Blogging Bayport Alameda

December 22, 2020

RNHA Q&A TL;dr

Filed under: Alameda — Tags: — Lauren Do @ 6:02 am

So fun fact, ABAG/MTC staff took all of the comments and letters that were sent to them regarding the methodology and categorized them into overarching themes and then provided an answer/comment to those pieces of correspondence. Some is relevant to Alameda, others are not. I’m going to pull out those that have come up in Alameda around RHNA and then provide a TL;dr for those who just want the nutmeat of the response.

TL;dr: ABAG took into account what land is available and worked with your city to uncover this info. So we already baked this information into the baseline allocations. Nice try.

TL;dr: ABAG is focusing on growth near jobs center and with transit access but, this is a balancing act we’re attempting here so we had to make some accommodations to ensure we were affirmatively furthering fair housing which is a directive of the State.

TL;dr: As we’ve said before, all the natural hazards discussions were already incorporated into the blueprint discussions. Plus, it’s up to the communities themselves to figure out where to put these units, not ABAG.

TL;dr: The State laughed at us and said, “naw, these are your numbers.” Plus these are projection for 2023 – 2031, we should all hope to be beyond the impacts of COVID before then.

TL;dr: You think your allocation is too high? Take it up with the State.

10 Comments »

  1. So let me get this straight… Alameda’s natural hazards were already factored into the model, but Trish Spencer, Tony Daysog, and Paul Foreman want the model to factor for those natural hazards again to lower the RHNA total? Double dipping, am I right?

    Comment by Reality — December 22, 2020 @ 7:17 am

  2. Why does it sound like, “However, the Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND) from HAL has been determined at this point in time.”

    Comment by MP — December 22, 2020 @ 8:00 am

    • Because you haven’t read the full documentation about how the methodology was created nor how the baseline allocations were meticulously modeled?

      Comment by Lauren Do — December 22, 2020 @ 8:17 am

      • I did read “additionally”, “potential impact” and “trend toward”, but, you are correct, I have to dig to see if the “incorporated” “potential impact” is based on a “trend toward” observed and measured before what could be a significant hastening effect post-dating the RHND or the basic inputs affecting specific allocations in progress currently.

        And I’m not faulting ABAG for saying, this is what the State says. What else can they say?

        Comment by MP — December 22, 2020 @ 8:30 am

        • Well that’s one of Alameda’s options isn’t it? To tell HCD that their numbers are whack and need to be examined again. After all there are a bunch of So Cal cities who tried it (https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/hcd-all121020.pdf?1607715079) but I suppose the worst Alameda can get is a no but it might make everyone feel better to know that Alameda is trying everything it can to not have to accommodate more housing units.

          Comment by Lauren Do — December 22, 2020 @ 8:36 am

  3. The wooden and robotic responses of entrenched Sacramento government bureaucracy remind me of the movie The Matrix:

    “You have a problem with authority, Mr. Anderson. You believe you are special, that somehow the rules do not apply to you. Obviously, you are mistaken.”

    Set more unreasonable goals. It is a fact that 95% of California cities and counties don’t meet their housing goals.
    Facing a recall effort gaining momentum, huge state and local tax deficits caused by the crazy lockdowns, skyrocketing costs of construction as a result of other union labor and environmental regulations, and court cases overturning his dictatorial powers, Newsom won’t do squat…stop pretending he will.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/recall-effort-against-california-governor-attempt-destabilize-political-system-analysts-n1251498

    Comment by Nowyouknow — December 22, 2020 @ 8:06 am

    • You probably need to get off of the Trump train on TikTok… By the time a serious recall effort is underway, the economy will be open, vaccines fully rolled out, and jobs returning. Newsom will be fully vindicated by that time. The current recall effort is the 6th recall attempt since Newsom took office, and it started in February, BEFORE the coronavirus took hold in the states. Newsom’s approval rating is currently at 60%, so good luck with tilting at this particular windmill…

      Comment by Reality — December 22, 2020 @ 10:49 am

  4. ABAG rejects the inclusion of natural hazards in the RHNA formula by claiming that the Blueprint contains strategies that address these hazards. The natural hazards strategy listed under the environmental section is for 34 billion dollars to be set aside by the State, cities and regional governments for adapting to sea level rise and retrofitting existing residential buildings for all natural hazards.

    Perhaps the most honest statement in the Blueprint is the little box that asks, “What is a strategy?” The response is, “A strategy is either a public policy or set of investments that can be implemented
    in the Bay Area over the next 30 years. A strategy is not a near-term action, a mandate for a jurisdiction or agency, or a legislative proposal. In addition, because Plan Bay Area 2050 must be fiscally constrained, not every strategy can be integrated into the plan given finite available revenues.”

    In other words, ABAG and MTC are telling us that Alameda should meet this huge relatively short-term 8 year RHNA obligation and not worry about natural hazards because they have put a pie in the sky “strategy” in place to deal with it by 2O50. Of course, their sea level predictions and cost estimates may prove to be much too low and the money to mitigate non-existent, but not to worry. Just be a good regional citizen and soldier on.

    Comment by Paul Foreman — December 22, 2020 @ 2:53 pm

  5. A lifetime of modest development fought tooth and nail indeed means that we have to both make up for lost housing development and adapt to the consequences of a climate change — caused in no small part by long commutes which are in turn caused by 47+ years of little to no housing development. The chicken came home to roost.

    Comment by Gaylon — December 22, 2020 @ 3:41 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Say what you want

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog at WordPress.com.