HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2922
City of Palo Alto (ID # 2922)
Regional Housing Mandate Committee Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 6/14/2012
June 14, 2012 Page 1 of 1
(ID # 2922)
Summary Title: SCS Update
Title: Update Regarding Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
There is no staff report for this item. Staff will update the Committee regarding the latest status
of the a) Draft Preferred Scenario of the Sustainable Communities Strategy, b) the One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG) Program, and c) the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation.
Materials from the regional agencies relative to these efforts are attached. More information is
available at the Plan Bay Area website at: http://www.onebayarea.org/plan_bay_area/.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Summary of Draft Preferred Scenario and Excerpts of Jobs and Housing
Projections (PDF)
Attachment B: One Bay Area Grant Final: Summary (PDF)
Attachment C: 2015-2022 Draft RHNA Subregional Allocations (PDF)
Prepared By: Curtis Williams, Director
Department Head: Curtis Williams, Director
City Manager Approval: ____________________________________
James Keene, City Manager
Retention and production of affordable housing:
Focused investments and planning in PDAs with
major housing responsibilities and challenges
through streamlining regulations among local,
regional, and state agencies; coordination with
developers; and supporting major expansion of
state and federal funding.
d production of affordable housing:
Focused investments and planning in PDAs with
major housing responsibilities and challenges
through streamlining regulations among local,
regional, and state agencies; coordination with
developers; and supporting major expansion of
state and federal funding.
Implementation
In order for this long term growth pattern to be
realized, ABAG and MTC propose a set of
implementation actions for discussion. These are
based on input received from local jurisdictions,
regional agencies, health and education agencies,
business organizations, housing and equity groups,
and environmental groups among others. Actions
include planning tasks and investments, analysis of
identified issues, and dialogue with appropriate
organizations to define specific strategies.
Highlights of this approach include:
Strengthening complete communities: Strengthening complete communities:
Work with regional agencies and special districts to
support improvements to public schools,
expansion of parks and recreation facilities,
neighborhood safety and reducing crime,
neighborhood resilience to natural disasters,
appropriate provision of water, and air quality
improvements.
Work with regional agencies and special districts to
support improvements to public schools,
expansion of parks and recreation facilities,
neighborhood safety and reducing crime,
neighborhood resilience to natural disasters,
appropriate provision of water, and air quality
improvements.
Comprehensive infill development in PDAs:
Efficiency and creativity in the allocation of our
public resources, maximizing existing urban
infrastructure investments and recognizing new
planning and investments needed to support the
PDAs that are assuming major growth
responsibilities.
Protection of open space and agricultural land:
Regional coordination around PCAs focused on
critical habitats, extension of conservation land
deadlines, development of farmland protection
plan, and completion of the Coastal, Ridge, and
Bay Trails that link natural habitats and landscapes.
Protection of open space and agricultural land:
Regional coordination around PCAs focused on
critical habitats, extension of conservation land
deadlines, development of farmland protection
plan, and completion of the Coastal, Ridge, and
Bay Trails that link natural habitats and landscapes.
Creation and diversification of jobs:
Investments in PDA infrastructure, workforce
training and access to transit, amenities, and
services to support knowledge-based jobs and
businesses at major urban centers; local serving
businesses and jobs close to housing in a wide
range of downtown areas, transit corridors, and
office parks; and retention of agricultural and
industrial land.
Just the Beginning Just the Beginning
This is the first Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) to be developed in the Bay Area. This is our
first attempt to directly connect our local and
regional land use planning efforts with our
transportation investments. We expect to further
strengthen our efforts in the subsequent cycles.
This is the first Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) to be developed in the Bay Area. This is our
first attempt to directly connect our local and
regional land use planning efforts with our
transportation investments. We expect to further
strengthen our efforts in the subsequent cycles.
Current Components of Plan Bay Area
Still, we are very committed to establishing a solid
platform of planning and development for the SCS
that has traction today. Towards this end, under
the umbrella of Plan Bay Area, we closely link the
long term land use strategy (Jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy by 2040), the long term
transportation strategy (Draft Transportation
Investment Strategy by 2040), the medium term
housing planning targets (Regional Housing Need
Allocation by 2022), short term funding (One Bay
Area Grant by 2017), and programs supporting air
quality, resilience to natural disasters, and sea level
rise.
Still, we are very committed to establishing a solid
platform of planning and development for the SCS
that has traction today. Towards this end, under
the umbrella of Plan Bay Area, we closely link the
long term land use strategy (Jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy by 2040), the long term
transportation strategy (Draft Transportation
Investment Strategy by 2040), the medium term
housing planning targets (Regional Housing Need
Allocation by 2022), short term funding (One Bay
Area Grant by 2017), and programs supporting air
quality, resilience to natural disasters, and sea level
rise.
Land Use
Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy
Transportation
Draft Transportation Investment Strategy
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
Housing
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Supportive Planning The integration of these efforts supports local
jurisdictions to enhance the quality of life of the
diverse communities in the Bay Area of tomorrow.
The integration of these efforts supports local
jurisdictions to enhance the quality of life of the
diverse communities in the Bay Area of tomorrow.
Air Quality: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Resilience: Regional Disaster Resilience Initiative
Sea Level Rise: Bay Conservation and Development
Commission
Regional Trends Snapshot
Challenges Opportunities
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Decentralization of jobs
Declines in manufacturing employment
Lag between GDP and employment growth
Average K-12 educational levels
Funding cuts in higher education
Loss of 200,000 acres of agricultural land
Global innovation hub
Concentration of venture capital
Research institutions
High growth knowledge-sector industries
and companies
1.8 billion in agricultural products
produced each year by Bay Area farmers
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Loss of redevelopment
High cost of living
Foreclosure and delinquency rates
Infill development
Aging population and expected changes in
housing type demand
Changing preferences of younger workers
Infill development
The diverse population of the San Francisco Bay
Area, home to one of the most impressive and
productive estuaries in the world, has access to
vibrant cities and towns, spectacular scenic and
natural resources, and world-class cultural and
recreational amenities.
The more than seven million of us who call this
nine-county region home must work together to
retain and enhance its great qualities for our
children and grandchildren.
Regional Trends
The region is expected to experience more modest
growth than in past decades. Still, we project
healthy economic growth of 1.1 million jobs and 2
million people by 2040 as the Bay Area continues
to attract cutting-edge, high technology companies,
talent, and investment from around the world.
This assumes a full-employment economy with
unemployment rates returning to normal levels
within a successful national economy. The forecast
also recognizes the challenges with building new
housing in the region that is largely multi-family
and in infill locations, and the impact that has on
our ability to capture potential job growth.
Achieving this growth will require that the region
respond to an aging and diversifying population,
polarizing wages, high housing and transportation
costs, and other issues affecting our quality of life.
Prior generations in the Bay Area built the
infrastructure to accommodate our current
economy. Preparing the Bay Area for future job
growth will require ever greater efficiency and
creativity in the allocation of our public resources
to improve communities and the livelihood of
households earning low incomes.
Approach
Envisioning a strong economy, vital communities,
protected open space, air, and water resources, and
a high quality of life in the year 2040 requires that
we maximize existing infrastructure investments
and recognize where new investments are needed.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
San F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Santa
C
l
a
r
a
Alam
e
d
a
San M
a
teo
Contra C
osta
Sonoma
Solano
Marin
Nap
a
100%
Jobs Housing Units
investments in Priority Development Areas
(PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs).
PDAs provide an array of housing types and
transportation choices and promote a pattern of
growth and investment where transit, jobs,
schools, services, and recreation are located
nearby.
In contrast to previous trends that saw rural lands
consumed for development, this Strategy
acknowledges the choices the Bay Area has already
made to retain these lands by directing
development to PDAs and supporting the
continuation of agricultural activities in rural
communities through PCAs. This allows the
region to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases,
house our population in a wide range of
neighborhoods, preserve our natural resources,
and support the creation of and greater access to
new employment opportunities.
Growth Strategy
PDAs are proposed to absorb about 80 percent of
new housing and 66 percent of new jobs on about
five percent of our total regional land area.
Regional centers in Oakland, San Francisco, and
San Jose account for about 14 percent of new
housing and 17 percent of job growth. Medium
size cities also play an important role by adding a
mix of new housing, employment, and services in
strategic locations.
As a result of this focused growth, about 99
percent of our open space and agricultural land
can be retained and north bay counties take a very
small share of growth. Napa and Marin counties
account for about 1 percent each of the total
regional housing growth and Sonoma and Solano,
5 and 3 percent, respectively.
Priority Development Areas
The Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy addresses
these challenges by focusing planning efforts and
These areas are proposed by local jurisdictions and
approved by regional agencies. Additional
planning and investments are directed to these
priority areas. The Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy is based on a collaborative planning
approach that builds upon ongoing efforts by local
and regional agencies, special districts, and
stakeholders.
The Strategy is also designed to support the
housing production system in meeting the growing
demand for housing in PDAs. It calls for
expanded resources and public investment in PDA
locations and provides planning support to help
local governments work through the entitlement
process.
Share of Growth in Priority Development Areas
Regional Trends Snapshot
Challenges Opportunities
Em
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
Decentralization of jobs
Declines in manufacturing employment
Lag between GDP and employment growth
Average K-12 educational levels
Funding cuts in higher education
Loss of 200,000 acres of agricultural land
Global innovation hub
Concentration of venture capital
Research institutions
High growth knowledge-sector industries
and companies
1.8 billion in agricultural products
produced each year by Bay Area farmers
Ho
u
s
i
n
g
Loss of redevelopment
High cost of living
Foreclosure and delinquency rates
Infill development
Aging population and expected changes in
housing type demand
Changing preferences of younger workers
Infill development
The diverse population of the San Francisco Bay
Area, home to one of the most impressive and
productive estuaries in the world, has access to
vibrant cities and towns, spectacular scenic and
natural resources, and world-class cultural and
recreational amenities.
The more than seven million of us who call this
nine-county region home must work together to
retain and enhance its great qualities for our
children and grandchildren.
Regional Trends
The region is expected to experience more modest
growth than in past decades. Still, we project
healthy economic growth of 1.1 million jobs and 2
million people by 2040 as the Bay Area continues
to attract cutting-edge, high technology companies,
talent, and investment from around the world.
This assumes a full-employment economy with
unemployment rates returning to normal levels
within a successful national economy. The forecast
also recognizes the challenges with building new
housing in the region that is largely multi-family
and in infill locations, and the impact that has on
our ability to capture potential job growth.
Achieving this growth will require that the region
respond to an aging and diversifying population,
polarizing wages, high housing and transportation
costs, and other issues affecting our quality of life.
Prior generations in the Bay Area built the
infrastructure to accommodate our current
economy. Preparing the Bay Area for future job
growth will require ever greater efficiency and
creativity in the allocation of our public resources
to improve communities and the livelihood of
households earning low incomes.
Approach
Envisioning a strong economy, vital communities,
protected open space, air, and water resources, and
a high quality of life in the year 2040 requires that
we maximize existing infrastructure investments
and recognize where new investments are needed.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
San F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Santa
C
l
a
r
a
Alam
e
d
a
San M
a
teo
Contra C
osta
Sonoma
Solano
Marin
Nap
a
100%
Jobs Housing Units
investments in Priority Development Areas
(PDAs) and Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs).
PDAs provide an array of housing types and
transportation choices and promote a pattern of
growth and investment where transit, jobs,
schools, services, and recreation are located
nearby.
In contrast to previous trends that saw rural lands
consumed for development, this Strategy
acknowledges the choices the Bay Area has already
made to retain these lands by directing
development to PDAs and supporting the
continuation of agricultural activities in rural
communities through PCAs. This allows the
region to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases,
house our population in a wide range of
neighborhoods, preserve our natural resources,
and support the creation of and greater access to
new employment opportunities.
Growth Strategy
PDAs are proposed to absorb about 80 percent of
new housing and 66 percent of new jobs on about
five percent of our total regional land area.
Regional centers in Oakland, San Francisco, and
San Jose account for about 14 percent of new
housing and 17 percent of job growth. Medium
size cities also play an important role by adding a
mix of new housing, employment, and services in
strategic locations.
As a result of this focused growth, about 99
percent of our open space and agricultural land
can be retained and north bay counties take a very
small share of growth. Napa and Marin counties
account for about 1 percent each of the total
regional housing growth and Sonoma and Solano,
5 and 3 percent, respectively.
Priority Development Areas
The Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy addresses
these challenges by focusing planning efforts and
These areas are proposed by local jurisdictions and
approved by regional agencies. Additional
planning and investments are directed to these
priority areas. The Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy is based on a collaborative planning
approach that builds upon ongoing efforts by local
and regional agencies, special districts, and
stakeholders.
The Strategy is also designed to support the
housing production system in meeting the growing
demand for housing in PDAs. It calls for
expanded resources and public investment in PDA
locations and provides planning support to help
local governments work through the entitlement
process.
Share of Growth in Priority Development Areas
Retention and production of affordable housing:
Focused investments and planning in PDAs with
major housing responsibilities and challenges
through streamlining regulations among local,
regional, and state agencies; coordination with
developers; and supporting major expansion of
state and federal funding.
d production of affordable housing:
Focused investments and planning in PDAs with
major housing responsibilities and challenges
through streamlining regulations among local,
regional, and state agencies; coordination with
developers; and supporting major expansion of
state and federal funding.
Implementation
In order for this long term growth pattern to be
realized, ABAG and MTC propose a set of
implementation actions for discussion. These are
based on input received from local jurisdictions,
regional agencies, health and education agencies,
business organizations, housing and equity groups,
and environmental groups among others. Actions
include planning tasks and investments, analysis of
identified issues, and dialogue with appropriate
organizations to define specific strategies.
Highlights of this approach include:
Strengthening complete communities: Strengthening complete communities:
Work with regional agencies and special districts to
support improvements to public schools,
expansion of parks and recreation facilities,
neighborhood safety and reducing crime,
neighborhood resilience to natural disasters,
appropriate provision of water, and air quality
improvements.
Work with regional agencies and special districts to
support improvements to public schools,
expansion of parks and recreation facilities,
neighborhood safety and reducing crime,
neighborhood resilience to natural disasters,
appropriate provision of water, and air quality
improvements.
Comprehensive infill development in PDAs:
Efficiency and creativity in the allocation of our
public resources, maximizing existing urban
infrastructure investments and recognizing new
planning and investments needed to support the
PDAs that are assuming major growth
responsibilities.
Protection of open space and agricultural land:
Regional coordination around PCAs focused on
critical habitats, extension of conservation land
deadlines, development of farmland protection
plan, and completion of the Coastal, Ridge, and
Bay Trails that link natural habitats and landscapes.
Protection of open space and agricultural land:
Regional coordination around PCAs focused on
critical habitats, extension of conservation land
deadlines, development of farmland protection
plan, and completion of the Coastal, Ridge, and
Bay Trails that link natural habitats and landscapes.
Creation and diversification of jobs:
Investments in PDA infrastructure, workforce
training and access to transit, amenities, and
services to support knowledge-based jobs and
businesses at major urban centers; local serving
businesses and jobs close to housing in a wide
range of downtown areas, transit corridors, and
office parks; and retention of agricultural and
industrial land.
Just the Beginning Just the Beginning
This is the first Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) to be developed in the Bay Area. This is our
first attempt to directly connect our local and
regional land use planning efforts with our
transportation investments. We expect to further
strengthen our efforts in the subsequent cycles.
This is the first Sustainable Communities Strategy
(SCS) to be developed in the Bay Area. This is our
first attempt to directly connect our local and
regional land use planning efforts with our
transportation investments. We expect to further
strengthen our efforts in the subsequent cycles.
Current Components of Plan Bay Area
Still, we are very committed to establishing a solid
platform of planning and development for the SCS
that has traction today. Towards this end, under
the umbrella of Plan Bay Area, we closely link the
long term land use strategy (Jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy by 2040), the long term
transportation strategy (Draft Transportation
Investment Strategy by 2040), the medium term
housing planning targets (Regional Housing Need
Allocation by 2022), short term funding (One Bay
Area Grant by 2017), and programs supporting air
quality, resilience to natural disasters, and sea level
rise.
Still, we are very committed to establishing a solid
platform of planning and development for the SCS
that has traction today. Towards this end, under
the umbrella of Plan Bay Area, we closely link the
long term land use strategy (Jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy by 2040), the long term
transportation strategy (Draft Transportation
Investment Strategy by 2040), the medium term
housing planning targets (Regional Housing Need
Allocation by 2022), short term funding (One Bay
Area Grant by 2017), and programs supporting air
quality, resilience to natural disasters, and sea level
rise.
Land Use
Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy
Transportation
Draft Transportation Investment Strategy
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
Housing
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Supportive Planning The integration of these efforts supports local
jurisdictions to enhance the quality of life of the
diverse communities in the Bay Area of tomorrow.
The integration of these efforts supports local
jurisdictions to enhance the quality of life of the
diverse communities in the Bay Area of tomorrow.
Air Quality: Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Resilience: Regional Disaster Resilience Initiative
Sea Level Rise: Bay Conservation and Development
Commission
Employment Growth by PDA and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
Cupertino
; t;1I~or ':"
, ,J:)owntowR
LosJUtos
Los Gatos
rMI!p~'~ ,i
(' '1"a.nsii·A~~! .-
Monte Sereno
jMo~~~~m ' , . iv.J~p,mttsw,p,::""'":'''''.'''h''':''' .. ~;.>,"",.".n:1'n!~tIq~P9~r,H~! '" "~,' .1. .j,
Mountain View
Downtown
East Whisman
El Camino Real Corridor
North Bayshore
Bascom TOO Corridor
Bascom Urban Village
Berryessa Station
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village
Camden Urban Village
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages
Communications Hill
Cottle Transit Village
Downtown "Frame"
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Greater Downtown
International Business Park
North San Jose
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Old Eden vale
Saratoga TOO Corridor
Stevens Creek TOO Corridor
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village
Winchester Boulevard TOO
\
Transit Town Center
Employment Center
Mixed-Use Corridor
Suburban Center
Mixed-Use Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor
Transit Neighborhood
Mixed-Use Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor
Suburban Center
Transit Town Center
Suburban Center
City Center
Mixed-Use Corridor
Regional Center
Employment Center
Regional Center
Suburban Center
Employment Center
Mixed-Use Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor
Mixed-Use Corridor
Suburban Center
Mixed-Use Corridor
I Dqwntown &. Ca11taiD Slallon' , : Tr.ansiJ rQ~ ~ef\~e.r
.' Eu\.Sunnm ~ :' , 'V~bap·~elghl?oi:POC?c;t .
, Bl'q~no'Re'al Corridor ,I ~lXed-U.~ .. C?r9ao; ·
fLiwie~<?e ~iaHo'n, ~ra~lt Y~iage': Transi!' Nei9h~Qrho,~
McnEill P~k' :," '" :,§mplQ ri.t CBmer'
,1 I' , l.t'J' ,1'"11 I .tl ~I ~ 'II I I t'l I t (I I lr~r.;f.f ~;;J. I J f , 'Peery-Po it" , I,,', 11 '"" ,I " ,.,) " ,'.En,IMI¢~I(lC(fniel'.' I , . , .R.~inwdoct 'Light R~,i'$(jj,U~l1 ': I: , i:rnp.1Qym~n.t P;p~er"
, "1'i~ma!lSmit9nJTR '. '. '. ,.: .' .. :: ..... : ..... 'Mix.~d.-.t:J~e.·~m~().r ~ .'.
Santa Clara County Unincorporated
97
, _,' ~._ )J ..... ~"'
33%
27,950 55,970 28,020
11,650 19,730 8,080
84,290 130,190 45,900
5,430 9,700 4,270
6,900 14,690 7,790
3,520 5,520 2,000
5,680 8,020 2,340
8,940 15,600 6,660
3,440 5,230 1,790
4,040 6,820 2,780
, , .
Household Growth by PDA. and Jurisdiction
Santa Clara County
ursidiction or Area Name
·Campb'l) ",-~,;C~n!r'Jieq~ytJd!m)Qro,M~':'
Cupertino
'Gllro~ I. ,
,~.",P.Qw.:n!..Q.W:n,., .. "> .. ,.,,,'.I,,,w.,:.,,; .. ,,,,,,.,.,,>,, .... ,, .. : .... cl •• , .•. :~
Mountain View
Downtown
East Whisman
El Camino Real Corridor
North Bayshore
San Antonio Center
Bascom TOD Corridor
Bascom Urban Village
Berryessa Station
Blossom Hill/Snell Urban Village
Camden Urban Village
Capitol Corridor Urban Villages
Capitol/Tully/King Urban Villages
Communications Hill
Cottle Transit Village
Downtown "Frame"
East Santa Clara/Alum Rock
Corridor
Greater Downtown
International Business Park
North San Jose
Oakridge/Almaden Plaza Urban
Village
Old Eden vale
Saratoga .TOD Corridor
Stevens Creek TODCorridor
West San Carlos & Southwest
Expressway Corridors
Westgate/El Paseo Urban Village
Winchester Boulevard TOD
Corridor ~San,'a elMa
El'CatninQ R IJI'POCUs,~eli
:: S_m .. Cla'ra'Sialio.~F'()~WJ ATea,
Saratoga
;3'a~yv~~ ,I,
: . DoWntown ~Galtr ib,S1 tion'
, ~'I SunnY'{il1~" .
HOUSING UNITS HOUSEHOLDS
Place Type 2040 2010-2040 % Growth J',,190 3,.~40 ,. .l'~: 2!~ri 'J;~70: . ", ::,
25,820 4,190 20,180 4,810 24%
11,'S'10 21'110 2,860 20%
. :j~~(:J«t.,;.,.: ..... ,J.E{~,; ... 'li9~O
1,100 10% ',:z.zO " , : :';4~'"
1%
33,880 9,390 41,190 31%
Transit Town Center 5,240 1,150 6,030
Employment Center 720 0 690
Mixed-Use Corridor 9,190 11,150 1,960 10,830
Suburban Center 360 1,790 1,420 1,750
Transit Town Center 3,590 6,350 2,760 . 3,420 6,180
~~~l1s~t~ei~~;~~~~o~~.. 670 1,670 1,010 ,650 1,640 990
., I. ""1',~(j'''':j$;:6~'(I'':'''';,/1;1~(j '''''"l''''-lJf~;~'' ""~';4lJ~l'~":~i;~1J(j":'''';''''1;1''t(r'''''''<': ~~~\';
!fran,it 'Neighborhood' 800 , 'I :esd :. '".,,,,,,~,q~,\,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,~,,:,,,,,,,,,:,,,,,,,,,",~.5.Q",,,,,,,,,.!.h§OO.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,:,.,~,,,,,.,,, ... ,.",."",:,,,,',,,:,,
314,040 443,210 129,110 41% 301,310 431,910 130,550 43%
Mixed-Use Corridor 680 2,240 1,560 650 2,190 1,540
Mixed-Use Corridor 1,780 2,590 810 1,670 '2,520 850
Transit Neighborhood 1,880 7,990 6,110 1,850 7,850 6,000
Mixed-Use Corridor 640 1,720 1,080 610 1,680 1,070
Mixed-Use Corridor 490 1,480 1,000 480 1,460 980
Mixed-Use Corridor 860 7,100 6,240 820 6,960 6,140
Suburban Center 1,090 3,340 2,250 1,060 3,270 2,210
Transit Town Center 6,810 10,140 3,340 6,540 9,910 3,360
Suburban Center 0 3,580 3,580 0 3,510 3,510
City Center 18,120 28,210 10,090 16,980 27,410 10,440
Mixed-Use Corridor 7,180 13,370 6,200 6,750 12,980 6,230
Regional Center 4,590 19,750 15,150 3,670 19,310 15,640
Employment Center 200 200 0 190 190 0
Regional Center 10,880 43,730 32,850 10,420 42,820 32,400
Suburban Center 1,910 9,200 7,300 1,790 9,020 7,240
Employment Center 150 150 0 140 140 0
Mixed-Use Corridor 2,430 3,550 1,120 2,340 3,460 1,130
Mixed-Use Corridor 2,620 7,800 5,170 2,500 7,620 5,120
Mixed-Use Corridor 1l,150 20,960 9,810 10,320 20,410 10,100
Suburban Center 850 3,340 2,490 800 3,270 2,480
Mixed-Use Corridor 4,850 6,850 2,000 4,630 6,690 2,050
l ".T '":1$~"" '"$";120 ''':' ~pced-ll~ C~rridor 1.~1Q ,6,400
~ity'ContBr .. 480, ' '3.880
., .
11,120 11,150 6% 11,350
, , . '~5;r90. '14t18q ;?4f. . :~2'f~0 ..
. ,~ran9it ToYffl9~1\'t~r 11840 3'810'
: U~b.a~ 'Nei9hqor~«;Xld) , 1,p?0 . '4;279 ' " : ~t1JQ:
~,.PtO:
: : ,E~ pain)no. ~~ ~o~ri~O~ : ;
, 'L!l,!"i'~noe·Slation·~8it."mage
. Mixed· Use ,COrridor; : 10.990 IS,tOP ,
" ,Transi1Neigl1borllodd ' 1.660 :, ,6.210
, EmploYnleil,,gel}tfJr<., ao" 30 ' :.,' Molftttt Park' , ' . "
~ -Peery Pa.r~ , ' ,
: R~wQoP LJght :Rf1iJ Slatiotr
• . ,TQaman'Station'lTR"., ' ,
" Emplayrtltint.Cenler, " : 1,30 , iao
~m~/o~t;~t·9<9ltte< ; . : :' 0 ' " (). Mb(ed-U~,.cp.m.d.Qr",+,!,>J~~~"h',.}~;~~Ph'
29,690 32,490
• • •. , .. _~.j ........ d... J .. ,(..<-.•
"
103
New Surface Transportation
Authorization Act:
Cycle 2 OneBayArea Grant Program
Funding Overview
MTC receives federal funding for local programming through the State
from federal surface transportation legislation currently known as SAFETEA
(the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act). This
includes Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and Transportation Enhancement
Program (TE) funds. Every two to three years MTC develops policies about
how the region will use this funding for projects and programs.
Anticipating the reauthorization of the federal program, on September 30,
2009, MTC approved funding commitments to address a new authorization
act (Cycle 1). However, the successor to SAFETEA has not yet been enacted,
and SAFETEA has been extended through continuing resolutions. Cycle 1
covers the first three years of SAFETEA extensions through FY 2011-12.
Consistent with Cycle 1, MTC will program multiple years of funding in
Cycle 2 (FY2012-13, FY 2013-14, FY 2014-2015, and FY 2015-2016) pending
the enactment of a new federal authorization. MTC may program funds
“forward” based on reasonable estimates of revenues. Roughly $795
million is available for the Cycle 2 OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) program.
Of this amount, $475 million will fund the continuation and enhancement
of programs implemened at the regional level and $320 million will be
directed to the counties for local project selection.
Cycle 2 Funding
Commitments Overview
(Millions $, rounded)
Program Categories
4-Year Total Funding
Regional Program
Regional Planning $7
Regional Operations $95
Freeway Performance
Initiative $96
Pavement Technical
Assistance Program $7
Priority Development Area
Planning Program $40
Climate Initiatives $20
Safe Routes To School $20
Transit Capital
Rehabilitation $150
Transit Performance
Initiative $30
Priority Conservation Areas
Pilot $10
County Program
One Bay Area Grant $320
TOTAL $795
For Cycle 2, the OneBayArea
Grant (OBAG) Program is a new
funding approach that better
integrates the region’s federal
transportation program with
California’s climate law (Senate
Bill 375, Steinberg, 2008) and
the Sustainable Communities
Strategy. Funding distribution
to the counties will consider
progress toward achieving local
land-use and housing policies by:
• Rewarding jurisdictions that accept
housing allocations through the
Regional Housing Need Allocation
(RHNA) process and produce
housing using transportation dollars
as incentives.
• Supporting the Sustainable
Communities Strategy for the Bay
Area by promoting transportation
investments in Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) and by
initiating a pilot program that will
support open space preservation in
Priority Conservation Areas (PCA).
• Providing a higher proportion
of funding to local agencies and
additional investment flexibility
by eliminating required program
investment targets. The OBAG
program allows flexibility to invest
in transportation categories such
as Transportation for Livable
Communities, bicycle and
pedestrian improvements, local
streets and roads preservation,
and planning activities, while
also providing specific funding
opportunities for Safe Routes
to School (SR2S) and Priority
Conservation Areas.
OneBayArea Grant Program: A New Funding Approach
OBAG Distribution Formula
Population
50%
RHNA*(total housing units)
12.5%
HousingProduction**(total housing units)
12.5%
Housing Production**(low-income housing units)
12.5%
RHNA*(low-incomehousing units)
12.5%
OBAG Policies
Priority Development Area Focus
Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
are infill development opportunity
areas within existing communities
identified by local jurisdictions.
They are generally areas of at least
100 acres where there is local
commitment to developing more
housing along with amenities and
services to meet the day-to-day
needs of residents in a bicycle and
pedestrian-friendly environment
served by transit.
PDA Investment Minimums
The CMAs in larger counties
(Alameda, Contra Costa, San
Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa
Clara) shall direct at least 70%
of their OBAG investments to the
PDAs. For North Bay counties
(Marin, Napa, Solano, and Sonoma)
the threshold is 50%. A project
lying outside the limits of a PDA
may count towards the minimum
provided that it directly connects
to or provides proximate access to
a PDA. Refer to
http://geocommons.com/
maps/141979, which provides
a GIS overlay of the PDAs in
the Bay Area. The counties will
be expected to have an open
decision process to justify projects
that geographically fall outside
of a PDA but are considered
directly connected to or providing
proximate access to a PDA.
PDA Investment and
Growth Strategy
By May 1, 2013, CMAs shall
prepare and adopt a PDA
Investment and Growth Strategy to
guide transportation investments
that are supportive of PDA infill
development.
Affordable Housing Production
and Preservation
As part of the PDA Investment
and Growth Strategy, CMAs will
need to consider strategies for
the production of affordable
housing. By May 2013, CMAs will
have analyzed housing production
progress and completed an
inventory of existing and planned
housing units by income category
in PDAs and affordable housing
The OneBayArea Grant distribution formula is based on the following factors: population, past housing production
and future housing commitments. This includes weighting to acknowledge jurisdiction efforts to produce low-income
housing. The county Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) are responsible for local project solicitation, evaluation,
and selection.
* RHNA 2014-2022 ** Housing Production Report 1999-2006, ABAG
OBAG County
Fund Distribution
(Millions $, rounded)
County Total Funds
Alameda $63
Contra Costa $44
Marin $10
Napa $6
San Francisco $38
San Mateo $26
Santa Clara $87
Solano $18
Sonoma $23
Regional Total $320
continued on next page u
policies currently enacted for those respective jurisdictions. By
May 2014, CMAs will work with PDA based jurisdictions to identify
which, if any, policies/ ordinances are recommended to promote
and preserve affordable housing in PDAs. Based on this information
and recommendations in the PDA Growth Strategy, MTC will link the
release of future cycle funding (after FY 2015–16) to the implementation
of affordable housing policies around which local officials reach
consensus. Additionally, the regional PDA Planning Program will assist
jurisdictions to develop and implement PDA investment plans.
Performance and Accountability
Jurisdictions receiving OBAG funds need
to comply with the following:
Complete Streets Policy Resolution
Aside from meeting MTC’s complete
streets policy, a jurisdiction will need to
adopt a complete streets resolution by
January 31, 2013. A jurisdiction can also
meet this requirement through a general
plan that complies with the California
Complete Streets Act of 2008.
RHNA Compliant General Plan
A jurisdiction is required to have
its general plan housing element
adopted and certified by the State
Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) for 2007-14 RHNA
prior to January 31, 2013. If a jurisdiction
submitted its housing element to the
state but the state’s comment letter
identifies deficiencies that the local
jurisdiction must address in order to
receive HCD certification, then the
local jurisdiction may submit a request
to the Joint MTC Planning/ABAG
Administrative Committee for a time
extension to address the deficiencies
and resubmit its revised draft housing
element to HCD for re-consideration
and certification.
Note that jurisdictions will be required
to have general plans with approved
housing elements and that comply with
the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by
October 31, 2014 to be eligible for the
OBAG cycle subsequent to FY 2015-16.
Report to the Commission
After OBAG programming is completed
at the county level, MTC staff will
present a report to the Commission
in late 2013 on the performance and
project selection outcomes of the OBAG
program. The CMAs will also present
their PDA Investment and Growth
Strategies to the Joint MTC Planning/
ABAG Administrative Planning
Committee.
Additional Information
For additional information about Cycle 2 investments, policies and the
OneBayArea Grant Program, go to http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/
onebayarea/ or contact Craig Goldblatt at cgoldblatt@mtc.ca.gov or
510.817.5837.
Each county CMA may
program OBAG funds to
projects that meet the
eligibility requirements of
any one of the following six
transportation improvement
categories:
• Local Streets and Roads
Preservation
• Bicycle and Pedestrian
Improvements
• Transportation for Livable
Communities
• Safe Routes to School
• Priority Conservation Areas
• CMA Planning Activities
Eligible OBAG Projects
Priority Development Area Focus
u continued from previous page
MT
C
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
/
p
b
—
5
.
1
1
.
1
2
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
______________________________________________________________________________
MEMO
To: ABAG Executive Board
From: Ken Kirkey, ABAG Director of Planning and Research
Date: May 17, 2012
Subject: Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodology (2014-2022)
I. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the ABAG Executive Board approve the DRAFT Regional Housing Need
Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and the preliminary Subregional Shares for the fifth cycle: 2014-
2022. Since January 2011, ABAG and MTC have been working with members of the Housing
Methodology Committee (HMC) to develop the specific RHNA methodology for the Bay Area.
Discussions have focused on how best to promote consistency between RHNA and the proposed
Sustainable Communities Strategy. The RHNA methodology described in this memo has been
supported by the HMC.
II. Background and Present Legislation
The State of California, since 1980 has required each town, city, and unincorporated area to plan for
its share of the state’s housing need for people of all income levels. This requirement is the Housing
Element Law (Chapter 1143, Statutes of 1980; AB 2853) that created the Regional Housing Need
Allocation. The statutory objective regarding RHNA requires that two major steps be completed
before a city receives its RHNA allocation. First, the California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) determine Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND) or
total housing need for the state and each region. The total determination is then divided into shares
defined by income categories. Each category is defined by the Health and Safety Code (Section
50093, et seq.) Second, the designated regional agencies then distribute this need to local
governments. As the Council of Governments for the San Francisco Bay Area, ABAG is this
designated regional agency. This allocation process is based on eight-year zoning capacity and does
not consider local government constraints.
In addition to AB 2853, the adoption of Senate Bill 375 (Chapter, Statutes of 2008) amends the
RHNA schedule. SB 375 aims to integrate land use and transportation planning to reduce
transportation-related GHG emissions. The bill requires that all Regional Transportation Plans
(RTPs) incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy that guides growth into locations that
promote alternatives to automobile travel. In the Bay Area, the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy is
the land use element of the SCS. Pursuant to SB375, the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy
accommodates the Bay Area’s Regional Housing Need Allocation. Through this process, the
region’s housing, transportation, and land use planning are aligned. To ensure that the SCS has fully
accommodated RHNA, ABAG allocates the pre-determined regional housing need from HCD to
local jurisdictions, consistent with the land use criteria specified in the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy. This land use plan has identified a network of neighborhoods that can accommodate
housing over 30 years (see the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy report, May 2012).
Item 4.c.
DRAFT RHNA Methodology 5/17/12
Page 2 of 4
Beyond the requirements specified in AB 2853 and SB 375, the comprehensive Plan Bay Area effort
will support RHNA through targeted transportation investments funded under the One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG), where funding criteria takes into account past housing production, RHNA
allocations, and low-income housing.
III. Overview of the 2014-2022 RHND/RHNA Methodology
HCD: Regional Housing Need Determination
For the 8.8 year period from January 2014 through October 2022, HCD determined that the Bay
Area would require 187,990 new housing units. This determination is based on population
projections produced by the California Department of Finance (DOF), which also took into account
the uncertainty regarding the national economy and regional housing markets. The Housing Element
Law requires HCD to help regions increase the mix of housing types among cities and counties
equitably by providing growth distributions based on income categories. The income allocation for
the region is as follows:
2014 – 2022 RHNA
Very Low
Up to 50 Percent of Median Income 24.8%
Low
Between 51 and 80 Percent of Median Income 15.4%
Moderate
Between 81 and 120 Percent of Median Income 17.8%
Above Moderate
Above 120 Percent of Median Income 42.0%
For this cycle only, HCD made an adjustment to account for abnormally high vacancies and unique
market conditions due to prolonged recessionary conditions, high unemployment, and
unprecedented foreclosures.
ABAG: Regional Housing Need Allocation Methodology
1. Sustainability Component
Objective: To advance the goals of SB 375, the Sustainability Component is based on the Jobs-
Housing Connection Strategy, which allocates new housing development into Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) and non-PDAs. By concentrating new development in PDAs, the
Strategy helps protect the region’s natural resources, water supply, and open space by reducing
development pressure on rural areas. This allows the region to consume less energy, reducing
household costs and the emission of greenhouse gases.
Process and Factors: Following the land use distribution specified in the Jobs-Housing
Connection Strategy, 70% (131,593) of the 187,990 units determined by HCD will be allocated
to PDAs and the remaining 30% (56,397) will be directed to non-PDA locations.
Item 4.c.
3
2. Fair Share Component
Objective: To achieve the requirements of AB 2853 (the original housing element law) that
requires that all cities and counties in California work to provide a fair share or proportion of the
region’s total and affordable housing need. In particular cities that had strong transit networks,
high employment rates, and performed poorly on the 1999-2006 RHNA cycle received higher
allocations.
Process and Factors: Fair Share scoring is addressed through the factors listed below.
i. Upper Housing Threshold: If growth projected by the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy in PDAs meets or exceeds 110% of the jurisdiction’s household formation
growth, it is not assigned additional growth outside the PDA, which ensures that cities
with large PDAs are not overburdened.
ii. Minimum Housing Floor: Jurisdictions are assigned a minimum of 40 percent of their
household formation growth but not to exceed 1.5 times its 2007–2014 RHNA. This
factor encourages all jurisdictions to produce a fair proportion of total housing need.
iii. Past RHNA Performance: In non PDA areas, the total low- and very-low income
units that were permitted in the 1999–2006 RHNA cycle were used as a factor for this
cycle. For example, cities that exceeded their RHNA obligation in these two income
categories received a lower score.
iv. Employment: In non-PDA areas, the employment was factored using the 2010 job
estimates for a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with higher employment received a higher
score.
v. Transit: In non-PDA areas, transit was factored for each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with
higher transit frequency and coverage received a higher score.
3. Income allocation
Objective: This ensures that jurisdictions that already supply a large amount of affordable
housing receive lower affordable housing allocations. This also promotes the state objective for
increasing the mix of housing types among cities and counties equitably. The income allocation
requirement is designed to ensure that each jurisdiction in the Bay Area plans for housing people
of every income.
Process and Factors: The income distribution of a jurisdiction’s housing need allocation is
determined by the difference between the regional proportion of households in an income
category and the jurisdiction’s proportion for that same category. Once determined, this
difference is then multiplied by 175 percent. The result becomes that jurisdiction’s “adjustment
factor.” The jurisdiction’s adjustment factor is added to the jurisdiction’s initial proportion of
households in each income category. The result is the total share of the jurisdiction’s housing
unit allocation for each income category.
Item 4.c.
DRAFT RHNA Methodology 5/17/12
Page 4 of 4
4. Sphere of Influence adjustments
Objective: Every city in the Bay Area has a Sphere of Influence (SOI), which can be either
contiguous with or go beyond the city’s boundary. The SOI is considered the probable future
boundary of a city and that city is responsible for planning within its SOI. The SOI boundary is
designated by the county’s Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO
influences how government responsibilities are divided among jurisdictions and service districts
in these areas.
Process and Factors: The allocation of the housing need for a jurisdiction’s SOI where there
is projected growth within the spheres varies by county. In Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara,
Solano, and Sonoma counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated
SOI is assigned to the cities. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties, the allocation of housing
need generated by the unincorporated SOI is assigned to the county. In Marin County, 62.5
percent of the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOI is assigned to
the city and 37.5 percent is assigned to the county.
5. Subregions Shares of the Regional Housing Needs Determination
Napa, San Mateo and Solano counties with the inclusion of all cities within each county have
formed the three subregions for this RHNA cycle. These counties are each considering an
alternative housing allocation methodology. The share of the RHND total for each of these
subregions is defined by the ratio between the subregion and the total regional housing growth
for the 2014 to 2022 period in the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy, which is the same ratio as
in RHNA. Napa will receive 0.8%, San Mateo will receive 8.5%, and Solano will receive 3.8% of
the region’s total RHND.
III. Next Steps
ABAG Adoption of Final Methodology
Action to be taken by ABAG Executive Board July 19, 2012
Draft Allocation Released
Action to be taken by ABAG Executive Board July 20, 2012
Public Comment Period: Revisions to Draft Allocation Sept. 18, 2012
ABAG Responds to Requests for Revisions By Nov. 15, 2012
Deadline for Subregions to Submit Final Allocation and Resolution February 1, 2013
ABAG Adoption of Final Allocation at Public Hearing
Action to be taken by ABAG Executive Board May 16, 2013
Local Governments Adopt Housing Element Revision Oct. 2014
Appendix A: DRAFT RHNA
Appendix B: SCS-RHNA Methodology Diagram
Item 4.c.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
ADJUSTED w/ 50% Max
40% Minimum Not Used
In Unincorporated Areas
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
Alameda County
Alameda 473 268 290 669 1,701 2,046 2,162
Albany 86 58 60 132 335 276 277
Berkeley 581 445 578 1,276 2,881 2,431 1,269
Dublin 783 454 442 498 2,177 3,330 5,436
Emeryville 291 224 236 671 1,421 1,137 777
Fremont 1,632 897 945 1,466 4,940 4,380 6,708
Hayward 960 538 632 1,876 4,006 3,393 2,835
Livermore 861 493 518 796 2,669 3,394 5,107
Newark 371 197 186 395 1,149 863 1,250
Oakland 2,523 2,237 2,958 7,658 15,376 14,629 7,733
Piedmont 24 14 15 7 60 40 49
Pleasanton 685 387 393 446 1,912 3,277 5,059
San Leandro 542 281 349 1,023 2,194 1,630 870
Union City 334 193 202 371 1,099 1,944 1,951
Alameda County Unincorporated 440 229 278 699 1,646 2,167 5,310
10,584 6,916 8,082 17,983 43,567 44,937 46,793
Contra Costa County
Antioch 338 199 209 679 1,425 2,282 4,459
Brentwood 231 121 121 283 755 2,705 4,073
Clayton 50 25 31 34 140 151 446
Concord 770 433 554 1,672 3,428 3,043 2,319
Danville 194 111 124 126 554 583 1,110
El Cerrito 94 60 66 160 378 431 185
Hercules 217 114 99 249 680 453 792
Lafayette 125 71 78 92 366 361 194
Martinez 122 71 78 196 466 1,060 1,341
Moraga 68 39 46 57 210 234 214
Oakley 311 171 171 509 1,163 775 1,208
Orinda 84 47 53 41 225 218 221
Pinole 77 46 39 125 287 323 288
Pittsburg 367 244 305 1,040 1,955 1,772 2,513
Pleasant Hill 115 68 84 178 445 628 714
Richmond 417 302 400 1,272 2,391 2,826 2,603
San Pablo 52 53 75 267 447 298 494
San Ramon 465 251 252 314 1,283 3,463 4,447
Walnut Creek 594 348 378 906 2,226 1,958 1,653
Contra Costa County Unincorporated 349 205 229 511 1,295 3,508 5,436
5,039 2,978 3,390 8,711 20,118 27,072 34,710
Draft 2014‐2022 RHNA 2007‐
2014
RHNA
Total
1999‐
2006
RHNA
Total
Updated on May 10, 2012 – For ABAG Executive Board Review
Note: This draft 2014‐2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs‐Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Item 4.c.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
ADJUSTED w/ 50% Max
40% Minimum Not Used
In Unincorporated Areas
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
Draft 2014‐2022 RHNA 2007‐
2014
RHNA
Total
1999‐
2006
RHNA
Total
Updated on May 10, 2012 – For ABAG Executive Board Review
Marin County
Belvedere 4 3 4 5 16 17 10
Corte Madera 20 11 12 27 70 244 179
Fairfax 15 9 11 25 61 108 64
Larkspur 36 17 20 58 131 382 303
Mill Valley 38 23 24 43 129 292 225
Novato 99 60 68 187 413 1,241 2,582
Ross 6 3 4 4 18 27 21
San Anselmo 30 15 18 42 106 113 149
San Rafael 210 144 181 494 1,029 1,403 2,090
Sausalito 25 14 15 29 82 165 207
Tiburon 23 16 18 21 78 117 164
Marin County Unincorporated 51 31 37 69 187 773 521
557 346 414 1,004 2,320 4,882 6,515
Napa County
American Canyon 125 60 62 146 394 728 1,323
Calistoga 7 2 4 14 27 94 173
Napa 215 117 152 383 866 2,024 3,369
St. Helena 8 5 5 12 31 121 142
Yountville 5 2 3 7 17 87 87
Napa County Unincorporated 57 34 35 62 189 651 1,969
417 221 261 625 1,524 3,705 7,063
San Francisco County
San Francisco 6,499 4,718 5,452 11,350 28,019 31,193 20,372
6,499 4,718 5,452 11,350 28,019 31,193 20,372
Note: This draft 2014‐2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs‐Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Item 4.c.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
ADJUSTED w/ 50% Max
40% Minimum Not Used
In Unincorporated Areas
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
Draft 2014‐2022 RHNA 2007‐
2014
RHNA
Total
1999‐
2006
RHNA
Total
Updated on May 10, 2012 – For ABAG Executive Board Review
San Mateo County
Atherton 36 26 28 15 105 83 166
Belmont 110 58 66 133 366 399 317
Brisbane 20 11 13 28 72 401 426
Burlingame 261 137 151 427 975 650 565
Colma 19 8 9 34 69 65 74
Daly City 369 174 219 743 1,505 1,207 1,391
East Palo Alto 50 51 88 277 466 630 1,282
Foster City 144 81 65 139 429 486 690
Half Moon Bay 48 31 32 74 185 276 458
Hillsborough 49 28 34 18 129 86 84
Menlo Park 214 128 124 236 701 993 982
Millbrae 178 94 107 299 678 452 343
Pacifica 114 61 68 169 413 275 666
Portola Valley 21 14 14 16 64 74 82
Redwood City 646 405 490 1,243 2,784 1,856 2,544
San Bruno 304 142 188 558 1,193 973 378
San Carlos 166 89 94 180 529 599 368
San Mateo 770 420 498 1,237 2,925 3,051 2,437
South San Francisco 511 240 311 965 2,027 1,635 1,331
Woodside 22 13 15 12 62 41 41
San Mateo County Unincorporated 85 54 63 104 306 1,506 1,680
4,135 2,267 2,676 6,906 15,984 15,738 16,305
Santa Clara County
Campbell 224 121 142 420 906 892 777
Cupertino 432 261 275 391 1,358 1,170 2,720
Gilroy 204 157 215 505 1,081 1,615 3,746
Los Altos 162 98 107 108 476 317 261
Los Altos Hills 45 28 31 18 122 81 83
Los Gatos 189 107 131 190 616 562 402
Milpitas 920 497 513 1,255 3,186 2,487 4,348
Monte Sereno 23 12 13 14 62 41 76
Morgan Hill 235 139 168 324 865 1,312 2,484
Mountain View 712 425 480 1,136 2,754 2,599 3,423
Palo Alto 659 420 457 657 2,192 2,860 1,397
San Jose 8,881 5,356 6,337 16,532 37,106 34,721 26,114
Santa Clara 902 608 663 1,640 3,812 5,873 6,339
Saratoga 143 91 102 102 438 292 539
Sunnyvale 1,540 871 870 2,293 5,574 4,426 3,836
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 15 9 11 24 58 1,090 1,446
15,284 9,200 10,513 25,610 60,607 60,338 57,991
Note: This draft 2014‐2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs‐Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Item 4.c.
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION
ADJUSTED w/ 50% Max
40% Minimum Not Used
In Unincorporated Areas
Very Low
0‐50%
Low
51‐80%
Moderate
81‐120%
Above
Moderate
120%+
Total
Draft 2014‐2022 RHNA 2007‐
2014
RHNA
Total
1999‐
2006
RHNA
Total
Updated on May 10, 2012 – For ABAG Executive Board Review
Solano County
Benicia 106 61 65 112 345 532 413
Dixon 56 24 35 82 197 728 1,464
Fairfield 982 511 579 1,524 3,596 3,796 3,812
Rio Vista 19 13 17 55 104 1,219 1,391
Suisun City 119 47 51 152 370 610 1,004
Vacaville 315 148 178 442 1,082 2,901 4,636
Vallejo 318 197 219 626 1,359 3,100 3,242
Solano County Unincorporated 18 10 12 25 66 99 2,719
1,934 1,011 1,156 3,017 7,118 12,985 18,681
Sonoma County
Cloverdale 48 34 36 97 216 417 423
Cotati 40 25 17 58 140 257 567
Healdsburg 37 27 27 65 156 331 573
Petaluma 224 121 120 275 740 1,945 1,144
Rohnert Park 231 136 142 444 953 1,554 2,124
Santa Rosa 1,191 679 836 2,155 4,860 6,534 7,654
Sebastopol 28 17 23 53 121 176 274
Sonoma 30 22 30 55 137 353 684
Windsor 139 79 75 163 455 719 2,071
Sonoma County Unincorporated 263 143 169 380 955 1,364 6,799
2,230 1,282 1,476 3,744 8,733 13,650 22,313
REGION 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990 214,500 230,743
Actual Split 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950
Difference 0 0 0 0
Note: This draft 2014‐2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs‐Housing Connection
Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding.
Item 4.c.
Overview of the SCS-RHNA Methodology
Step 1: Housing Development Potential (2010 – 2040)
Local Input
Sustainability, Equity, and Economic Adjustment Factors
Housing Unit Growth Distribution
Step 2: Household Formation Maximum (110% Upper Threshold)
Step 3: Fair Share Scoring to Growth in Non-PDA Areas
Step 4: Household Formation Minimum (40% Lower Threshold)
Step 5: RHNA Maximum and Minimum
Step 6: Income Allocation Adjustment to Jurisdiction’s Total RHNA
Total Regional Growth: 660,000 Housing Units
If growth within PDA(s) ≥ 110% of
the household formation growth
YES: PDA Growth = Jurisdiction’s Total RHNA
NO: Fair Share Factors Applied (Step 3)
Takes into account:
• Past RHNA Performance (1999-2006 for very low and low income)
• Number of Jobs (within the jurisdiction)
• Transit Service (coverage and frequency)
Cities: Total housing allocation is capped at 1.5 times 2007 -2014 RHNA
Jurisdictions are assigned a minimum of 40% of their natural household formation growth
(SCS)
For each income category:
175%
=
Adjustment
Factor
5th RHNA Cycle | 2014 – 2022
PDA (70%) !NON – PDA (30%) !
(RHNA)
(RHNA)
Regional
Proportion (%)
Jurisdiction
Proportion (%)
Jurisdiction
Proportion (%)
Adjusted Income
Distribution
Jurisdiction’s RHNA Allocation
(Housing Units)
=