Alameda County approves long-overdue housing element
Miley, Haubert sought to delay approval, risking state's ire; Port appeals order blocking use of SF in airport's name; Oakland sets timetable for placing two tax measures on special election ballot
COUNTY NEWS
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
—ELEMENT OF SURPRISE—Alameda County’s extremely tardy draft housing element was approved by the Board of Supervisors. Thursday’s vote and a second reading of the ordinance next week puts the county on track to submit its housing element to the state before the Dec. 31 deadline.
—Failure to do so could have place undue burdens on the county’s ability to accept and apply for some types of state funding.
—Despite the clear risks facing the county, including litigation and further sanctions from the state, some supervisors expressed strong beliefs that the draft housing element, originally due on Jan. 31, 2023, needed further examination.
—Supervisor Nate Miley, who represents a good portion of the unincorporated areas that are exclusively affected, said his support for housing is like “support for motherhood and apple pie. Nobody is against motherhood and apple pie.”
—But he urged the board to consider rolling the dice by not approving the draft housing element on Tuesday.
—Instead, he asked to refer the document back to the three Municipal Advisory Councils (MAC) in the unincorporated areas and the county’s planning commission.
—“It’s not like we’re saying to the state, ‘No, no, no, we’re not going to pass an housing element,’” Miley said. “As long as the state sees that we are working toward an appropriate housing element, and we wouldn’t face litigation.”
—Some cities, such as Huntington Beach, Calif., have vehemently opposed delivering a compliant housing element on ideological grounds, and have lost in the courts. Alameda County’s inaction has more to do with local activism and a slow-moving bureaucracy that only began work on the draft housing element more than a year ago.
—Kicking the draft housing element back to the MACs and Planning Commission for a 45-day review could build consensus and the public’s trust, he said.
—Alameda County Senior Deputy Counsel Andrea Weddle said the move presents risks to the county. The state’s Department of Housing and Community Development has already publicly noticed the ramifications of not approving the housing element.
—In a letter sent in early November, the state deemed the county’s draft housing element to be in compliance, Weddle said. “If I were in their shoes, I would say ‘County, why are you not approving this housing element’?
—“I just think there’s more work to be done,” Miley said, “I’m not risk-averse. I don’t want to do anything that is reckless,” he said, adding that he’s willing to “take a risk to take this to a place that is better for the community.”
—Supervisor David Haubert agreed. Potentially upzoning for 17 units of townhomes next to single-family homes in unincorporated Fairview will muddle the character of the neighborhood, Haubert said, referencing the draft housing element’s site inventory list.
—Haubert asked for a joint MAC meeting to sort out concerns conveyed by the community, especially those in unincorporated Fairview. “I feel we’re very close. Forty-five days close,” Haubert said,
—But a majority of the Board of Supervisors disagreed, voting, 3-2, in favor of approving the long-overdue housing element.
—Supervisors Keith Carson and Lena Tam were skeptical that an extra 45 days would do much to change the document already before them.
—Alameda County Planning Director Albert Lopez said it would be a “tall order” to make any substantive changes to the draft housing element in 45 days, especially in the midst of the holiday season.
—“It’s kicking the can down the road and it will just come back,” Carson said,
—411 ON THE 510—There’s much more inside! Become an East Bay Insiders subscriber today and get full access to the inside scoop every weekday morning at 6 a.m.
—It’s what the insiders read 1.4 million times in 2024!
—Keep an eye out later today for the next episode of the East Bay Insiders Podcast. I promise.
PORT OF OAKLAND
—DESTINATION UNKNOWN—The Port of Oakland’s quixotic pursuit of rebranding the Oakland Airport by adding San Francisco Bay to its name continued on Thursday.
—Port officials filed an appeal to a judge’s order last month blocking the use of “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport.”
—A press release by the Port of Oakland on Thursday afternoon notably makes no mention of the specific name change.
—San Francisco officials believe the Oakland Airport’s proposed name will confuse travelers.
—“This lawsuit is nothing more than an attempt to stifle competition and travel choices for the Bay Area,” said Mary Richardson, an attorney for the Port of Oakland.
—“San Francisco is trying to relegate OAK and Oakland to second-class citizens. The Port has no interest in passing off OAK as SFO. OAK is distinctly and proudly Oakland.”
CITY NEWS
OAKLAND
—DESPERATE MEASURES—Oakland officials plan to place up to two measures on the April special election ballot—one to increase the city’s sales tax by up to a half-cent, and a parcel tax.
—Some Oakland councilmembers, during a City Council Rules Committee meeting on Thursday, acknowledged they know little about the specifics of each ballot measure, in addition to the likelihood of its success.
—Council President Nikki Fortunato Bas spoke to a community organization that expressed a willingness to conduct polling for a potential parcel tax and raise money for a forthcoming campaign, she said. “That’s the reason why I’m supporting looking at this,” Bas said.
—Councilmember Carroll Fife said she’s unaware about the specifics of a parcel tax, who it impacts, and who can carry the campaign forward. “I don’t if I can support a parcel tax in such short notice,” she said.
—A parcel tax will require a steep two-thirds majority for passage, while a sales tax increase will need just a simple majority of the vote.
—For several election cycles, Oakland residents have shown a great willingness to approving revenue-generating ballot measures. A special election, especially one so close to the vote last November, will likely be low-turnout.
—Oakland’s dire fiscal situation and cost-savings opportunity afforded by consolidating the measures in a special election for mayor and the District 2 council seat, means expedited a process that typically takes months.
—The quick turnaround for placing the measures on the April special election ballots means the current council could approve first readings of the resolution and ordinance before handing off power to the new council, seated on Jan. 6, to approve the second and final reading on Jan. 9.
2025 CANDIDATE LIST
OAKLAND MAYORAL SPECIAL ELECTION
Ignacio De La Fuente, former Oakland councilmember
Isaac Kos-Read, Oakland consultant/lobbyist
Peter Liu (filed intent Dec. 9)
Mindy Pechenuk, educator/researcher (filed intent Dec. 2)
Fabian Robinson pastor (filed intent Dec. 4)
Derrick Soo (filed xvDec. 9)
Elizabeth Swaney, Olympian (filed intent Nov. 18)
Loren Taylor, former Oakland councilmember (filed intent Nov. 8)
Renia Webb, former chief of staff (filed intent Nov. 18)
Larry Lionel Young, Jr. (filed intent Dec. 5)
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT 2 SPECIAL ELECTION
Kanitha Matoury, small business owner
Charlene Wang, civil rights advisor
ALAMEDA COUNTY DA APPOINTMENT
Ursula Jones Dickson, Alameda County Superior Court judge
Annie Esposito, fmr Alameda County prosecutor
Butch Ford, fmr Alameda County prosecutor
Venus Johnson, Calif. Chief Deputy AG
L.D. Louis, Alameda County deputy county counsel
Yibin Shen, Alameda City Attorney
Eric Swalwell, congressmember
Scott Tsui, Santa Clara County prosecutor
Jimmie Wilson, Alameda County prosecutor