CC 08-21-2018 Study Session Item No. 2 RHNA Subregion Presentation..
What is RHNA?
tC J/~1/;g
t;z
• Pre-cursor to updating Housing
Elements
• Process of setting up targets for
housing growth
1
How is RHNA distributed?
• Provides assessment to
Council of Governments
Year-2022
COG • Provides allocation (RHNA)
to local agencies
RHNA subregions
• Allowed by state law
• HE Updates
and Rezoning
• Formed by jurisdictions
dissatisfied with regional process
• Distribute units in more locally
relevant regional manner
,
2
Subregion Process
• Prov ides assessment to
COG
COG • Provides allocation (RHNA) to
RHNA subregion
----• Acts as clearinghouse
for RHNA transfers and
venue for public input
City/County
RHNA Subregion
• Allocation methodology in
compliance with state law
• Transfers and
votes on
subregional
RHNA
• Public process for allocation
• Each jurisdiction to have some
minimum affordable allocation
• Submit subregional allocation to
COG for approval
3
Other RHNA subregions?
---~
~ ABAG71v\TC -region-in2-o-r5:zo23 cycle:
• San Mateo
• Napa
• Solano
• Allocations based on local factors
Examples?
• San Mateo (21 jurisdictions):
• No change -seven;
• Reduction -nine;
• Increases -five;
In most cases, increases where General Plan
contemplated higher number of units already.
4
Why now?
• Cities Association of Santa Clara
County Board priority
• Formed subcommittee
• Report presented June 2018
• Input from individual council's
before considering formation
Housing Commission Update
• Better to have a voice in subregional
process than not
• Collaborate with developers on
amount of affordable housing built
• Being on subregion may be able to
help Cupertino justify its RHNA
• Need more clarity on process~if-and1
--
when trades occur
5
Public Comment at HC
• RHNA function of how much office gets built.
rrudBs-n-ot-ue-pns-5ible-if-offic-e-d-evelaprrre-rT
approved at Vallco
• San Jose has strong representation on VTA
Board. Concerns that RHNA subregion could
also be formed sim ilarly
• Regional cooperation on transportation as result
of RHNA trades unlikely
• Questions about affordable housing
requirements in development
Subcommittee
• Overview
• Pros and Cons
• Model Draft Resolution
• Draft By-laws
6
RHNA Subregion -Overview
• Any two jurisdictions but must include county .
• Develop its own methodology,
• Issue draft allocations to member jurisdictions,
• Conduct the revision and appeal processes,
• Issue final allocations.
• Ensure that final housing allocation is consistent
with Bay Area's SCS (Plan Bay Area.)
RHNA subregion -o ·verview
• Not proposing to change
methodology for allocation
• Wou ld allow cities opportunity to
make mutual agreements with cities in
subregion to trade allocations:
• Consistent with State-defined objectives
• Each jurisdiction retain_aJ le~ast s_ome __ _
allocation of units for low-and very low
· income households.
7
RHNA subregion -Overview
•-Cjties Gan cr-1GGse oot-to mGk@-a_ny --
transfer agreements
• One jurisdiction = one vote
• If not a part of subregion, neither have
opportunity to trade allocations nor
have vote in proposed trades within
subregion
RHNA subregion -Pros/Cons
• Allows flexibility and opportunity to trade RHNA
allocations more easily.
• City could choose to accept regional allocation
or choose to make agreements to trade
allocations.
• Empowering cities to have say in regional
planning.
• Should appeal on regional allocation get upheld,
up to ABAG/MTC to decide how to redistribute
appealed allocation. With subregion, city can
trade allocations with another city.
8
RHNA subregion -Pros/Cons
• Allow collaboration on better planned
development since cities can work together to
address regional issues
• Transit planning could be done w it hout
necessarily being confined by ci t y boundaries.
• Create a forum to discuss sharing of planning
resources .
• In San Mateo subregion, all 21 jurisdictions share
in cost to pay a consultant to assis t in preparing
their housing elements and data needs.
RHNA subregion -Pros/Cons
• Putting in time, effort and resources and ending
up with same result as regional allocation .
• Lack of trust for fair and equitable process.
• Loss of political distance from ABAG/MTC which
may result in pressure on community to produce
additional housing .
• No role model since no other exisflng subregioD
has such large variance in population among
cities.
9
Proposed Structure
• _One jurisdicJion Qne vote_ -------~_,__ _____ .
• Standing Committees:
• Technical Advisory Committee (TAC)
• Techn ical experts develop recommendations
• City Manager's Association
• Ongoing input and consideration of TAC recc.
• Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
• Provide policy direction, review TAC recc. And adopt
policy consensus for city and county ratification
New Housin ·g Laws
• SB 166 (2017}: If development is proposed
at different affordability level than shown
in HE, jurisdictions must:
• make specific findings or
• upzone more property
• Increased standards for designating
acceptable sites to accommodate housing
10
New Housing Laws
• SB 1771 and SB 828(under consideration):
• Give HCD additional review authority
over RHNA
• High Income, high job cities= more
RHNA
Fiscal Impact
• $ related to administration, legal
re~.dew, outreach, ooticiog,
CS)Ordinating with ABAG/MTC
• Subcommittee recommended sharing
costs
• · Budget dependent on scope of the
su bre-gion -and services provided
• Estimate to be provided later
11
Next Steps
-;-council comments-to 5e forwaraea to --
Cities Association Board
• Board to consider and initiate process
• Then, each city to adopt resolutions to
affirm decision to join
• Subregion must be formed by Sept. '20
12