CC 11-17-2020 Study Session Item No. 1 Review Proposed RHNA Methodology_Staff Presentation1
City Council Meeting
Review Proposed RHNA
Methodology
November 17, 2020
ABAG
RHND
established
Jul 2020
Draft methodology
Comment period
Oct/Nov ‘20
HMC recommends
methodology
Sept 2020
Icons made by Freepik, Eucalyp and Becris from www.flaticon.com
Draft methodology
Adopted by ABAG
& submitted to HCD
for review
Early 2021
Draft RHNA
released
Spring 2021
RHNA appeals
Summer 2021
Final RHNA
established
Dec 2021
Housing
Element
Adopted
Jan ‘23
1
2
2
INCOME LEVEL
NO. OF
UNITS
% OF
TOTAL
Very-low Income (VLI) households*114,442 25.9%
Low Income (LI) households 65,892 14.9%
Moderate Income (MOD) households 72,712 16.5%
Above Moderate Income (Above-MOD) households 188,130 42.6%
Total Regional Housing Needs Determination 441,176 100%
* Extremely-low Income (ELI) households included in VLI totals – 15.5% of total
1.Increase housing supply and mix by tenure, type
and affordability in equitable manner
2.Promote infill development, protect environmental
and agricultural resources, encourage efficient
development patterns and achieve GHG
reduction
3.Promote intra-regional jobs-housing relationship,
inc. balance between low-wage jobs and homes
affordable to those workers (jobs-housing fit)
Statutory methodology objectives
7
3
4
3
4.Balance disproportionate household income
distributions (more high-income RHNA to lower-
income areas and vice-versa)
5.Affirmatively further fair housing. Requirement
signed into law by Governor Brown in Sept 2018
(AB 686).
Statutory methodology objectives
7
•Recommended – each jurisdiction’s share of
region’s total households in 2050
•Alternatives considered:
•Each jurisdiction’s share of region’s total 2019
households – rejected since would continue existing
regional development patterns
•Forecasted growth in Blueprint for each jurisdiction till
2050 – rejected since would further concentrate
housing in projected growth areas
Proposed methodology - Baseline
5
6
4
•Recommended:
Proposed methodology - Factors and factor weights
Very-Low and Low Income
units
Moderate and Above-
Moderate Income Units
70% Access to High
Opportunity Areas
40% Access to High
Opportunity Areas
15% Job Proximity – Auto 60% Job Proximity - Auto
15% Job Proximity – Transit
AHOA:
•Allocates more
units to cities
with AHOA
•+60% to
Cupertino’s
baseline
allocation
Factors & factor weights – Access to High Opportunity
Areas
7
8
5
Job Proximity – Auto: Allocates more units to cities with
access to jobs by a 30-min. auto commute
•+30% to Cupertino’s Job-Proximity – Auto #s
•15% weightage for Lower Income allocations
•60% weightage for Mod and Mod+ allocations
Factors & factor weights
Job Proximity – Transit: Allocates more units to cities with
access to jobs by a 45-min. transit commute
•-20% to Cupertino’s baseline Job Proximity – Transit #s
•15% weightage for Lower income allocations
•0% weightage for Mod and Mod+ allocations
Factors & factor weights
9
10
6
Income Category Factors and Weights Units
Very-Low
Access to High Opportunity Areas (70%) 1,268
Job Proximity – Auto (15%) 222
Job Proximity – Transit (15%) 129
Low
Access to High Opportunity Areas (70%) 730
Job Proximity – Auto (15%) 128
Job Proximity – Transit (15%) 74
Total VLI/LI Units 2,551
Moderate Access to High Opportunity Areas (40%) 460
Job Proximity – Auto (60%) 563
Above- Moderate
Access to High Opportunity Areas (40%) 1,191
Job Proximity – Auto (60%) 1,457
Total Mod/Mod+ Units 3,671
Total RHNA under proposed methodology using Draft Blueprint numbers 6,222
Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Inc. Total
RHNA Permit
Issued
Progress
(%)RHNA Permit
Issued
Progress
(%)RHNA Permit
Issued
Progress
(%)RHNA Permit
Issued
Progress
(%)RHNA Permit
Issued
Progress
(%)
Campbell 253 11 4.35 138 4 2.90 151 16 10.60 391 407 104.09 933 438 46.95
Cupertino 356 19 5.34 207 0 0.00 231 74 32.03 270 215 79.63 1,064 308 28.95
Gilroy 236 63 26.69 160 487 304.38 217 24 11.06 475 1,124 236.63 1,088 1,698 156.07
Los Altos 169 2 1.18 99 28 28.28 112 2 1.79 97 535 551.55 477 567 118.87
Los Altos Hills 46 13 28.26 28 5 17.86 32 4 12.50 15 38 253.33 121 60 49.59
Los Gatos 201 0 0.00 112 2 1.79 132 53 40.15 174 79 45.40 619 134 21.65
Milpitas 1,004 10 1.00 570 0 0.00 565 0 0.00 1151 3,221 279.84 3,290 3,231 98.21
Monte Sereno 23 43 186.96 13 1 7.69 13 1 7.69 12 30 250.00 61 75 122.95
Morgan Hill 273 41 15.02 154 165 107.14 185 136 73.51 316 1,200 379.75 928 1,542 166.16
Mtn View 814 202 24.82 492 170 34.55 527 0 0.00 1093 3,223 294.88 2,926 3,595 122.86
Palo Alto 691 43 6.22 432 60 13.89 278 42 15.11 587 409 69.68 1,988 554 27.87
San Jose 9,223 1129 12.24 5,428 231 4.26 6,188 2,304 37.23 14,231 13,392 94.10 35,08017,056 48.62
Santa Clara 1,050 131 12.48 695 16 2.30 755 54 7.15 1593 4,008 251.60 4,093 4,209 102.83
Saratoga 147 0 0.00 95 49 51.58 104 14 13.46 93 22 23.66 439 85 19.36
Sunnyvale 1,640 114 6.95 906 21 2.32 932 207 22.21 1,974 2,215 112.21 5,452 2,557 46.90
Uninc. SC 22 88 400.00 13 0 0.00 214 2,597 1,213.55 28 268 957.14 277 2,953 1,066.06
Data retrieved from HCD’s 5th Cycle Annual Progress Tracker
11
12
7
Population
(as of Jun 1, 2019)
5th Cycle
RHNA
6th Cycle
Proposed RHNA
6th Cycle RHNA
per capita
Campbell 41,793 933 3,965 9.49
Cupertino 59,276 1,064 6,223 10.50
Gilroy 59,032 1,088 1,462 2.48
Los Altos 30,089 477 2,267 7.53
Los Altos Hills 8,423 121 544 6.46
Los Gatos 30,222 619 1,938 6.41
Milpitas 84,196 3,290 6,578 7.81
Monte Sereno 3,492 61 191 5.47
Morgan Hill 45,952 928 1,136 2.47
Mountain View 82,739 2,926 11,381 13.76
Palo Alto 65,364 1,988 10,058 15.39
San Jose 1,021,795 35,080 66,521 6.51
Santa Clara 130,365 4,093 12,047 9.24
Saratoga 30,153 439 2,100 6.96
Sunnyvale 152,703 5,452 12,998 8.51
Uninc. Santa Clara County 1,927,852 58,836 143,547 7.45
Data retrieved from U.S. Census Bureau, HCD 5th Cycle Annual Progress Tracker, ABAG Proposed Methodology and
Subregional Shares Report
•Send a letter signed by either:
•City Manger
•Mayor
•Other similar sized/like minded cities
Planning Commission Recommendation
13
14
8
•Use 2019 households as baseline for all reasons
from Cities Assoc. Aug ’20 letter:
•Does not achieve key goals of SCS
•Unrealistic HH and Emp. Growth for SCC
•Potential Impact of Blueprint assumptions on RHNA:
Planning Commission Recommendation
•Timing
•Double-counting
•Locating growth in
Regional Transit-
oriented, Jobs-Rich
core
•Lack of Access to
Transit
•Unachievable Housing
Targets
•Use 2019 Households because:
•Pandemic related changes unknown
•Net outflow of jobs to other regions and states,
•Work from home, and
•Unachievable targets demoralizing
•Embarcadero Institute report indicates significant
double counting:
•Key assumptions in determining state-wide housing deficit
are incorrect – e.g. vacancy rate incorrect
•Creates vicious cycle of what state considers need
Planning Commission Recommendation
15
16
9
•Not too many large sites
•Might lose jobs to accommodate housing
•Job growth may not be as envisioned in PBA 2050
•Duplex/Fourplex production - Few sites likely
considered appropriate for LI category under HE law
•Consider using Job Proximity – Transit for Mod and
Mod+ income categories.
•PBA considers city has growth potential due to proximity to
transit, but does not use this factor for that income category
•Does not align with GHG reduction goals
Planning Commission Recommendation
•Should City comment?
•What comments do you recommend?
Next Steps
17
18