Residents urge sending Alameda County housing element back to planning as staff pushes for year-end certification

Alameda County planning staff presented the proposed 6th-cycle housing element to the Transportation and Planning Committee on Dec. 2, urging the board to adopt the element at upcoming meetings so the county can submit it to the state and secure certification by year-end.

Planning Director Albert Lopez said the unincorporated area must accommodate 4,711 units for 2023–2031 under the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) and that the draft had already received a letter from State HCD indicating the element met state statute after prolonged review. "We received a letter from them indicating that our housing element met state statute," Lopez said, and staff outlined rezones, an AFFH (affirmatively furthering fair housing) approach and a zoning overlay to streamline projects meeting objective standards.

The presentation detailed methods for identifying sites — pipeline projects, vacant and underutilized county parcels, and targeted upzoning in parts of Castro Valley and Fairview — and identified major inventory sites including Bay Fair BART (448 units) and several county-owned parcels. Lopez warned of consequences if the county does not secure certification, telling supervisors that the county risks losing competitive regional grants including roughly $9 million in OBAG funding for an Upper San Lorenzo Creekway Trail project and could face state enforcement or builders' remedy consequences that limit local permit control.

Public commenters at the committee meeting — including many Fairview residents — urged the board not to adopt the draft as written. Dale Silva asked that the board "refer the housing element back to planning" to find sites that do not "threaten the wholesale disruption of our valued and established neighborhoods." Multiple callers said they received little or no notice about rezoning proposals and described Fairview as having single access/egress, narrow roads, septic systems, strained school and emergency infrastructure, and high fire risk, arguing denser development would create serious safety and evacuation hazards.

Other speakers cited process concerns: the three municipal advisory councils (MACs) representing parts of the unincorporated county largely voted to reject the draft, and the Planning Commission voted 4–3 not to approve it. Karen Carey referenced state legislation, saying "AB 2,243" protects neighborhood plans from ministerial conversion unless parcels were already zoned multifamily, and argued ministerial review in Fairview would violate that provision.

Staff and supervisors discussed trade-offs: several supervisors expressed sympathy for residents' concerns while noting state deadlines and potential funding and enforcement consequences if the county fails to secure certification. Lopez and other staff said the county does not itself build the units but relies on private and nonprofit developers and ADU production; staff estimates show several hundred units already in the pipeline and a modest ADU credit, but that historic production has met only a portion of RHNA targets.

Supervisor Howard said the committee heard "a lot of comment" and asked staff whether changes could be incorporated before the planning meeting on Dec. 12 and the full-board ordinance reading on Dec. 17. Staff said they have removed some sites where property owners lacked interest and emphasized that the package focused on surgical rezones rather than wholesale changes, but acknowledged the process has been contentious and that additional outreach and adjustments may be possible prior to final board action.

The committee's discussion was informational only (no quorum for action); the planning meeting is scheduled Dec. 12 with a second reading on Dec. 17, after which staff plans to submit the element to State HCD.