housing and urban sprawl. I
[1:48:44] want to support comment in
[1:48:45] support of the equity
[1:48:46] adjustment. To the other
[1:48:47] comments no one's being setup to
[1:48:49] fail here. Literally every city
[1:48:51] can meet their targets if they
[1:48:53] meet the appropriate zoning
[1:48:55] permitting and process changes.
[1:48:56] it's on them to do so. And then
[1:48:58] just one last thing I would like
[1:49:01] to note. I have heard it
[1:49:03] repeatedly and tired of hearing
[1:49:04] it. Having a certified housing
[1:49:07] element doesn't mean you're
[1:49:08] building your fair share of
[1:49:11] housing it means you're having
[1:49:12] to jump through a specific
[1:49:14] bureaucracy hoop. We have built
[1:49:20] 2,000 units of housing over the
[1:49:21] last decade and adding more than
[1:49:24] 20,000 jobs in the same time
[1:49:26] frame both have certified
[1:49:28] housing elements and far too
[1:49:30] many in other cities have
[1:49:32] housing ratios. I cannot
[1:49:33] imagine anyone who would not
[1:49:36] agree to do their fair share.
[1:49:38] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:49:39] you.
[1:49:39] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:49:40] speaker is salim.
[1:49:42] >>speaker: hi. I'm salim, a
[1:49:45] bay area native and supportive
[1:49:47] of california yimby. I support
[1:49:49] the 8a methodology for targeted
[1:49:51] adjustments for unincorporated
[1:49:53] areas I am supported of
[1:49:56] adjustments for equity concerns.
[1:49:58] so, no one's perfectly happy
[1:50:04] with the proposal. It's not
[1:50:06] perfect. Trying to find
[1:50:09] something that works for
[1:50:10] everybody. I understand some
[1:50:14] neighborhoods are not perfectly
[1:50:16] satisfied with what's on the
[1:50:18] table but I feel it's good with
[1:50:21] as much work that's gone into
[1:50:23] it, I have heard rhna numbers
[1:50:26] are too large or unfeasible.
[1:50:29] you have to keep in mind it has
[1:50:30] to match scale of the problem.
[1:50:34] climate change is going to be
[1:50:35] one of the defining problems of
[1:50:37] our generation we're the first
[1:50:39] generation that can see the
[1:50:41] crippling effects of climate
[1:50:42] change with the forest fires and
[1:50:44] we're the last generation that
[1:50:45] can do something about it.
[1:50:47] building more housing where
[1:50:48] there are jobs, building more
[1:50:50] housing in infill areas instead
[1:50:52] of creating more sprawl, those
[1:50:55] are all important goals, and the
[1:50:56] other crisis that, you know, we
[1:50:59] have to meet is the housing
[1:51:01] crisis.
[1:51:02] so, I am part of a younger
[1:51:06] generation than I think maybe
[1:51:08] the majority of people on the
[1:51:10] call, and if I think about my
[1:51:11] friends, you know, the
[1:51:12] majorities of them have either
[1:51:14] moved back in with their family
[1:51:16] after college or they have moved
[1:51:18] to an area that's more
[1:51:19] affordable. They have had to
[1:51:21] leave the bay area. It's not
[1:51:23] sustainable. The bay area has
[1:51:24] to be inhabitable for our own
[1:51:29] children otherwise they're not
[1:51:31] going to be able to enjoy the
[1:51:32] same quality of life that we
[1:51:34] have. I hope that when towns
[1:51:37] find themselves disappoints they
[1:51:39] will keep this in mind that it
[1:51:41] will help with their climate
[1:51:42] action plan and help them
[1:51:44] keeping their own children in
[1:51:45] their community and the benefits
[1:51:47] outweigh the costs. Thank you.
[1:51:50] >>clerk of the board: our next
[1:51:51] speaker is daryl owens, go
[1:51:56] ahead.
[1:51:58] >>speaker: yes. I'm daryl
[1:52:00] owens from berkeley, california.
[1:52:03] I want to say I support 8a. I
[1:52:06] hope this is the last time I
[1:52:08] have to call in and say I'm in
[1:52:10] support of 8a. I support any
[1:52:12] methodology changes that shift
[1:52:13] more of the housing closer to
[1:52:16] the west bay and shift out of
[1:52:20] unincorporated areas. I think
[1:52:21] it's important from an equity
[1:52:26] standpoint and feasibility
[1:52:27] standpoint. Demand is highest
[1:52:32] and if you want allocation to
[1:52:35] materialize you want to put it
[1:52:36] in place where is demand is pent
[1:52:42] up. You do not want it to be
[1:52:44] sitting there and unbuilt. I
[1:52:46] support item 8a.
[1:52:49] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:52:49] you.
[1:52:50] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:52:50] speaker is rayla graber, go
[1:52:55] ahead.
[1:53:00] >>speaker: okay. I would just
[1:53:01] like to add my support to a
[1:53:03] prior speaker, paul foreman, and
[1:53:06] his comments regarding alameda
[1:53:08] and some of its special
[1:53:13] characteristics should be taken
[1:53:15] into account when figuring the
[1:53:17] rhna figures. But I want to
[1:53:19] finish mr. Edward singh's letter
[1:53:23] they started reading previously.
[1:53:25] I'll just finish t.
[1:53:29] mr. Singh from alameda said the
[1:53:33] rhna requirements stress
[1:53:39] proximity to major city center
[1:53:41] this might have been a fact pre
[1:53:45] covid but now it demonstrates
[1:53:46] the need for telecommute working
[1:53:49] has greatly decreased the
[1:53:51] opportunity for major city
[1:53:53] centers and will inevitably
[1:53:55] create a need for more jobs in
[1:53:57] professional and service
[1:53:58] industries in more outlying
[1:54:00] cities. Such changing
[1:54:02] employment and housing needed
[1:54:04] characteristic should be
[1:54:06] reflected in the process of
[1:54:07] determining rhna requirements
[1:54:09] for bay area cities. Even
[1:54:13] discounting potential changes in
[1:54:15] employment centers due to covid,
[1:54:18] giving more weight to proximity
[1:54:19] to major business centers is
[1:54:22] somewhat tenuous as pre covid
[1:54:27] over 400,000 commuters use mass
[1:54:30] transit to commute from outlying
[1:54:32] cities into the major business
[1:54:34] centers.
[1:54:37] mr. Singh finishes by saying, I
[1:54:41] fully support the concept of
[1:54:43] social equity, however I ask
[1:54:45] that you consider paul foreman's
[1:54:49] and my concerns and viewpoints
[1:54:52] regarding the proposed rhna
[1:54:54] requirements for alameda, the
[1:54:56] city of. Thank you.
[1:54:57] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:54:58] you.
[1:54:59] >>clerk of the board: the next
[1:55:00] speaker is sam deutsche. Go
[1:55:04] ahead.
[1:55:05] >>speaker: hi my name is sam,
[1:55:07] and I am a san francisco
[1:55:08] resident and also a member of
[1:55:11] yimby action. And I am calling
[1:55:12] to support the hmc methodology,
[1:55:15] and furthermore support the
[1:55:18] equity and unincorporated area
[1:55:22] adjustments as well. I mean, we
[1:55:24] have had so many of these
[1:55:26] meetings already, and I have
[1:55:27] already voiced my support for,
[1:55:29] you know, putting more housing
[1:55:31] in places that are after fluent,
[1:55:34] have good transit, have good
[1:55:36] climate, and are lower density
[1:55:38] than they should be. But also I
[1:55:41] want to respond to a comment I
[1:55:42] heard earlier about, oh, you
[1:55:44] know, we don't have the
[1:55:45] infrastructure for this, blah,
[1:55:47] blah, blah, if you look at prop
[1:55:49] 13, the fact that so much of our
[1:55:53] housing stock was built so long
[1:55:55] ago is artificially depressing
[1:56:00] the amount of property tax that
[1:56:02] could be collected is spent on
[1:56:04] infrastructure regardless of
[1:56:05] prop 13 it's a reality we face
[1:56:07] and as a result the only way to
[1:56:10] adequately fund new
[1:56:11] infrastructure is to build a ton
[1:56:12] of more new housing that is
[1:56:14] assessed at market rate for
[1:56:16] taxing. So I find that to be an
[1:56:18] incredibly specious argument and
[1:56:21] one that does not hold up to any
[1:56:24] scrutiny, and yeah, just
[1:56:26] reiterating my support for the
[1:56:27] hmc methodology, and building
[1:56:29] more housing in the bay area.
[1:56:31] thank you.
[1:56:32] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:56:33] you.
[1:56:34] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:56:34] speaker is kevin mah.
[1:56:35] >>speaker: hello. My name is
[1:56:36] kevin mah. I am a resident of
[1:56:36] palo alto in santa clara county.
[1:56:46] I support hmc's proposal for 8a.
[1:56:48] it is done in a consensus
[1:56:54] manner. The issue of
[1:57:02] unincorporated is a wide bucket
[1:57:03] for many communities would like
[1:57:06] perhaps in the future to be
[1:57:08] broken down in designate the
[1:57:09] places. In santa clara we have
[1:57:13] coyote valley and creek which is
[1:57:15] an unincorporated areas that
[1:57:18] people would like to protect,
[1:57:19] and other areas than
[1:57:24] unincorporated. There are
[1:57:26] adjustments that need to be
[1:57:27] done, and in the sense that we
[1:57:29] should be furthering anything to
[1:57:30] do with affirmatively furthering
[1:57:33] fair housing. That being said I
[1:57:35] also -- for all the speakers who
[1:57:37] talk about, we can't build.
[1:57:40] we're till -- still in a housing
[1:57:45] crisis and telework isn't going
[1:57:46] to help those who are searching
[1:57:50] for a job when their rent is
[1:57:52] still due. There are still
[1:57:55] quite a bit of people burdened
[1:57:58] that honestly is immoral for the
[1:58:03] region we're living in. We
[1:58:07] should be building housing so
[1:58:08] that everyone can have a decent
[1:58:09] place to work and live rather
[1:58:11] than just depending property
[1:58:13] values in the sense they just
[1:58:14] don't like neighbors. Thank
[1:58:16] you.
[1:58:17] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[1:58:18] you.
[1:58:18] >>clerk of the board: next
[1:58:19] speaker is sherry l jensen go
[1:58:24] ahead.
[1:58:25] >>speaker: hi. The allocation
[1:58:27] of 2100 dwelling units to
[1:58:30] saratoga is made by people who
[1:58:32] have not done the careful work
[1:58:34] of planning and siting homes in
[1:58:38] our city. Half of saratoga
[1:58:40] consists of steep hills with
[1:58:42] extreme fire dangers, ongoing
[1:58:45] soil creep, slides fault zone
[1:58:49] and rain fall compared to half
[1:58:55] of the valley floor and the
[1:58:56] other half, meaning we have to
[1:58:59] recharge our aquifer. Unlike
[1:59:03] san francisco in the east bay
[1:59:04] which have commandeered
[1:59:08] substantial sierra water supply
[1:59:12] not us 50 percent of our local
[1:59:14] water comes from our local
[1:59:16] sources hence vital to our life.
[1:59:19] for san jose and county of santa
[1:59:21] clara we saw from the early 70s
[1:59:23] what a critically important task
[1:59:25] this was. We learned the hard
[1:59:28] way the lessons of building
[1:59:30] homes on land slides and faults.
[1:59:33] boulder creek homes in san jose
[1:59:36] and eastern hills the land began
[1:59:38] to collapse, houses collapse,
[1:59:41] utilities have to be built above
[1:59:43] ground so when it failed it was
[1:59:46] visible and could be fixed right
[1:59:48] away. Houses are built over and
[1:59:52] over continuing to collapse as
[1:59:54] families lose just about
[1:59:56] everything. The roads are
[1:59:58] continually rebuilt. Successful
[2:00:01] homeowner lost everything. The
[2:00:03] public paid and paid and paid
[2:00:04] for this mistake. Simoni drive
[2:00:09] was next to fall eventually
[2:00:12] geo-technical work on both sides
[2:00:14] of our valley showed
[2:00:16] instability, and in addition
[2:00:21] high fire danger, we developed a
[2:00:25] slope to keep development out of
[2:00:27] the risky areas, and about late
[2:00:31] 1980 to the lower density in
[2:00:34] these highly unstable lands and
[2:00:36] through citizen initiatives we
[2:00:38] lowered densities we had to it
[2:00:40] was costing us a forgotten --
[2:00:49] fortune to rebuild the roads.
[2:00:53] santa clara valley water agency
[2:00:55] based on their value in
[2:00:57] percolating rail fall into the
[2:01:00] aquifer. Cities and county --
[2:01:04] bay lands -- restoring aquifers
[2:01:07] for the county so they can hole
[2:01:09] water 50 of our county's water
[2:01:12] comes from this system to
[2:01:13] accommodate this process
[2:01:14] saratoga has had a hard scape of
[2:01:17] development of 30 percent per
[2:01:19] parcel this proposal --
[2:01:21] [indiscernible].
[2:01:22] >>karen mitchoff, chair: time
[2:01:23] is up. Ms. Jensen that's three
[2:01:25] minutes. Thank you.
[2:01:29] >>clerk of the board: next
[2:01:29] speaker is rob nielsen. Go
[2:01:39] ahead.
[2:01:41] >>clerk of the board: james
[2:01:42] baxter's -- [indiscernible].
[2:01:47] >>speaker: hello. There is
[2:01:48] cross talk here. My name is rob
[2:01:51] nielsen. I support 8a from the
[2:01:55] methodology committee. I
[2:01:56] attended some of the meetings
[2:01:57] this summer and fall and I am
[2:01:59] very impressed by all the hard
[2:02:01] work that was done in the back
[2:02:03] and forth to reach a compromise
[2:02:05] that met all the statutory
[2:02:07] requirements. I want to point
[2:02:08] out the high opportunity
[2:02:13] requirement. Since I moved here
[2:02:19] there has been less opportunity
[2:02:21] because of the high cost of
[2:02:23] housing. I am glad you're going
[2:02:25] to start talking about issue
[2:02:26] that so there is opportunity for
[2:02:29] all people to live here and to
[2:02:31] add benefits to the bay area.
[2:02:33] and I'm glad you're taking steps
[2:02:35] to correct it. Thank you.
[2:02:37] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[2:02:38] you.
[2:02:38] >>clerk of the board: last
[2:02:39] speaker is adam buckbinder. Go
[2:02:41] ahead.
[2:02:42] >>clerk of the board: hello I'm
[2:02:43] adam, from the city of campbell
[2:02:46] speaking for myself here. As a
[2:02:48] commissioner I am familiar with
[2:02:49] campbell the idea that we
[2:02:50] shouldn't have an ambitious
[2:02:52] housing target because we are
[2:02:54] mostly single family homes is
[2:02:58] nonsensical. The housing
[2:02:59] doesn't care about the rezoning
[2:03:01] map. This is what the housing
[2:03:03] process is for what the general
[2:03:05] update when we are in the middle
[2:03:06] of campbell is for it's morally
[2:03:10] horrible to place the aesthetic
[2:03:12] whims over the needs community.
[2:03:17] it's perfectly reasonable to
[2:03:19] make targets adjustments to
[2:03:21] reduce allocations in
[2:03:23] unincorporated areas but
[2:03:25] changing the baseline metrics
[2:03:28] undermines the work and will
[2:03:29] lead to worse outcomes. It's
[2:03:32] vital we find a way forward.
[2:03:33] hmc has provided that I
[2:03:35] encourage abag to use it. Thank
[2:03:37] you for your time.
[2:03:38] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[2:03:39] you.
[2:03:39] >>clerk of the board: chair
[2:03:40] mitchoff, this is fred. Two
[2:03:42] additional members of the public
[2:03:43] have raised their hands.
[2:03:45] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go
[2:03:45] ahead please.
[2:03:46] >>clerk of the board: next
[2:03:47] speaker is joanna. Go ahead.
[2:03:54] please unmute yourself.
[2:03:58] >>speaker: sorry. Hi my name
[2:04:01] is joanna. I am a colead with
[2:04:03] urban environmentalists. I am
[2:04:06] calling in out of my work day to
[2:04:08] say we support the hmc proposal
[2:04:10] it's also illegal to place our
[2:04:13] plans on regulatory constraints
[2:04:15] like existing land use
[2:04:18] restrictions because it
[2:04:20] reinforces exclusionary
[2:04:22] patterns. Thank you very much.
[2:04:24] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[2:04:25] you very much.
[2:04:25] >>clerk of the board: last
[2:04:26] speaker is zack boling. Go
[2:04:29] ahead.
[2:04:30] >>speaker: hi there. I am a
[2:04:32] resident of alameda and I want
[2:04:34] to voice my disagreement of the
[2:04:38] statements made by foreman. I
[2:04:45] want to support my support for
[2:04:47] hmc proposal. Thank you.
[2:04:50] >>karen mitchoff, chair: fred,
[2:04:51] is it my understanding there are
[2:04:53] no more public speakers.
[2:04:55] >>clerk of the board: no other
[2:04:57] speakers. I have a list of
[2:04:58] public comments received. I
[2:05:00] would like to read the names.
[2:05:01] david howard, paul foreman,
[2:05:03] public advocates, singh bardin,
[2:05:08] val e.a. Ebert, edward singh,
[2:05:11] public advocates and daniel
[2:05:18] staub. Thank you.
[2:05:20] >>karen mitchoff, chair: I will
[2:05:21] close the public hearing.
[2:05:22] >>carlos romero, vice chair:
[2:05:23] excuse me, madam chair. May I
[2:05:25] just make a comment? I know I
[2:05:28] wanted to reserve two minute was
[2:05:37] of my time. I want to support
[2:05:40] 8a to affirmatively further fair
[2:05:44] housing in the nine county bay
[2:05:45] area. It is essential to do
[2:05:47] that. 8a is a compromise from
[2:05:50] 6a as many of the speakers have
[2:05:52] said it took us a while to get
[2:05:55] here. We agree on that and any
[2:05:58] wholesale change to this process
[2:06:00] and/or another option at this
[2:06:05] point really would serve neither
[2:06:08] the public, nor, for that
[2:06:10] matter, any of us, any of the
[2:06:12] residents of the nine bay area
[2:06:14] county area because it would not
[2:06:16] have been a vetted discussion
[2:06:17] and more importantly, there is
[2:06:19] no way that any other option
[2:06:21] introduced today would be able
[2:06:23] to have the widespread
[2:06:28] discussion and ultimately,
[2:06:30] approval of, as you heard today,
[2:06:32] many of those folks speaking.
[2:06:34] so, again, I urge that we do
[2:06:36] move forward with 8a with an
[2:06:39] equity adjustment, and lastly
[2:06:41] I'll say I was pleased to hear
[2:06:44] greenbelt alliance speak in
[2:06:45] favor of 8a, certainly I know
[2:06:49] our staff is working diligently
[2:06:51] with the three counties that
[2:06:53] have a concern about the
[2:06:54] allocation ever units to the
[2:06:56] unincorporated areas, and I
[2:06:57] think that issue is surmountable
[2:07:00] by utilizing our staff smarts as
[2:07:04] well as applying and approving
[2:07:06] 8a. Thank you.
[2:07:08] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[2:07:08] you carlos. All right. Now I
[2:07:10] will close the public hearing.
[2:07:12] just as a reminder for anyone
[2:07:14] listening in who wants to
[2:07:16] comment. You have until
[2:07:18] november 27th, and the
[2:07:20] information on how to do so is
[2:07:22] on the web site.
[2:07:24] all right. We're going to move
[2:07:25] on to --
[2:07:30] >>rick bonilla: madam chair,
[2:07:31] rick bonilla, if I may, now that
[2:07:33] I have heard extensive public
[2:07:35] comment, I would like to make a
[2:07:37] statement.
[2:07:41] >>speaker: likewise.
[2:07:42] >>karen mitchoff, chair: rick
[2:07:42] please keep it short we have got
[2:07:44] another hearing.
[2:07:46] >>rick bonilla: thank you of
[2:07:47] course. After hearing extensive
[2:07:52] public comment, after taking
[2:07:55] part in the housing methodology
[2:07:57] committee, which was a long and
[2:07:59] informing process. I believe
[2:08:00] that we came forth with the best
[2:08:02] recommendation possible that
[2:08:03] will go and do the best at
[2:08:05] meeting the housing, the
[2:08:09] affirmatively furthering fair
[2:08:11] housing mandate and will meet
[2:08:13] the goals necessary to provide
[2:08:14] the housing that we need in the
[2:08:16] locations where we need it. I
[2:08:18] understand other jurisdictions
[2:08:19] have some issues, those can be
[2:08:21] worked through. I believe that
[2:08:22] we're going to be able to go
[2:08:24] forward with this, and I
[2:08:25] recommend for everybody, if you
[2:08:27] don't understand it, please take
[2:08:28] a closer look. This is a great
[2:08:31] option. Thank you very much.
[2:08:34] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[2:08:34] you. And melissa.
[2:08:41] >>speaker: also I want to lend
[2:08:42] my comment to the equity and
[2:08:45] proposed 8a. We are living
[2:08:47] through perhaps the most
[2:08:49] fundamental demonstration of the
[2:08:51] inequities in our system. The
[2:08:53] pandemic has had a huge
[2:08:55] percentage of the population
[2:08:56] working from home, and many more
[2:08:58] in the very jobs that would
[2:09:01] qualify folks for affordable
[2:09:03] fair housing out at work and
[2:09:05] exposed. And this is a moment
[2:09:08] where the least we can do I
[2:09:09] think, is make sure that we have
[2:09:11] I strategy that gets us to full
[2:09:13] affordable housing for those
[2:09:14] people who have worked so hard.
[2:09:16] and the existence of
[2:09:18] exclusionary communities that
[2:09:19] have benefitted from the hard
[2:09:21] work of those families, it
[2:09:24] really is time to figure out how
[2:09:26] those exclusionary communities
[2:09:27] start to create the housing in
[2:09:29] their communities for the
[2:09:31] families whose labor they
[2:09:40] benefit from.
[2:09:41] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[2:09:42] you. David rabbit?
[2:09:43] >>david rabbit: thank you madam
[2:09:44] chair. I want to again make
[2:09:45] sure I get this on the record.
[2:09:47] I want to thank staff and the
[2:09:49] housing methodology committee.
[2:09:50] I want supportive of the
[2:09:52] methodology moving forward. Of
[2:09:53] course I do remain concerned
[2:09:54] about the errors in urban sim
[2:09:57] and I know that our staff is
[2:09:59] working on that. For instance,
[2:10:00] in our county, it identifies
[2:10:01] high density housing assumption
[2:10:03] in grave yards and floodways and
[2:10:06] rural regulation land many miles
[2:10:09] in services there is 20
[2:10:11] instances of that in our county
[2:10:13] alone. Adjacent freeways and
[2:10:21] basins and noxious lands, there
[2:10:24] have been five wildfires in the
[2:10:27] county in the last three years
[2:10:28] and has burned 300,000 acres of
[2:10:32] land and nearly 900 total
[2:10:35] structures. Our population has
[2:10:38] decreased since the first major
[2:10:41] wildfire that is some of the, we
[2:10:43] are moving forward. We just put
[2:10:47] $10 million into a housing fund
[2:10:48] to keep moving forward on center
[2:10:50] city growth. There is nearly a
[2:10:52] thousand percent increase in the
[2:10:55] cycles allocation for the
[2:10:58] unincorporated areas ever sonoma
[2:11:02] a that includes basically where
[2:11:04] water and sewer is. We're more
[2:11:07] than willing to take our fair
[2:11:10] share and push ourselves, we
[2:11:12] want to make sure we doing it
[2:11:13] with correct, error free data.
[2:11:18] and we want to make sure that we
[2:11:20] can not con addict our other
[2:11:23] goals of greenhouse gas
[2:11:25] emissions because that's what's
[2:11:26] happening in the higher numbers
[2:11:27] of the unincorporated area and
[2:11:30] one last thing that's relatively
[2:11:31] new development every county is
[2:11:33] going to find this out, the safe
[2:11:36] roads standards that you need to
[2:11:38] get approved by the california
[2:11:40] department of forestry have all
[2:11:42] been stopped, and that means
[2:11:43] that you cannot build a building
[2:11:45] on a non-standard street of
[2:11:48] which the unincorporated
[2:11:50] counties around the bay area
[2:11:52] probably have thousands and
[2:11:53] thousands of miles, unless you
[2:11:56] improve that street segment all
[2:11:58] the way down to the next safe
[2:12:01] street getting towards a fire
[2:12:03] station. This is prohibitively
[2:12:07] expensive, and it will be a
[2:12:08] state issue for probably some
[2:12:10] years to come. I don't know
[2:12:11] what the right answer is but I
[2:12:14] know that it's going to prohibit
[2:12:15] a lot of growth in
[2:12:17] unincorporated areas. So again,
[2:12:18] I just want to make sure that
[2:12:20] the errors are going to be
[2:12:21] corrected before we move
[2:12:22] forward, and if staff can talk
[2:12:24] about how that's going to get
[2:12:28] factored in, that, and I know
[2:12:30] the sphere of influence with
[2:12:32] which we will work, with this
[2:12:34] county in the city of santa
[2:12:35] rosa, and those areas that are
[2:12:37] going to be shortly annexed to
[2:12:41] make sure we're going to push
[2:12:44] just right and we want more
[2:12:46] housing but we want to make sure
[2:12:48] we're not at odds with
[2:12:52] ourselves.
[2:12:54] >>karen mitchoff, chair: thank
[2:12:54] you. I'm not seeing any other
[2:12:56] raised hands. Let me check one
[2:12:59] more time. Nope. Okay. I'm
[2:13:01] now going to close the public
[2:13:03] hearing. And we're moving to
[2:13:05] item 6b for the sake of time, I
[2:13:09] really don't -- does anybody
[2:13:11] want a staff presentation, or
[2:13:14] would you like to go directly to
[2:13:15] comments of the commissioners
[2:13:18] and the public?
[2:13:22] >>pat ecklund: madam chair?
[2:13:24] >>karen mitchoff, chair: go
[2:13:25] ahead.
[2:13:25] >>pat ecklund: I think -- we
[2:13:26] had a presentation at the last
[2:13:28] meeting. So is it possible for
[2:13:30] us to go to public comment and
[2:13:31] then discussion?
[2:13:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: that's
[2:13:33] what I was hoping for is that we
[2:13:35] have all -- susan, you're okay
[2:13:37] with that?
[2:13:43] >>susan adams: I'll second that
[2:13:44] yes.
[2:13:45] >>karen mitchoff, chair: we're
[2:13:46] all on the same page. And staff
[2:13:47] that doesn't take away from all
[2:13:49] the hard work you have done.
[2:13:51] matt, do I need to repeat
[2:13:53] everything I said before
[2:13:54] relative to the court reporter
[2:14:00] and the county this one
[2:14:02] government code section is one
[2:14:03] digit off it's 65584.03 (c)and
[2:14:11] again on this one, we can accept
[2:14:13] and be accepting any mailed in
[2:14:15] comments until november 27th.
[2:14:17] so with that, are there any
[2:14:20] commissioner -- committee member
[2:14:23] comments before we go to the
[2:14:24] public hearing?
[2:14:26] >>clerk of the board: chair
[2:14:27] mitchoff, this is fred, could I
[2:14:28] just confirm that the court
[2:14:31] reporter is still with us.
[2:14:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: yes.
[2:14:35] the court reporter: I am here.
[2:14:36] >>karen mitchoff, chair: do you
[2:14:37] need a break?
[2:14:38] the court reporter: I really
[2:14:39] appreciate that. I'm doing my
[2:14:41] best. I think I will be okay.
[2:14:43] >>karen mitchoff, chair: okay.
[2:14:43] I don't think there are going to
[2:14:45] be as many public speakers on
[2:14:46] this as there were on the last
[2:14:47] one. But believe me, I come
[2:14:49] from a legal background so all
[2:14:51] you got to do is say hey I got
[2:14:55] to take a break.
[2:14:58] let's go directly to public
[2:15:00] comment. Again, you have three
[2:15:02] minutes to make your comments.
[2:15:03] fred, do we have members of the
[2:15:04] public who wish to speak?
[2:15:07] >>clerk of the board: at this
[2:15:07] point there are no raised hands
[2:15:08] from the attendees.
[2:15:12] >>rick bonilla: do I have a
[2:15:12] question about the material
[2:15:14] that's presented before we go to
[2:15:16] comments. I think it's
[2:15:17] important.
[2:15:18] >>karen mitchoff, chair: all
[2:15:18] right. Go ahead rick.
[2:15:20] >>rick bonilla: on the
[2:15:23] subregions, if we look at slide
[2:15:27] -- what is it? The slide that
[2:15:31] shows the subregions and the
[2:15:33] amounts, their total
[2:15:35] allocations, if we look at napa
[2:15:36] county, and in paragraph three,
[2:15:38] on the page above, it says that
[2:15:40] there will be no harm nor
[2:15:42] benefit to member jurisdictions.
[2:15:44] and yet if we look at the
[2:15:46] allocation totals, napa county
[2:15:48] shows 3436 on slide four of this
[2:15:52] presentation yet if you look at
[2:15:54] the subregion -- I mean the
[2:15:57] regional regular share is shows
[2:16:01] 3816. I think this might be an
[2:16:03] error because when I look at the
[2:16:04] same information for solano
[2:16:06] county, those two numbers are
[2:16:08] the same.
[2:16:09] >>karen mitchoff, chair: staff,
[2:16:10] can you address that concern?
[2:16:12] >>gillian adams: I'm not sure
[2:16:14] where year looking at.
[2:16:17] >>rick bonilla: slide three of
[2:16:18] the presentation for this item.
[2:16:24] >>gillian adams: okay.
[2:16:26] >>rick bonilla: if you look at
[2:16:27] the bottom bullet point, it says
[2:16:29] that this confirms no harm nor
[2:16:32] benefit. Go to the next slide.
[2:16:34] okay. Look at the total
[2:16:35] allocation for napa and solano.
[2:16:37] solano county, the total
[2:16:39] allocation, there is no change
[2:16:40] between this and the regular
[2:16:42] allocation shown on the
[2:16:44] presentation. The numbers are
[2:16:45] both 11,906.
[2:16:48] on napa county, here it shows
[2:16:51] 3436, but on the regular
[2:16:54] allocation it shows 3816.
[2:16:59] >>gillian adams: so the reason
[2:17:00] -- I'm sorry. I wasn't sure
[2:17:01] what other number you were
[2:17:04] referring to but it's from the
[2:17:05] previous presentation. The
[2:17:06] reason for that is because not
[2:17:07] all jurisdictions in napa county
[2:17:09] are part of the subregion.
[2:17:11] >>rick bonilla: all right.
[2:17:13] >>gillian adams: if you look at
[2:17:14] slide number two of the
[2:17:15] subregion's presentation, you
[2:17:16] will see that calistoga and st.
[2:17:20] helena are participating in the
[2:17:22] regional process, not the
[2:17:23] subregional process.
[2:17:25] >>rick bonilla: thank you.
[2:17:26] just checking. Thank you very
[2:17:27] much.
[2:17:27] >>karen mitchoff, chair: all
[2:17:28] right. Great question. Thank
[2:17:30] you for the clarification. All
[2:17:33] right we're going to go to
[2:17:34] public comment. Julie just said
[2:17:36] she has to drop off and I'm
[2:17:40] look, take care julie.
[2:17:41] [laughter]
[2:17:43] but anyway, let's go led with
[2:17:45] public comment. Fred, you said
[2:17:46] there weren't anybody -- there
[2:17:49] weren't any individuals who wish
[2:17:50] to provide public testimony on
[2:17:52] this item? Just confirming
[2:17:54] that?
[2:17:55] >>clerk of the board: that is
[2:17:55] correct. No hands raised.
[2:17:57] >>karen mitchoff, chair: then
[2:17:58] would you go ahead and read, if
[2:17:59] there have been written comments
[2:18:01] made?
[2:18:02] >>clerk of the board: the
[2:18:03] comments, the names of the
[2:18:04] people that have submitted
[2:18:05] public comments were mostly for
[2:18:07] 6a and I think there was one for
[2:18:09] 6b, but I couldn't find that
[2:18:14] reference those were the only
[2:18:16] submitted public comments that
[2:18:18] we received for item six.
[2:18:21] >>karen mitchoff, chair: then
[2:18:22] monica, you're just happy.
[2:18:23] okay. And I -- okay. So with
[2:18:26] that --
[2:18:29] >>monica brown: this is coming
[2:18:30] across at least in solano county
[2:18:32] as noise.
[2:18:33] >>karen mitchoff, chair: what
[2:18:34] is that? You're hearing some
[2:18:35] background noise? Okay. Well,
[2:18:38] we're almost finished. So
[2:18:39] that's the good news. So, again
[2:18:41] to reiterate, there were no
[2:18:43] individuals of the public who
[2:18:45] wished to testify, and
[2:18:46] mr. Castro read into the record,
[2:18:48] those who have given written
[2:18:50] comment. Again, reiterating,
[2:18:52] anyone can provide written
[2:18:55] comments through november 7th,
[2:18:59] 2020, and with that, I will
[2:19:01] close that public hearing on 6b,
[2:19:03] and our next is the adjournment,
[2:19:04] and I have lost my calendar. Or
[2:19:08] my agenda here. So I just want
[2:19:11] to make sure, do we have another
[2:19:13] meeting scheduled? Yes. We are
[2:19:14] next scheduled to have a special
[2:19:16] meeting of this committee on
[2:19:21] december 2020. And with that, I
[2:19:22] say goodbye, and nice to see you
[2:19:26] all. Take care, stay well. And
[2:19:28] we will see you, if not sooner,
[2:19:30] at least on december 20th --
[2:19:33] 10th. All right. Thank you
[2:19:37] all. Good night.
[2:19:37] [adjourned]