The URL can be used to link to this page

23. ABAG housing needs 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. ~3 AGENDA DATE: January 16. 2006 SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to forward a letter regarding the revised regional housing needs formula. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to forward the attached letter supporting the original formula developed by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Committee and opposing increasing the lower income allocations to 175% of the Bay Area average income distribution. BACKGROUND: The Regional Housing Needs Allocation Committee formula allocates housing units based on housing unit growth, existing and projected jobs and projected growth around transit stations. The growth numbers are based on Projections 2007, which is based on each city's general plan. The attached ABAG memo dated October 26,2006, revised on November 17,2006, outlines the formula and the income allocations recommended at that time. DISCUSSION: On January 4,2007, the RHNA Committee reconvened to consider responses to the original allocation and income distribution. The Committee heard arguments from San Francisco and Oakland that the Smart Growth allocation (i.e. growth around transit stops) unfairly impacts cities with extensive transit and represents too radical a "pace of change" for the more urban areas. Staff continues to believe that encouraging "smart growth" should be a central piece of the allocation formula. The RHNA Committee recommended retaining the original formula allocations. INCOME ALLOCATION: The RHNA committee originally recommended a formula that uses the Bay Area average income allocations for purposes of determining the percentage of lower income units. This increased our percentage oflow and very low income units from about 25% in the previous RHNA process to about 40% using the Bay Area average. ,,1 3 --I Authorize the Mayor to forward a letter regarding the revised regional housing needs formula. January 16, 2007 Page 2 At the January 4,2007 meeting, the RHNA Committee heard arguments from Oakland and San Francisco that the income allocations should strive to reduce concentrations oflow and very low- income areas. The RHNA Committee agreed and recommended increasing the percentage of affordable units to 175% of the Bay Area average. Communities that historically have less concentrations of low and very low-income families will be expected to accommodate a greater proportion of the low and very low income housing units. The effect is that about half of our allocation would need to target families with incomes at the low and very low-income categories. Staff believes the higher percentages are impractical because the cost of creating a low and very low unit in the high land-cost suburbs is significantly greater than more affordable areas and the housing related resources such as CDBG and Redevelopment housing set aside funds are not sufficiently available to the smaller suburban communities. Next Steps Authorize the Mayor to send the attached letter to the Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Committee who will be meeting to decide these issues on Thursday, January 18,2007. Once the formula is adopted the city will be expected to amend the general plan Housing Element to identify adequate sites and demonstrate affordability strategies that conform to the requirements. Final amended Housing Elements are due in the ABAG region before June 2009. I anticipate the update to the Housing Element will be a major work program item for 2007/2008. Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~ ~ OJ-U/1ft-/) Carol Atwood, . Acting City Manager Steve Piasec i Director of Community Development Enclosures: Draft letter from the Mayor dated January 16,2007 November 6,2006 staff report and Mayor's letter ABAG memo dated October 26,2006, revised on November 17,2006 4:2 3 -- 2 Office of the Mayor 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3212 CITY OF CUPEI\TINO January 16,2007 ABAG Executive Committee Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604-2050 Subject: RHNA Committee allocation formula Dear ABAG Executive Committee Members; The Cupertino City Council supports the allocation formula developed by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Committee as stated in our letter of November 6, 2006. However, we are concerned about the latest proposal to increase the low and very- low income allocations to 175% of the Bay Area regional average income distribution. We support the allocation formula because it assigns a fair share of housing based on where growth is projected to occur in accordance with each city's General Plan and encourages housing in areas that are creating jobs and/or have transit. This "Smart Growth" component discourages suburban sprawl, reduces congestion and increases transit ridership. We oppose increasing the income allocations to 175% of the Bay Area regional average income distribution because it is simply impractical. The cost to provide a low and very low income housing unit in the high land cost areas is significantly greater than more affordable communities and the resources to write down the cost of housing does not exist in the smaller suburban communities. We do not have the large redevelopment agency housing set aside budgets or Community Development Block Grant allocations of larger cities. Instead of encouraging affordable housing this requirement will reduce the number of affordable units that will be built and jeopardize the objectives of increasing the supply and affordability of housing. Thank you for the opportunity to participate and comment on the process. Sincerely, Kris Wang Mayor /')J -, -<.. .-) 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 CITY OF CUPEI\TINO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. AGENDA DATE: November 6. 2006 SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter on behalf of the City Council supporting the proposed Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) formula. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomri1ends that the Council authorize the Mayor to forward the attached letter supporting the formula developed by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Committee. The formula allocates housing units based on housing unit growth, existing and projected jobs and projected growth around transit stations. The growth numbers are based on Projections 2007, which significantly reduced the projected job generation in Cupertino. BACKGROUND: Every seven years the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) conducts a process to allocate the fair share of housing growth to jurisdictions in the nine-county Bay Area region. The current effort represents the fourth RHNA cycle. The Director of Community Development was one of three representatives from Santa Clara County who participated on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Committee, along with Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director of Planning for San Jose and Regina Brisco, a Housing Planner for Gilroy. DISCUSSION: The Regional Housing Needs Allocation Committee formula allocates housing units based on housing unit growth, existing and projected jobs and projected growth around transit stations. The growth numbers are based on Projections 2007, which significantly reduced the projected job generation in Cupertino. The combination of the formula and the revised projections 2007 housing and job growth, results in an allocation to Cupertino of 1,084 housing units versus 2,720 units allocated in the previous RHNA process. Attached are the allocations under the RHNA Committee formula. The column on the left outlines a potential allocation for all cities assuming the allocation from the State for the nine County Bay Area is the same as the previous RHNA process, which was 230,743 housing units. The final number from the State could be higher or lower. Santa Clara County historically gets lJ-i Authorize the Mayor to,send a letter on behalf of the City Council supportinq the proposed Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Reoional Housinq Needs Allocation (RHNA) formula. November 6, 2006 Page 2 the highest allocation at around 25% ofthe regional total or about 58,000 units based on the previous allocation. The column on the far right represents the number allocated in the last RENA process. Proposed Formula The formula recommended by the RHNA committee is based on: . 40% projected housing growth . 20% existing jobs as of 2007 . 20% projected job growth between 2007 and 2014 . 10% job growth within 1/2 mile of a transit stop . 10% housing growth within 1/2 mile ofa transit stop The number allocated is a function of the formula and the projected number of job and housing growth by Projections 2007. Planning staff, particularly Senior Planner Peter Gilli, worked extensively with ABAG projections staff to realistically count jobs and get the number of housing units to reflect recent growth and annexations. Consequently, the job numbers dropped about 8,000 jobs from past projections and the number of housing units increased to reflect annexations and new housing units. Cupertino's numbers in Projections 2007 are much closer to a jobs/housing balance than previous projections. Enclosed is an ABAG staff memo dated October 17, 2006 "RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2" which provides more explanation on the different formulas and factors. Next Steps The RHNA Committee recommendation goes to the ABAG Executive Board on November 16, 2006. City Manager David Knapp sits on the ABAG Executive Board. The ABAG Board has until December 31, 2006, to adopt the fmal formula after which there is a 60-day public comment period before it becomes effective. Following ABAG adoption of the formula the State needs to issue the fmal number of housing units to the nine-county ABAG region which is expected before March 2007. At that time we will know our fmal fair-share number. Agencies taking a higher allocation, particularly San Francisco and San Jose and some of the smaller agencies with higher numbers such as Palo Alto, may lobby for a formula that is more favorable to them. Also, the fmal numbers from the State have not come down so the numbers could grow regardless of the final formula. This allocation applies to the period 2007 through 2014, at which point ABAG will go through this process again. After the ABAG Exec Board and State actions we will know the new numbers for the GP. Even so, the number of housing units is likely to increase a little over the number currently in the GP because these numbers are for the period 2007-2014 and are over and above our previous fair- share allocation. After all of the above it will be appropriate to amend the GP Housing Element. We will spend late 2007 through 2008 going through the public hearing process. Final amended . Housing Elements are due in the ABAG region before June 2009. r;]-j-- - Authorize the Mayor to send a letter on behalf of the City Council supportinq the proposed Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Reqional Housinq Needs Allocation (RHNA) formula. November 6, 2006 Page 3 Submitted by: Approved for submission: /) /) ~_,L' St~e.Piasec . Director of Community Development ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Draft letter supporting the RHNA Committee Allocation Formula Allocation tables for bay area cities with the Committee Proposal ABAG Staff memo dated October 17,2006 "RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2" 1.] --l Office of the Mayor 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3212 CITY OF CUPEI\TINO November 6,2006 ABAG Executive Committee Association of Baty Area Governments Planning and Building Safety Department 350 Main Street Oakland, CA 90245-3813 Subject: Support for the RHNA Committee allocation formula Dear ABAG Executive Committee Members The Cupertino City Council is pleased to support the allocation formula developed by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) committee. The RHNA Committee spent the past six months going over the options and discussing reasonable methodologies to allocate housing units. The formula allocates a fair share of housing based on where growth has occurred in the past and where growth is projected to occur in accordance in Projections 2007 and the factors in the State statute. The formula for the first time, allocates a portion of the housing based on smart growth principles by encouraging growth near transit stations. The Bay Area needs to direct growth along the transit corridors and discourage suburban sprawl if we are going to limit congestion. The formula gives communities planning on growth to choose smart growth by balancing job generation with housing units. Thank you for opportunity to participate and comment on the process. Sincerely, Richard Lowenthal Mayor ...., /7 2) - Planned Trans Moderate Trans Greater Transit Emphasis Committee Housing Proposal Emphasis Jobs Emphasis Combo Scenario A Scenario 2 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 40% HH Growth 60% HH 40% HH 60% HH 20% Jobs 2007 Growth 40% HH Growth Growth 20% 20% Job Grpwth, 20% Jobs Growth 50% 40% Jobs Trans HH 10% Trans Job 50% HH Growth Jobs 2014 2014 20% Growth 20% Growth,10% Growth 50% 20% Trans 10% Trans Trans Job Trans Job Previous Trans HH Growth. Jobs Growth Job Growth Job Growth Growth Growth RHNA 10/24/06 11 :41 AM 230,743 230,743 n 230,743 II 230,743 II 230,743 230,743 -230,743 ALAMEDA 2,070 2,452 2,067 1,917 1,884 1,864 2,162 ALBANY 255 301 255 299 266 202 277 BERKELEY 2,680 1,908 1,824 3,249 2,975 2,259 1,269 DUBLIN 3,065 3,784 3,982 2,991 3,054 3,602 5,436 EMERYVILLE 1,124 904 850 1,059 1,012 1,237 777 FREMONT 5,415 5,188 5,186 5,544 5,645 4,923 6,708 HAYWARD 3,576 3,302 2,826 3,731 3,420 3,314 2,835 LIVERMORE 3,989 5,194 4,059 3,700 3,438 3,443 5,107 NEWARK 884 896 678 999 863 480 1,250 OAKLAND 16,397 12,908 14,591 14,327 14,882 21,046 7,733 PIEDMONT 39 20 15 71 58 11 49 PLEASANTON 3,359 3,876 3,182 3,409 3,278 2,594 5,059 SAN LEANDRO 2,572 2,479 2,464 2,592 2,590 2,595 870 UNION CITY 1,996 2,408 2,150 1,732 1,787 1,973 1,951 UNINCORPORATED 1,273 1,535 1,288 1 ,467 1,308 1,010 5,310 ALAMEDA COUNTY 48,694 47,156 45,418 47,085 46,461 50,554 46,793 ANTIOCH 2,251 2,918 2,697 2,230 2,156 2,213 4,459 BRENTWOOD 2,398 2,990 3,199 2,230 2,251 2,922 4,073 CLAYTON 158 204 195 163 153 170 446 CONCORD 3,753 4,003 3,467 3,994 3,669 3,390 2,319 DANVILLE 565 595 482 734 636 366 1,110 EL CERRITO 577 392 492 469 511 801 185 HERCULES 419 599 514 395 371 412 792 LAFAYETTE 382 225 307 530 491 372 194 MARTINEZ 1,182 1 ,425 1,126 1,283 1,156 894 1,341 MORAGA 217 224 208 279 247 178 214 OAKLEY N 861 1,156 1,113 787 767 967 1,208 ORINDA '-"J 225 151 181 295 273 214 221 PINOLE \ 404 470 446 469 427 387 288 PITTSBURG ~ 2,930 3,012 2,548 2,041 1,912 2,651 2,513 10/24/06 11 :41 AM PLEASANT HILL RICHMOND SAN PABLO SAN RAMON WALNUT CREEK UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA CNTY BELVEDERE CORTE MADERA FAIRFAX LARKSPUR MILL VALLEY NOVATO ROSS SAN ANSELMO SAN RAFAEL SAUSALlTO TIBURON UNINCORPORATED MARIN COUNTY AMERICAN CANYON CALlSTOGA NAPA ST HELENA YOUNTVILLE UNINCORPORATED NAPA COUNTY f~ SAN FRANCISCO ~ ~ Planned Trans Committee Proposal Scenario A 40% HH Growth 20% Jobs 2007 20% Job Growth, 10% Trans Job Growth, 10% Trans HH Growth 230,743 I 616 2,977 319 3,362 2,839 964 27,396 24 237 77 749 294 1,980 25 148 1,901 182 115 510 6,243 667 87 1,905 114 88 605 3,466 40,728 IModerate Trans Greater Transit Emphasis Housing Emphasis Jobs Emphasis Combo Scenario 2 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 60% HH 40% HH 60% HH Growth 40% HH Growth Growth 20% 20% Jobs Growth 50% 40% Jobs Trans HH 50% HH Growth Jobs 2014 2014 20% Growth 20% Growth 50% 20% Trans 10% Trans Trans Job Trans Job Previous Jobs Growth Job Growth Job Growth Growth Growth RHNA 230,743 U 230,743 Il 230,743 (J 230,743 , 230,743 I 230,743 I 621 502 825 710 380 714 3,545 3,143 3,173 2,932 2,748 2,603 394 311 364 322 231 494 4,431 3.817 3,508 3,215 3,067 4,447 2,573 2,455 3,285 3,034 2,588 1,653 1,215 1,050 1,005 919 844 5,436 31,145 28,254 28,058 26,153 25,793 34,710 13 13 42 35 11 10 250 188 312 268 132 179 81 68 100 87 53 64 471 636 758 774 874 303 265 198 426 359 138 225 2,323 2,079 1,904 1,919 1,517 2,582 20 19 37 32 16 21 117 88 230 192 63 149 1,770 1,604 2,206 2,081 1,174 2,090 157 111 272 238 48 207 86 57 175 142 51 164 622 397 614 520 221 521 6,175 5,457 7,077 6,647 4,297 6,515 1,046 840 558 531 632 1,323 97 61 112 94 34 173 2,312 1,915 2,188 1,948 1 ,485 3,369 64 48 200 164 34 142 87 71 120 103 55 87 585 379 858 715 218 1,969 4,191 3,315 4,036 3,556 2,457 7,063 28,269 40,695 37,159 44,530 49,847 20,372 Planned Trans Moderate Trans Greater Transit Emphasis Committee Housing Proposal Emphasis Jobs Emphasis Combo Scenario A Scenario 2 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 40% HH Growth 60% HH 40% HH 60% H H 20% Jobs 2007 Growth 40% HH Growth Growth 20% 20% Job Growth, 20% Jobs Growth 50% 40% Jobs Trans HH 10% Trans Job 50% HH Growth Jobs 2014 2014 20% Growth 20% Growth,10% Growth 50% 20% Trans 10% Trans Trans Job Trans Job Previous Trans HH Growth Jobs Growth Job Growth Job Growth Growth Growth RHNA 10/24/06 11 :41 AM 230,743 ~ 230,7 43 II 230,743 II 230,743 II 230,743 I 230,743 ~ 230,743 I CLOVERDALE 489 495 582 419 438 543 423 COT A TI 387 357 323 262 279 229 567 HEALDSBURG 403 341 375 414 409 319 573 PET ALUMA 1,999 2,135 2,046 2,158 2,049 1,683 1,144 ROHNERT PARK 1,770 2,343 1,957 1 ,495 1,627 1,245 2,124 SANTA ROSA 6,504 7,839 6,973 6,779 6,445 5,439 7,654 SEBASTOPOL 165 110 128 261 226 127 274 SONOMA 328 270 313 471 418 308 684 WINDSOR 688 848 787 636 627 636 2,071 UNINCORPORATED 1,294 955 1,012 1,990 1,718 945 6,799 SONOMA COUNTY 14,026 15,691 14,496 14,886 14,237 11,4 73 22,313 REGION 230,743 230,743 230,743 230,743 230,743 230,743 230,743 ~ vJ \ -- C) ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS o Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area ABAG MEMO To: From: Date: Subject: Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) ABAG Staff October 17, 2006 RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 Background As part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) has been tasked with assisting ABAG staff in developing the methodology for allocating shares of the regional housing need to each city and county in the Bay Area. By statute, there are nine factors that must be considered in developing the allocation methodology.1 Factors are used to assign a share of the region's total housing need to individual jurisdictions. The factors cannot be used to change the total regional housing need. Therefore, the factors are always expressed as a share of the regional total. If used as factors, these same shares are then used to assign a proportion of the regional housing need to the jurisdiction. Over the past several months, the HMC has been working to determine which factors should be included in the methodology. The committee's discussion has been framed by the need for the methodology to meet the statutory RHNA objectives as well as to further the Bay Area's regional goals for growth. In the interest of developing the allocation methodology, the HMC requested that ABAG staff generate several possible allocation scenarios for their consideration. The scenarios include factors related to housing, jobs, and areas served by public transportation. The first set of scenarios was discussed at the October 12th HMC meeting. The committee felt that we should be more consistent in matching job and housing growth, or jobs and housing at a single point in time. The HMC also asked us to look using jobs in transit areas in the methodology. This memo describes the scenarios that were developed based on feedback from the committee. The different ways of using these factors, and the policy implications of each, are also presented. Revised Regional Allocation Scenarios The HMC has identified three broad categories of factors to be considered for mclusion in the methodology: . Housing Employment Access to public transit . . I Government Code Section 65584.04(d). Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7970 info@abag.ca.gov Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756 ~)--I/ RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17/06 Page 2 The allocation scenarios are separated into two major categories. The first three scenarios include only factors related to housing and employment. They demonstrate a "Moderate Transit Emphasis" because they are based on Prqjections, which incorporates the regional smart growth principles to direct growth to existing communities and areas .near public transit.2 The rest of the scenarios (Scenarios 4 through 10) are also based on Prq/ections, but they include "transit" as an additional factor, and therefore represent a "greater transit emphasis". Only e:l'isting, fixed transit infrastructure, such as heavy and light rail systems and ferries3 are included. Transit is included in four distinct ways: 1) housing growth near transit, 2) total housing (2014) near transit, 3) employment growth near transit, and 4) total (2014) employment near transit. The sample scenarios use the transit factor in various combinations of these four distinct variables to demonstrate different policy options. All scenarios are based on the draft numbers from the Prqjections 2007 forecast. These numbers are currently being reviewed by local governments, and therefore it is likely that some changes will occur. Also, the total regional need number in the scenarios is from the 1999-2006 RHNA period, and is used only for demonstration purposes. It is possible that the total regional need will be significantly high~r for the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Moderate Transit Emphasis These scenarios focus on housing and jobs as the major determinants of future housing need. Projected household growth represents the need to provide housing for natural population increases. In addition, the presence of jobs in a community also generates demand for housing to accommodate workers. Over time, linking jobs to housing will result in a better jobs-housing balance throughout the region. During the discussion of the first set of allocation scenarios at the October 12th HMC meeting, several committee members requested that we look at ways to better address jobs-housing balance more directly. Suggestions included looking at employed residents as a factor or making an adjustment for jobs-housing ratios. Staff explored using these types of factors, but found that the resulting allocation scenarios did not yield satisfactory outcomes, i.e. the result was numerous negative allocations. Therefore, the jobs-housing balance issue was addressed by placing more emphasis on existing employment centers and by only using housing growth in some of the scenarios presented below. Scenario 1: Total Housing & Emplqyment This scenario equally weights a jurisdiction's total households and total jobs in 2014. Using the totals for 2014 accounts for existing housing and employment, as well as the increment of growth expected between 2007 and 2014. This scenario results in more housing going to jurisdictions with existing high concentrations of both housing and jobs. Because jobs and housing are equally 2 In 2002, ABAG's Executive Board resolved to use the regional goals and Network of Neighborhoods vision as the basis for Projections forecasts. Since then, Projections assumes that, over time, local land use policies will move the region closer to meeting the regional goals. The policy-based Projections specifically forecast more growth in existing conununities and near transit, while directing growth away from agricultural areas and open space. J The rail service providers included are: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain, San Francisco MUNI light rail, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) light rail. '1 J .- I J... ,", RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17/06 Page 3 weighted, this scenario does the least to improve existing jobs/housing imbalances in the region, as it maintains existing proportions of jobs and housing in each jurisdiction. Scenario 2: Housing & Employment Growth This scenario is equally weighted between a jurisdiction's expected growth in both households and jobs between 2007 and 2014. This scenario does not consider existing concentrations of either jobs or housing and so housing is not directed to areas where there are either large amounts housing or jobs in the region. While this avoids putting additional housing where there is already lots of housing, it also emphasizes employment growth, where additional housing may be needed. This scenario addresses jobs-housing balance based solely on future employment growth. It does not seek to adjust the existing balance between housing and jobs. Scenario 3: Employment Emphasis Scenario 3 has a strong employment emphasis. Household growth is equally weighted with total jobs (2014). However, this scenario does not consider the existing concentrations of housing, only planned household growth. In this way, housing is not directed to those areas that have already built a significant amount of housing. This scenario also uses 2014 jobs. The effect of this is to place more housing in jurisdictions with both large existing employment bases and in those that are anticipated to experience employment growth. This scenario has the greatest potential for consistency between local and regional policy, for it considers both locally and regionally planned growth, and has a strong employment component. This scenario only directs housing to those jurisdictions that are planning for growth (according to a meld of regional and local policy via Projections.) It also directs housing to both existing and growing employment centers. Greater Transit Emphasis These scenarios include factors related to housing and employment, but add a factor to direct growth to areas with access to public transit. Choosing to include a factor in the methodology that directs growth to areas with public transit would reinforce the importance of encouraging growth in areas with a variety of transportation options. In effect, it would give extra weight to this regional goal, over what has already been done in the Prqjections forecast. It is expected that the most significant impacts from the use of the regional goals in Prqjections will not begin to take effect until 2010. Directing growth to areas with public transit in the methodology would ensure that this regional goal influences development patterns during the RHNA period. Housing Emphasis Scenario 4 &5: Heazy Housing Emphasis These scenario have a strong housing emphasis, as 80 percent of projected housing need is based on either existing households or projected growth - 60 percent overall housing or housing growth and 20 percent near transit. Scenario 4 is the more heavily weighted toward housing than Scenario 5, as it :2-3-1) RHNA. Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17/06 Page 4 uses total (2014) housing. Scenario 5 uses household growth, which only assigns units based on planned household growth, eliminating impact of existing housing stock. Jobs are accounted for only 20 percent in each scenario. Existing job centers are considered in scenario 4, while only those areas expected to experience job growth are considered in scenario 5. Overall, these scenarios are heavily weighted toward housing as the primary determinant of housing need, with the added factor transit, either existing or planned homes near transit. Scenarios 6 & 7: Moderate Housing Emphasis Scenarios 6 and 7 both consider either total or planned employment near transit, however housing is still presented as the primary determinant of housing need. Scenario 6 considers existing and planned (2014) households and jobs, with additional weight given to existing and planned jobs in transit areas. This scenario offers consideration of existing concentration of housing and employment in all communities. Greater weight is given to communities that have existing and planned employment growth near transit. However, this scenario may not effectively address existing regional jobs/housing balance, for those areas with high concentrations of housing; especially those jurisdictions with transit are given a relatively higher share of the regional housing need (60 percent vs. 40 percent) than those with high employment concentrations. Scenario 7 only considers housing and job growth, not existing concentrations of either. Only those areas with anticipated housing and job growth are considered, with greater weight given to communities with employment growth planned near transit. This scenario avoids placing housing in those communities with high housing concentrations; however, it also does not effectively address existing employment concentrations and therefore may not effectively address existing regional jobs/housing balance. Employment Emphasis Scenarios 8: Heary Employment with Heary Transit Emphasis Scenarios 8 & 9 have the greatest emphasis on employment, while also considering transit. Theses scenarios assign units based 40 percent household growth, with no consideration of existing concentrations of housing. Therefore, these scenarios do not consider those areas in the region that are currently housing rich. Both scenarios use total jobs as the highest determinant of regional need. In terms of transit, Scenario 8 uses 10 percent and Scenario 9 uses a 20 percent weight on those areas with planned employment growth near transit. Both of these scenarios may adequately address jobs-housing balance, as housing is directed to both existing employment centers and to areas with relatively high planned jobs. Transit Combo Scenario 10: Combo - Heary Transit with Housing Emphasis This scenario gives transit the highest emphasis of all the scenarios by giving 40 percent allocation to those jurisdictions with either planned housing or employment growth near transit. It also is the one example that is inclusive of all transit areas, i.e. those with both employment and housing. Those jurisdictions without transit would only be given an allocation based on overall household growth. .2 3- fL{. RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17 /06 Page 5 Because this scenario uses household growth factor that is applicable to all jurisdictions (those with and without transit), housing is the primary determinant of housing need. Summary The scenarios described above demonstrate the degree to which the regional housing needs methodology can be used to support regional housing policy. How housing, employment and transit are considered in the methodology can significandy alter the policy ilnplications or t.~e methodology. . Current regional policy places incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations. Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing and employment as factors (Scenarios 1-3) would be inclusive of "transit" as a policy issue. Using transit as an additional direct ractor (Scenarios 4-10) would give transit a greater degree or policy consideration. Those jurisdictions with transit, under scenarios 4-10 would receive a relatively higher proportion of the allocation than those jurisdictions without transit. . Considering total existing and planned housing (2014) in the methodology gives those jurisdictions with existing relatively high concentrations of housing in the region - the most housing dense urban communities a relatively higher proportion of the housing allocation. . Considering only housing growth gives those jurisdictions that are planning for housing growth (according to both regional and local policy) a relatively greater portion of the housing need. . Considering existing and planned employment (2014) gives those jurisdictions with both high existing concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a greater share of the housing need. This may hav.e the greatest impact in directing housing to job centers and may be most effective in addressing regional jobs-housing imbalance. .'].J-fJ Formulas for Methodology Examples Housing Methodology Committee October 19,2006 1. 50% * (Share of Regional Households in 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) 2. 50% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014) 3. 50% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) 4. 60% * (Share of Regional Households in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Households within Y:, mile of transit in 2014) 5. 60% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y2 mile of transit) 6. 60% * (Share of Regional Households in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Jobs within Y2 mile of transit in 2014) 7. 60% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y:, mile of transit) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y:, mile of transit) 8. 40% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 10% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014 within Y:, mile of transit) 9. 40% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 40% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014 within Y:, mile of transit) . 10. 60%* (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y2 mile of transit) + 20% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014 within Y:, mile of transit) '1'7_(( ._~ ASSOCIA nON OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS o Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area ABAG MEMO To: From: Date: Re: ABAG Executive Board ABAG Staff October 26, 2006, Revised November 17, 2006 Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology Recommendation Staff recommends that the ABAG Executive Board adopt Resolution 13-06 authorizing release of the Housing Methodology Committee's recommendation for a proposed Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology (RHNA) for the 2007-2014 period. Upon release, a not less than 60-day public comment period on the methodology will begin. The comment period will close on January 18, 2007. On that date, staff will bring to the Executive Board recommendations for the final methodology. The final methodology shall include responses to all comments received on the draft RHNA methodology and reasons for any significant changes. Background As the region's Council of Governments, ABAG is responsible for allocating the state-determined regional housing need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The HMC was established in May 2006 to assist staff in developing a recommended methodology for allocating the regional need for adoption by the ABAG Executive Board. The HMC was comprised of local elected officials, city and county staff, and stakeholder representatives. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process The Regional Housing Needs (RHN) process is a state mandate regarding planning for housing in California. The state, regional and local governments each have a role to play. Local governments have autonomy in planning for exactly how and where housing will be developed in their individual communities. The amount of housing cities and counties must plan for, however, is determined through the interplay of state, regional and local housing policy. . The State of California requires that all jurisdictions in the state update the Housing Elements of their General Plans. Housing Elements serve as the local plan for how a jurisdiction will meet its share of the region's housing need. The State of California, via the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), determines each region's need for housing, primarily based on estimated population growth. COGs then allocate that need, for all income groups, amongst jurisdictions. Jurisdictions then plan for that need in their housing elements, which are state-certified by HCD. RHNA Methodology Recommendation The regional housing needs allocation methodology is the tool used to assign each jurisdiction in the Bay Area its share of the region's total housing need. The actual tool is a mathematical equation that consists of weighted factors. There are also a set of "rules" that dictate how units will be allocated by income, within spheres of influence, voluntary transfer of units, and subregions. The HMC's recommendation encompasses these distinct components of the methodology. In their recommendation, the HMC members considered local land use plans and policies, regional growth policies and the state's housing polices, as expressed in the state mandated RHNA objectives. Additional information on how these recommendations were derived is contained in the attached report. ].]-(7 Draft RHNA Allocation Methodology 10/26/06 Page 2 1. Weighted Factors Factors in the allocation methodology are the mathematical variables that allocate shares of the regional housing need (RHN). The factors reflect: I) state mandated RHNA objectives; 2) RHNA statutory requirements; 3) local policy and 4) regional policy. In the methodology, each factor is given priority relative to the others. Priority is established through "weighting" in the formula. For example, if one of the factors, household growth, is determined to be more important than another factor, e.g., transit, the methodology can give household growth a higher weight than transit in the formula. The methodology may also equally weight the factors, therefore ensuring that all the factors are of equal priority. A. Household Growth, 40 Percent Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing according to regionally projected household growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). Household growth should be weighted 40 percent in the allocation. Household growth is used as a factor, as opposed to existing households or total households, to ensure that additional housing is not allocated where there are existing concentrations of homes in the region, but rather where growth is anticipated to occur. In this way household growth as a factor in the methodology ensures that the allocation is consistent with both local plans for growth and with regional growth policies, as those areas that are planning for household growth would receive a higher allocation than those areas not planning for growth. Household growth in ABAG's Projections is most influenced by local land use plans and policies, including planned and protected agricultural lands, open space and parks, city-centered growth policies, urban growth boundaries, and any physical or geological constraints. Regional policies have been incorporated into Projections since 2002, are assumed to go into effect by 20 I 0, and therefore have some effect on regional housing growth estimates in the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Regional policies assume that there will be increased housing growth in existing urbanized areas, near transit stations and along major public transportation corridors. These regional policies are consistent with state housing policies to promote infill development, environmental and agricultural protection and efficient development patterns. B. Existing Employment, 20 Percent; Employment Growth, 20 Percent Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing to accommodate existing employment (2007) and regionally projected employment growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). This would ensure that the need allocation gives jurisdictions with both existing concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a share of the regional housing need. This would direct housing to existing job centers and to areas with anticipated employment growth. These jobs allocation factors may address regional jobs-housing imbalance and facilitate access by proximity, for housing would be directed to communities with jobs and planned jobs, which may reduce vehicle miles traveled due to reduced inter- and intra-regional commuting. C. Household Growth near Transit, 10 Percent; Employment Growth near Transit, 10 Percent Each local jurisdiction with an existing or planned transit station should plan for more housing near such stations. Current regional policy places incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations. Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing growth and employment as factors would be inclusive of "transit" as a policy issue. Using transit as a .~J-- (J Draft RHNA Allocation Methodology 10/26/06 Page 3 direct factor in the methodology would give transit a greater degree of policy weight. Those jurisdictions with transit, existing and planned, would receive a relatively higher proportion of the housing needs allocation than those jurisdictions without existing or planned transit. The inclusion of "planned" transit in the methodology could potentially give a relatively higher allocation to an area where the planned transit does not materialize. However, if housing is built at appropriate densities before transit is put in place, the transit investment may become more financially feasible, for projected ridership would be higher. 2. Regional Income Allocations Each local jurisdiction should plan for income-based housing in the same ratio as the regional average income distribution. A methodology that assigns each jurisdiction's regional housing need based on the regional average income distribution would be an "equal share" approach because it applies the same income distribution to each jurisdiction. Although considered an equitable approach, it does not consider existing concentrations of poverty. 3. Spheres of Influence Each local jurisdiction with the land-use permitting authority in a "Sphere of Influence" should plan for the housing needed to accommodate housing growth, existing employment and employment growth in such "Sphere of Influence" areas. Except for Marin County, where a 75 city and 25 county distribution is recommended, a 100 percent allocation of the housing need to the jurisdiction that has land use control over the area would ensure that the jurisdiction that plans for accommodating the housing units also receives credit for any built units during the RHNA period. 4. Transfer of Units After the initial allocation of the regional housing need, a local jurisdiction may request approval to transfer units with willing partner(s), in a way that maintains total need allocation amongst all transfer parties, maintains income distribution of both retained and transferred units, and includes package of incentives to facilitate production of housing units. This transfer rule would allow the transfer of allocated housing need between willing jurisdictions in conjunction with financial resources, while maintaining the integrity of the state's RHNA objectives by preventing any jurisdiction from abdicating its responsibility to plan for housing across all income categories. Transfers done in this manner may facilitate increased housing production in the region. 5. Subregions The County of San Mateo, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, has formed a subregion, as allowed by state statute. ABAG will assign a share of the regional need to the subregion "in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households" in Projections 2007. The subregion is then responsible for completing its own RHNA process that is parallel to, but separate from, the regional RHNA process. The subregion will create its own methodology, issue draft allocations, handle the revision and appeal processes, and then issue final allocations to the members of the subregion. The rules on how to handle the subregion allocation in the event the subregion fails are contained in the attached RHNA technical document. }.')-(1 Planning I-Iousing in the San Francisco Bay Area .-"",'_"",",''''''''',''';;;''''''''''''.:>>M,>!"~,,,,1v>>'~.::Y'<<_''X'''''''''''''w..>"",,,~,=.,,:",':.;X,:.:.:"'''''b''''''''''''''''''''''::'''''=_'''';,;;;;;.>>,"';;"''''';;;;;;;y;''''''''';~_;:O;.;_'''<_''_'<-'''_;';''':'''''''''''''''''-''''~''''''_''X"":'''''''''':'':':~-~'__'~''''''*''':''+''''';;''';'<''_'''':'<<<':,'''ffi'^'''''~''_'v'~"'''''''''''''~''v''_''''>,_v,,~,," #'~""~"_ Draft Regional I-lousing Needs Allocation l\lethodology, 4th Revision Technical Documentation November 2007 o A8AG .~) -10 Introduction The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process is a state mandate on planning for housing in California. The state, regional and local governments each have a role to play. Local governments have autonomy in planning for exactly how and where housing will be developed in their individual communities. The amount of housing cities and counties must plan for, however, is determined through the interplay of state, regional and local housing policy. Periodically, the State of California requires that all jurisdictions in the state update the Housing Element of their General Plans. Within these Housing Elements, the state mandates that local governments plan for their share of the region's housing need, for people of all income categories. In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, ABAG, as the region's Council of Governments, and the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), determines the region's need for housing. This determination of need is primarily based on estimated population growth. ABAG then allocates that need, for all income groups, amongst jurisdictions. The jurisdictions then plan for that need in their local housing elements, which are eventually state-certified by HCD. This technical document details the process for developing the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, describes the Housing Methodology Committee's allocation methodology recommendations and rationale for each component, and offers information on ABAG's Projections. I. RHNA Schedule II. RHNA State Goals & Regional Policy III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors IV. The Housing Methodology Committee V. Draft Allocation Methodology VI. Regional Projections 2 J -- 1. , San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision I. RHNA Schedule On September 29, 2006, ABAG received approval of a two-year extension for completing the RHNA process from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The following milestones are consistent with that two-year extension: . November 16,2006: Adoption of draft allocation methodology by ABAG Executive Board; start of a 60-day public comment period . January 18,2007: ABAG Executive Board adopts final methodology . March 1,2007: Determination of regional housing need . June 30, 2007: Release of draft allocations . June 30, 2008: Release of final allocations . June 30, 2009: Housing element revisions due to HCD II. RHNA State Goals & Regional Policy There are four statutory objectives of RHNA. As shown below, these objectives include increasing housing supply, affordability, and housing types; encouraging efficient development and infill; promoting jobs-housing balance; and reducing concentrations of poverty . These objectives are consistent with the Bay Area's regional policies regarding growth. Following the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project that was completed in 2002, ABAG's Executive Board resolved to use these regional policies as the basis for Projections. Since that decision, Projections assumes that, over time, local land use policies will move the region closer toward regional policies. The shift to policy-based Projections has important implications for growth and development in the region. Projections now forecasts more growth in existing urbanized areas and near transit, and less in agricultural areas. This is consistent with the RHNA objectives that call for an increase in the supply of housing, jobs-housing balance, more infill development, protection of the environment, and efficient development patterns. Since the Projections forecast is the basis for the RHNA allocations, these same regional policies will influence how housing units are distributed within the region. RHNA Objectives Regional Policies (1) Increase the housing supply and the mix of . Support existing communities housing types, tenure, and affordability in all . Create compact, healthy communities with a cities and counties within the region in an diversity of housing, jobs, activities, and equitable manner, which shall result in each services to meet the daily needs of residents jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low and very low income households. . Increase housing affordability, supply and (2) Promote infill development and socioeconomic choices equity, the protection of environmental and . Increase transportation efficiency and choices agricultural resources, and the encouragement . Protect and steward natural habitat, open space, of efficient development patterns. and agricultural land (3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship . Improve social and economic equity November 2006, Page 2 "',., )'1 ..L.J .- ,.:-..4.... San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision between jobs and housing. (4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent decennial United States census. . Promote economic and fiscal health Conserve resources, promote sustainability, and improve environmental quality Protect public health and safety . . III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors 1. Statutory Factors The RHNA statutes delineate specific factors that the HMC had to consider for inclusion in the allocation methodology, including: . Water and sewer capacity . Land suitable for urban development or conversion to residential use . Protected open space - lands protected by state and federal government . County policies to protect prime agricultural land . Distribution of household growth . Market demand for housing . City-centered growth policies . Loss of affordable units contained in assisted housing . High housing cost burdens . Housing needs of farm workers . Impact of universities and colleges on housing needs in a community With the advice of the HMC, ABAG staff considered how to incorporate the statutory factors into the allocation methodology, how to allocate units by income, and how to address issues such as spheres of influence, the relationship to subregions, and voluntary transfers of housing units between jurisdictions. Their goal has been to develop an allocation methodology that is consistent with the RHNA objectives and statutory requirements while also reflecting local conditions and the regional goals for growth. See Section IV. 1. Weighted Factors for a detailed description of how the factors are included in the recommended methodology. 2. Survey of Factors On September 15, 2006, ABAG sent a memorandum and survey form to each planning director of every local jurisdiction in the region. The memorandum explained the use of factors in the RHNA allocation methodology, described the status of the HMC's deliberations, set forth the criteria for using a factor in the methodology, and solicited local input on the statutory factors and suggestions for additional factors. ABAG received responses from 42 local jurisdictions (A detailed summary of survey responses is available at http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds or by contacting ABAG staff.) November 2006, Page 3 2J-1] San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The Governor signed AB 2572 into law on September 29, 2006. The legislation adds a statutory factor: housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the California State University or the University of California. The HMC concluded that student populations need not be added as an explicit factor in the allocation methodology. The reason is that the existence of universities and resulting student populations are included in ABAG's household population estimates. Therefore, ABAG will circulate its explanation of the effects of this factor and a survey form for this factor during the review period of the draft methodology. Responses will be due in time for ABAG staff to evaluate them and to make any necessary changes to the methodology. The 42 survey responses varied widely. Many commented on the HMC deliberations, supporting or opposing specific measures under consideration, and offering alternative methodological approaches. Others commented on the existing and near-term market conditions for housing in their jurisdictions. The comments that focused on how specific factors should be explicitly considered in the methodology can be summarized as follows: s s R ummary urvey espouses 1. Jobs/Housing Relationship (a) use employed residents to measure jobs/housing balance 3 (b) take into account home based businesses/employment 1 (c) use commute shed to assess jobs/housing balance 2 2. Constraints due to Sewer/Water/Land Capacity (a) respondents identified specific sewer/water constraints 2 3. Public Transit/Transportation Infrastructure (a) respondents confirmed they were planning for TOO 5 4. Market Demand for Housing 0 5. City-Centered Development (a) described local city-centered policies 6 (b) described speCific policies, agreements, etc., on development in spheres .of influence 7 (SOl) (c) stated there were no written agreements on SOls 1 6. Loss of Assisted Housing Units (a) identified at risk units at varying degrees of specificity 10 (b) do not use as a factor 1 7. High Housing Cost Burden (a) use CHAS data 1 8. Housing Needs of Farmworkers (a) identified local efforts for farmworker housing 4 9. Others (a) use congestion levels 1 (b) reward past performance in meeting RHNA goals 1 (c) RHNA allocation should at least equal planned growth 1 November 2006, Page 4 ;.. J- :; l.. ( San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Several of the possible allocation factors proposed in the surveys were considered by the HMC, but not explicitly incorporated in the draft methodology. These factors include those related to: . Jobs-housing balance: I (a) - (c) Sewer/water constraints: 2 City-centered development: 5(a) - (c) Loss of assisted housing units: 6 High housing cost burdens: 7 Housing needs of farm workers: 8 Traffic congestion: 9(a) Rewards for past RHNA performance: 9(b) . . . . . . . The HMC has included the following suggested RHNA factors as explicit components of the draft methodology but may not have used them in precisely the way suggested by the respondents: · Public transit/transportation infrastructure: 3 The HMC did not consider 9(c). In each instance where a respondent described specific localized data in support of its response to a survey question, e.g., 2, 6(a) and 8(a), the respondent did not identifY sources for comparable data for other jurisdictions. Therefore, staff could not conclude that the proffered factor met the statutory requirement for comparability and availability. Consequently, the proposed factor was not used. IV. Housing Methodology Committee As the region's Council of Governments, ABAG is responsible for allocating the state- determined regional housing need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The HMC was established in May 2006 to assist staff in developing a recommended methodology for allocating the regional need for adoption by the ABAG Executive Board. The HMC was comprised of local elected officials, city and county staff, and stakeholder representatives from each county in the region. It includes members from each county so that it adequately represents the entire region. The members of the Housing Methodology Committee were: Barbara Kondylis, Supervisor, District I (Solano), ABAG Executive Board Scott Haggerty, Supervisor, District I (Alameda), ABAG Executive Board Jerffery Levine, Housing Department, City of Oakland, Alameda Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor, City of Pleasant on, Alameda Dan Marks, Director of Planning & Development, City of Berkeley, Alameda Julie Pierce, Council Member, City of Clayton, Contra Costa Phillip Woods, Principal Planner, City of Concord, Contra Costa Gwen Regalia, Council Member, City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, City of San Rafael, Marin Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Dir., City of Sausalito, Marin November 2006, Page 5 .2. J- 2-> San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Stacy Lauman, Assistant Planner, County of Marin, Marin Jean Hassel', Senior Planner, City of Napa, Napa Diane Dillon, Supervisor, County of Napa, Napa Howard Siegel, Community Partnership Mgr., County of Napa, Napa Amit Ghosh, Assistant Planning Director, San Francisco, San Francisco Doug Shoemaker, Mayor's Office of Housing, City of San Francisco, San Francisco Amy Tharp, Director of Planning, City of San Francisco, San Francisco Duane Bay, Housing Director, San Mateo County, San Mateo Andrea Ouse, City Planner, Town of Co 1m a, San Mateo Mark Duino, Planner, San Mateo County, San Mateo Laurel Prevetti Deputy Dir., Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, City of San Jose, Santa Clara Regina Brisco, Housing Planner, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Steve Piasecki, Planning Director, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Matt Walsh, Principal Planner, Solano County, Solano Chuck Dimmick, Councilmember (Vacaville) Solano City/County Coord. Council, Solano Eve Somjen, Assistant Director, City of Fairfield, Solano Mike Moore, Community Development Dir., City of Pet alum a, Sonoma Jake MacKenzie, Council Member, City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma Jennifer Barrett, Deputy Director - Planning, County of Sonoma, Sonoma Geeta Rao, Policy Director, Nonprofit Housing of Northern California, Stakeholder Kate O'Hara, Regional Issues Organizer, Greenbelt Alliance, Stakeholder Margaret Gordon, Community Liaison, West Oakland Indicators Project, Stakeholder Andrew Michael, Vice President, Bay Area Council, Stakeholder Paul B. Campos, VP, Govt. Affairs & Gen. Counsel, Home Builders Association, Stakeholder v. The Regional Needs Allocation Methodology The RHNA methodology assigns each jurisdiction in the Bay Area its share of the region's total housing need. The methodology includes an allocation tool that is a mathematical equation that consists of weighted factors. There are also "rules" regarding allocation of units by income, how to handle units in spheres of influence, voluntary transfers of units, and subregions. The draft methodology encompasses these distinct components of the methodology. In their recommendation, the HMC members considered local land use plans and policies, regional growth policies and the state's housing polices, as expressed in the state mandated RHNA objectives. 1. Weighted Factors Factors in the allocation methodology are the mathematical variables that partly determine how the regional housing need (RHN) is allocated to local jurisdictions. The factors reflect: I) state mandated RHNA objectives; 2) RHNA statutory requirements; 3) local policy and 4) regional policy. In the methodology, each factor is given priority relative to the others. Priority is established through "weighting" in the formula. For example, if one of the factors, e.g., household growth, is determined to be more important than another factor, e.g., transit, the methodology can give household growth a higher weight than transit in the formula. The methodology may also equally weight the factors, therefore ensuring that all the factors are of equal priority. November 2006, Page 6 '11- ~ ~ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The factors and weights (expressed in parenthesis) recommend by the HMC are: . Household growth (40%) Existing employment (20%) Employment growth (20%) Household growth near existing and planned transit (10%) Employment growth near existing and planned transit (10%) . . . . Household growth, existing employment, and employment growth are estimated in ABAG's regional household and employment forecasts, Projections. A. Household Growth, 40 percent Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing according to regionally projected household growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). Household growth should be weighted 40 percent in the allocation. The use of housing as a RHNA factor represents consistency with local, regional, and state policies regarding where housing growth will and should occur in the region. Where and how much housing growth will occur in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, household growth is based on: I) local land use policies and plans; 2) demographic and economic trends, such as migration, birth and death rates, housing prices, and travel costs; and 3) regional growth policies. Household growth in ABAG's Projections is most influenced by local land use plans and policies, including planned and protected agricultural lands, open space and parks, city- centered growth policies, urban growth boundaries, and any physical or geological constraints. Regional policies incorporated into Projections since 2002, are assumed to go into effect by 2010, and therefore have some effect on regional housing growth estimates in the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Regional policies assume that there will be increased housing growth in existing urbanized areas, near transit stations and along major public transportation corridors. These regional policies are consistent with state housing policies to promote infill development, environmental and agricultural protection and efficient development patterns. The impacts of regional policy assumptions in Projections are: a) potential environmental and agricultural resource protection by directing growth away from existing open and agricultural lands; b) the encouragement of efficient development patterns through increased infill development and higher densities in existing communities; and c) the potential for increased transportation choices, e.g., walking and public transit, through more housing development near transit and jobs. The household estimates in Projections account for all people living in housing units, including students. Thus, the portion of the student population that occupies part of a local jurisdiction's housing stock is counted as such and as a source of future household formation. The portion of the student population that occupies "group quarters," such as college dormitories, are not included in household population counts. This is consistent with state policy regarding RHNA that excludes "group quarters" from being counted as housing units. November 2006, Page 7 :.27--1/ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Household growth is used as a factor, as opposed to existing units or total units, to ensure that additional housing is not planned where there are existing concentrations of homes in the region, but rather where growth is anticipated to occur. In this way household growth as a factor in the methodology ensures that the allocation is consistent with both local plans for growth and with regional growth policies, as those areas that are planning for household growth would receive a higher allocation than those areas not planning for growth. B. Employment, 40 percent (Existing Employment, 20 percent; Growth, 20 percent) Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing to accommodate existing employment (2007) and regionally projected employment growth (2007-2014) within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period. This would ensure that the need allocation gives jurisdictions with both existing concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a share of the regional housing need. This would direct housing to existing job centers and to areas with anticipated employment growth. These jobs allocation factors may be effective in addressing regional jobs-housing imbalance. These factors would also facilitate access by proximity, for housing would be directed to communities with jobs and planned jobs, which may reduce vehicle miles traveled due to reduced inter- and intra-regional commuting. As a factor,. employment has the ability to assign regional housing needs to jurisdictions in a way that provides a better balance between housing and employment. In the Bay Area, as in many metropolitan areas, employment centers have historically not produced enough housing to match job growth. Limited housing production near existing jobs and in areas with continued employment growth has escalated Bay Area housing costs and has triggered increased housing production in outlying Bay Area communities and in surrounding counties, including San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito. This has led to longer commutes on increasingly congested freeways, inefficient use of public transportation infrastructure and land capacity, and negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment and overall quality of life in the Bay Area. In the allocation methodology, employment can be used in varying degrees of aggressiveness to address regional jobs-housing imbalance. The HMC considered three options: I) employment growth, 2) existing jobs (2007) and 3) total jobs in the RHNA period (existing jobs in 2007 and growth from 2007 to 2014). Employment growth as a factor would assure that jurisdictions that are planning for employment growth also plan for commensurate housing. However, this would be ineffective in addressing historic regional jobs-housing imbalances, and therefore it is the least aggressive option. Existing jobs as an allocation factor would give relatively higher allocations to existing job centers and would therefore be the most aggressive toward historic jobs-housing imbalances; however it does not take into account future job growth. Total jobs as a factor would give relatively higher allocations to both jurisdictions that are currently job centers and those with planned job growth. Therefore, this is a moderately aggressive approach relative to the other two options. The HMC recommends a balance between the least and most aggressive options by separately weighting employment growth and existing employment. This would attempt to address historic jobs-housing imbalances and would seek to avert future imbalances. While an aggressive approach, it is relatively less aggressive than the use of total jobs as a factor. A total jobs factor would primarily direct growth to existing job centers, which would receive November 2006, Page 8 '! 3,- 1 ~. :"" .--,tl San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision the entire 40 percent weight for employment, as opposed to the 20 percent recommended weight. Existing Employment, 20 Percent The location and amount of existing jobs in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, existing employment is based on: I) existing regional and local job data, and 2) regional and local economic trends, attractiveness of commercial/industrial locations, including labor force costs, housing prices, travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar businesses. The inclusion of existing employment as a RHNA factor ensures that regional housing need is allocated in a manner consistent with regional policies and state RHNA objectives. Planning for more housing in communities with existing jobs can address historic jobs- housing imbalances. More housing in existing job centers may also encourage infill and efficient development patterns through higher densities in existing communities. There is also the potential for reduced inter- and intra-regional vehicle miles traveled and shorter commutes, as more housing would be planned in proximity to existing jobs. More housing near jobs may also encourage alternative modes of travel, including walking and public transportation, as most existing jobs centers in the region are also transit rich. Planning for housing near existing jobs also places less development pressure on outlying areas, especially in rural areas with agricultural lands and protected open space. Employment Growth, 20 Percent The location and amount of employment growth in the region is projected by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, employment growth is based on: I) local land use policies and plans; 2) economic trends, such as national and regional industrial assumptions, attractiveness of commercial/industrial locations, including labor force costs, housing prices, travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar businesses; and 3) regional policy. Inclusion of local land use policies and plans and economic trends in ABAG's employment growth forecast ensures that the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent with local policies, plans, and local capacity for job growth. Employment growth in Projections considers all the land protection and growth policies, physical constraints, and the employment-related factors identified by the state and the HMC for inclusion in the allocation methodology, including eX,isting jobs centers, home-based businesses, employed residents, housing prices, household income and employment at private universities, and campuses of the California State University and the University of California. The inclusion of employment growth as a RHNA factor ensures that the regional housing need is allocated to areas where job growth is forecasted to occur during the RHNA period. These areas would have the responsibility of providing housing for the additional jobs that are added to the region. These areas are typically served by the region's transit infrastructure. Matching housing to jobs would still have the potential for reducing vehicle miles traveled and encouraging alternative modes of travel. This employment factor would place housing in existing communities, but would place less of the housing in the most urbanized cities in the regIOn. As with household growth, inclusion of regional policies in ABAG's Projections ensures that the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent with both state and regional polices regarding growth, infill development, and efficient use of land. This is because November 2006, Page 9 "1'7_2,1 "':"'J - I San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision regional policies in Projections assume that relatively more job growth will occur in existing urbanized communities and near transit, while less growth is projected in outlying communities with no transit infrastructure, including those with agricultural areas and open space. In addition, regional assumptions would promote greater use of public transportation through increased job development near transit. C. Household Growth near Transit, 10 Percent; Employment Growth near Transit, 10 Percent Each local jurisdiction with an existing or planned transit station should plan for more housing near such stations. As a factor, "household growth near transit" allocates 10 percent of the regional housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted household growth near existing or planned transit stations. As a factor, "employment growth near transit" allocates 10 percent of the regional housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted employment growth near existing or planned transit stations. Transit is defined as areas with fixed-alignment public transit, both existing and planned. The transit services included are: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain, San Francisco MUNI light rail, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) light rail, and ferries. Planned transit stations include all fixed transit stations in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan, Track One. Growth near transit is defined as household or employment growth within one-half mile of an existing or planned transit station, but eliminating any overlap between stations located within one mile of each other. Incorporating a transit factor directly into the methodology would, in effect, give extra weight to this state and regional objective. This is because a transit-based policy is already incorporated into ABAG's policy-based Projections. Current regional policy places incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations. Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing growth and employment as factors would indirectly include "transit" as a policy issue in the allocation methodology. Using transit as a direct factor in the methodology would give transit a greater degree of policy weight. Those jurisdictions with transit stations, existing and planned, would receive a relatively higher proportion of the housing needs allocation than those jurisdictions without existing or planned transit stations. Despite some objections, the HMC recommends that transit be used as a direct factor. This was due, in part, to the expectation that impacts of the policy assumptions in Projections will not begin to take effect until 2010. Directing growth to areas with public transit in the allocation methodology would ensure that this regional policy influences development patterns during the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Use of these factors would address the state RHNA objectives and regional goals of encouraging the use of public transit and the efficient use of transportation infrastructure. Directing housing need to areas near transit would also promote infill development, as existing transit statio.ns are primarily in existing urbanized areas in the region. The effect of the addition of planned transit stations in the allocation methodology is that a relatively higher share of the regional allocation is given to jurisdictions that will receive November 2006, Page 10 ! J-10 v...... San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision investments for public transportation. Inclusion of planned stations gives communities that will have new transit stations an opportunity to ensure that they plan sufficient housing to support the extension of transit services. In addition, given the long time-frame for implementation of service extensions, it makes sense to begin the land use planning around proposed stations before the transit stations are put in place. This is in support of both state and regional policies to ensure efficient use of transportation infrastructure and to encourage increased transit use. There is a multitude of data supporting the theory that higher population densities have a net positive impact on transit ridership. The HMC was divided in its support for including a transit, and particularly planned transit, as part of the allocation methodology. Many of the committee members believed that the regional growth policies embedded in Projections sufficiently addressed both state and regional policies promoting transit use and efficient use of transportation infrastructure. It was felt by some members that having transit as a direct factor would give too much weight to transit and would also unfairly burden communities with both existing and planned transit. Planned transit was also contentious because some of the planned transit stations included in MTC's Regional Transportation Plan may not be built, including many of the e-BART stations planned for eastern Contra Costa County. However, others on the HMC felt that if housing is built at appropriate densities before transit is put in place, the transit investment may become more financially feasible, for projected ridership would be higher. D. The Allocation Formula The household growth, employment and transit factors are weighted together to create an allocation formula. Each factor describes a jurisdiction's "share" of a regional total. For example, if the region expects to grow by 100 households, and one city in the region is to grow by 10 households in the same period, then that city's "share" of the region's growth is 10 percent. A jurisdiction's share of the Regional Housing need is assigned according to its percentage share of regional: (Household Growth x .40) + (Employment Growth x .20) + (Existing Employment x .20) + (Household Growth near Transit x .10) + (Employment Growth near Transit x .10) Growth is during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). The transit factors refer to growth that occurs within Y2 mile of planned or existing fixed transit stations in the jurisdiction. Planned stations are those in the RTP 2005 c Track 1. 2. Regional Allocations of Housing Units based on Affordability There are two primary goals of the RHNA process: 1) increase the supply of housing and 2) ensure that local governments consider the housing needs of persons at all income levels. The HMC recommends that each local jurisdiction should plan for income-based housing in the same ratio as the regional average income distribution (as described by the 2000 Census). A methodology that allocates each jurisdiction's regional housing need based on the regional average income distribution would be an "equal share" approach because it applies the same income distribution to each jurisdiction. Although considered an equitable approach, it does not consider existing concentrations of poverty. November 2006, Page 11 ~2.].-]1 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The following income allocation of regional housing needs to jurisdictions is recommended: . Very Low, 23 Percent Households with income up to 50 percent of the county's area median income (AMI) · Low, 16 Percent Households with income between 50 and 80 percent of the county's AMI · Moderate, 19 Percent Households with income between 80 and 120 percent of the county's AMI · Above-Moderate, 42 Percent Households with income above 120 percent of the county's AMI This recommendation is based on the recognition that the need for affordable housing is a problem shared by the region as a whole, and is not localized to specific jurisdictions. By assigning every community an equal share of the regional need for affordable units, the methodology promotes the idea that every jurisdiction should do its "fair share" to provide housing. During the discussion of the income-based allocation, some HMC members expressed concern that a potential drawback of the proposed "equal share" strategy is that it might allocate affordable housing to jurisdictions that are less likely to build the units. If this were the case, the income allocation would therefore hinder the region's ability to provide enough housing affordable to meet the region's housing needs. However, there was general agreement that the benefits of this approach outweighed the potential negative impact. In addition, the HMC members felt that this issue could be worked out through the provisions in the methodology that allow for voluntary transfer agreements between individual jurisdictions. The HMC discussed the possibility of using the proportion of households with a high housing cost burden in a jurisdiction to adjust the income allocation for each jurisdiction. As a result, areas with higher numbers of households with a cost burden would receive a larger share of affordable units. This factor is based on the premise that directing more affordable housing units to these jurisdictions would provide more housing options to residents in those areas. However, the HMC was opposed to adjusting allocations based on high housing cost burdens because there was concern that, as noted above, including a factor based on existing conditions in a jurisdiction would ultimately lead to the over-concentration of low-income households in an area. In addition, committee members were committed to the idea that the need for affordable housing is a regional problem that each local government should have an equal share in addressing. 3. Spheres of Influence Every city in the Bay Area has a "sphere of influence (501)". A city's SOl can be either contiguous with or beyond the city's boundaries. It is the areas that the city is responsible for planning, as it is the probable future boundary of the city, including areas that may eventually be annexed by the city. The SOl is designated by the county Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO influences how government responsibilities are divided among jurisdictions and service districts within a county. If there is planned household or employment growth within the unincorporated portion of an SOl during the RHNA period, the allocation methodology must include a rule for allocating housing needs to the affected city or county. November 2006, Page 12 1-'3- ]:J.. San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Therefore, the HMC recommends that each local jurisdiction with the land-use permitting authority in a SOl should plan for the housing needed to accommodate housing growth, existing employment and employment growth in such areas. A 100 percent allocation of the housing need to the jurisdiction that has land use control over the area would ensure that the jurisdiction that plans for accommodating the housing units also receives credit for any built units during the RHNA period. There are differences in whether a city or county has jurisdiction over land use and development within unincorporated SOls. In response to these variations, the HMC recommends the following SOl rules: I. In Napa, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the cities. 2. In Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the county. I 3. In Marin County, 75 percent of the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the city; the remaining 25 percent will be assigned to the county. The HMC recognizes that, although these guidelines reflect the general approaches to SOls in each county, adjustments may be needed to better reflect local conditions. Requests for SOl allocation adjustments may arise during the RHNA comment or revision period. Therefore, the HMC recommends that the methodology include the following criteria for handling such requests: I. Adjustments to SOl allocations shall be consistent with any pre-existing written agreement between the city and county that allocates such units, or 2. In the absence of a written agreement, the requested adjustment would allocate the units to the jurisdiction that has permitting authority over future development in the SOL 4. Transfer of Units After the initial allocation, each local jurisdiction may request that it be allowed to transfer units with willing partner(s), in a way that maintains total need allocation amongst all transfer parties, maintains income distribution of both retained and transferred units, and includes a package of incentives to facilitate production of housing units. This transfer rule would allow the transfer of allocated housing need between willing jurisdictions in conjunction with financial and non-financial resources, while maintaining the integrity of the state's RHNA objectives by preventing any jurisdiction from abdicating its responsibility to plan for housing across all income categories. Transfers done in this manner may facilitate increased housing production in the region. The HMC recommends the following criteria for responding to requests for revisions that transfer units among local jurisdictions: I The County of San Mateo (formed a RHNA subregion) and the City and County of San Francisco (irrelevant) have been omitted. November 2006, Page 13 ? 'fJ_ 7-,. ...... j -)../ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision 1. Transfer requests must have at least two willing partners and the total number of units within the group requesting the transfer cannot be reduced. 2. Transfers must include units at all income levels in the same proportion as initially allocated. 3. All members of the transfer group must retain some allocation of very low and low income units. 4. The proposed transfer must include a specifically defined package of incentives and/or resources that will enable the jurisdiction(s) receiving an increased allocation to provide more housing choices than would otherwise occur absent the transfer and the accompanying incentives or resources. 5. If the transfer results in a greater concentration of very low or low income units in the receiving jurisdiction, the effect must be offset by findings by the members of the transfer group that address the RHNA objectives. For example, the findings might include (a) there is such an urgent need for more housing choices in those income categories that the opportunity to effect more housing choices in these categories offsets the impacts of over-concentration, or (b) the package of incentives and/or resources are for mixed income projects, or (c) the package of incentives and/or resources are for "transitional" housing for very low or low income households being relocated for rehabilitation of existing very low or low income units, or (d) the package of incentives and/or resources are for additional units that avoid displacement or "gentrification" of existing communities. 6. For the transfer of very low and low income units, there are restrictions that ensure the long-term affordability of the transferred units. 7. Transfers must comply with all other statutory constraints and be consistent with the RHNA objectives. In addition to guaranteeing that transfers meet the RHNA statutory objectives, these criteria promote regional policies to increase housing supply and provide more housing choices. The criteria state that the transfer must include the resources necessary to improve housing choices and, specifically, in a way that would not otherwise be possible without the transfer. The long-term affordability restrictions on very low and low income transferred units ensure that these units will contribute to a fundamental increase in affordable housing choices. The criteria also emphasize development of affordable units and are therefore consistent with the state RHNA objective that every jurisdiction does its "fair share" to provide affordable housing. The requirement that jurisdictions must retain some very low and low income units and the stipulation that transfers must maintain the same income distribution as is initially allocated ensure that a jurisdiction cannot abdicate its responsibility to provide affordable units. The criteria also ensure that the benefits created by the transfer outweigh any possible negative effects of an over-concentration of lower income households. 5. Subregions The County of San Mateo, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, has formed a subregion, as allowed by state statute. The subregion has designated the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. November 2006, Page 14 J..,~. 1 J .., .'- San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision As required by statute, ABAG will assign a share of the regional need to the San Mateo subregion "in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households" in Projections 2007. The subregion is responsible for completing its own RHNA process that is parallel to, but separate from, the regional RHNA process. The subregion will create its own methodology, issue draft allocations, handle the revision and appeal processes, and then issue final allocations to members of the subregion. Although the subregion is working independently of the regional RHNA process, ABAG is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all of the region's housing need is allocated. Thus, if the subregion fails at any point in its attempt to develop a final RHNA allocation for the subregion, ABAG must complete the allocation process for the members of the subregion. In the event that the San Mateo subregion fails to complete the RHNA process, the HMC recommends the methodology include the following guidelines for handling the allocation of units to jurisdictions within the subregion: . 1. I f the members of the subregion adopts a "default allocation," ABAG will allocate using the default allocation. A "default allocation" is the allocation which a member of the San Mateo RHNA subregion receives if it "opts out" of the subregion. 2. If the subregion fails before ABAG has made any allocation, ABAG combines the subregional share with the rest of the regional need and allocates the total regional need to the entire region using ABAG's RHNA methodology. 3. If the subregion fails after ABAG has made its initial allocation, ABAG separately allocates the subregional share among only the members of the subregion. ABAG uses its RHNA methodology to do so. This approach is recommended by the HMC because it mInimIzes the extent of any reallocations that could occur as a result of subregional failure and preserves the integrity of the respective efforts of ABAG and C/CAG. Keeping San Mateo separated once ABAG has completed its initial allocation also provides the most certainty to all jurisdictions about what their allocation will be. VI. Regional Projections Every two years, ABAG produces a long-run regional forecast called Projections. The Projections forecast provides specific information for population, households, employment and other related variables. In Projections 2007, values are reported for year 2000, and then for each five year increment to 2035. Several related models are used to perform the forecast. The economic model balances demand for the production of goods and services with the supply of productive capacity. The demographic model uses birth rates, death rates and migration data to forecast future population using a cohort-survival model. A great deal of data is required by the models, including information on economic relationships and trends, population-related information like births, deaths and migration, as well as land use and land use policy data. Since Projections 2003, ABAG has assumed the "Network of Neighborhoods" land use pattern, as developed through the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project. This pattern expects higher levels of housing production. It also assumes that an increasing proportion of regional growth occurs near transit and in existing urban areas. In the Projections 2007 November 2006, Page 15 ~J..]- '])' San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision forecast, additional housing production and a shift in the pattern of development primarily occurs in the later part of the forecast. Earlier in the forecast, population growth is generally consistent with the California Department of Finance (DO F) forecast. The distribution of growth is generally consistent with local general plans. ABAG has continually collected information on local land use as part of its modeling efforts. The forecast is produced for nearly 1400 census tracts in the region and shows the existing land use and the capacity of each tract to support additional population or economic activities. Because the forecast is based on local land use information, forecasted growth occurs in locations that are consistent with local plans. However, even with 1400 census tracts, only so much detailed information can be included. We may know that moderate growth can occur in an area without specifically understanding that a portion of that area is a nature preserve. We may know that growth should not occur in an area, but it may not be clear whether it is due to a physical limitation, or a general plan policy. November 2006, Page 16 /)3-]~ ..- Revised Regional Housing Needs Allocation: Example Calculation Committee Previous Proposal RHNA 11/171061:55 PM Regional Need 230,743 I 230,743 l ALAMEDA 2,073 2,162 ALBANY 262 277 BERKELEY 2,712 1,269 DUBLIN 3,437 5,436 EMERYVILLE 1,536 777 FREMONT 4,824 6,708 HAYWARD 3,345 2,835 LIVERMORE 3,420 5,107 NEWARK 897 1,250 OAKLAND 17 ,088 7,733 PIEDMONT 37 49 PLEASANTON 3,685 5,059 SAN LEANDRO 1,903 870 UNION CITY 2,009 1,951 UNINCORPORATED 2,238 5,310 ALAMEDA COUNTY 49,467 46,793 ANTIOCH 2,300 4,459 BRENTWOOD 2,805 4,073 CLAYTON 148 446 CONCORD 3,118 2,319 DANVILLE 553 1,110 EL CERRITO 522 185 HERCULES 431 792 LAFAYETTE 358 194 MARTINEZ 1,045 1,341 MORAGA 222 214 OAKLEY 748 1,208 ORINDA 220 221 PINOLE 306. 288 PITTSBURG 2,021 2,513 PLEASANT HILL 592 714 RICHMOND 2,758 2,603 SAN PABLO 282 494 SAN RAMON 3,289 4,447 WALNUT CREEK 2,206 1,653 UNINCORPORATED 3,692 5,436 CONTRA COSTA CNTY 27,616 34,710 BELVEDERE' 25 10 CORTE MADERA' 228 179 FAIRFAX' 65 64 LARKSPUR' 566 303 MILL VALLEY' 262 225 NOVATO' 1,373 2,582 ROSS' 25 21 SAN ANSELMO' 100 149 SAN RAFAEL. 1,4 78 2,090 SAUSALlTO. 177 207 TIBURON" 119 164 UNINCORPORATED' 941 521 MARIN COUNTY 5,360 6,515 ,') '7) :~/- J Revised Regional Housing Needs Allocation: Example Calculation Committee Previous Proposal RHNA 11/17/061:55 PM Regional Need 230,743 I 230,743 I AMERICAN CANYON 692 1,323 CALlSTOGA 89 173 NAPA 1,915 3,369 ST HELENA 116 142 YOUNTVILLE 84 87 UNINCORPORATED 625 1,969 NAPA COUNTY 3,521 7,063 SAN FRANCISCO 40,468 20,372 SAN MATEO COUNTY 18,326 16,305 CAMPBELL 739 777 CUPERTINO 1,111 2,720 GILROY 1,584 3,746 LOS ALTOS 301 261 LOS ALTOS HILLS 77 83 LOS GATOS 533 402 MILPITAS 2,619 4,348 MONTE SERENO 40 76 MORGAN HILL 1,327 2,484 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2,752 3,423 PALO ALTO 3,713 1,397 SAN JOSE 33,231 26,114 SANTA CLARA 5,969 6,339 SARATOGA 277 539 SUNNYVALE 4,581 3,836 UNINCORPORATED 160 1,446 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 59,015 57,991 BENICIA 505 413 DIXON 692 1 ,464 FAIRFIELD 3,662 3,812 RIO VISTA 1,158 1,391 SUISUN CITY 596 1,004 VACAVILLE 2,755 4,636 VALLEJO 3,091 3,242 UNINCORPORATED 94 2,719 SOLANO COUNTY 12,553 18,681 CLOVERDALE 505 423 COTATI 377 567 HEALDSBURG 396 573 PETALUMA 2,057 1,144 ROHNERT PARK 1,895 2,124 SANTA ROSA 6,668 7,654 SEBASTOPOL 168 274 SONOMA 335 684 WINDSOR 698 2,071 UNINCORPORATED 1,319 6,799 SONOMA COUNTY 14,418 22,313 REGION 230,743 230,743 /")'7 76 "'- ) -- .J Revised Regional Housing Needs Allocation: Example Calculation Committee Proposal Previous RHNA 11/17/06 1 :55 PM Regional Need 230,743 230,743 . Allocations for Marin cities and the county have not be modified to reflect the 75%/25% split of SOls. Recalculations will be available the week of 11/20. ~ J- J I