The URL can be used to link to this page

.01 ABAG/MTC Sustainable Communities Strategy OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 C U P E RT I N O (408) 777-3308 • FAX (408) 777-3333 • plaruling�cupertino.or� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Agenda Item No. � Agenda Date: Tanuary 25, 2011 SUMMARY The purpose of this report is to provide the Commission with an overview of the SCS process to date. This report also describes the relationship between Senate Bill 375 and the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and the effect of the law on local governments as well as the Bay Area as a region. The report is based on information provided by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The SCS does not alter the authority of jurisdictions over local land use and development decisions. PURPOSE AND APPROACH Senate Bi11375 became law in 2008 and is considered landmark legislation for California relative to land use, transportation and environmental planning. It calls for the development of a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) in all metropolitan regions in California. Within the Bay Area, the law gives joint responsibility for the SCS to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The SCS integrates several existing planning processes and is required to accomplish the following objectives: 1. Provide a new 25-year land use strategy for the Bay Area that is realistic and identifies areas to accommodate all of the regiori s population, including all income groups; 2. Forecast a land use pattern, which when integrated with the transportation system, reduces greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks and is measured against our regional target established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). , The SCS is a land use strategy required to be included as part of the Bay Area's 25-year R�gional Transportation Plan (RTP). By federal law, the RTP must be internally consistent. Therefore, the over $200 billion dollars of transportation investment typically included in the RTP must align with and support the SCS land-use pattern. SB 375 also requires that an updated eight- year regional housing need allocation (RHNA) prepared by ABAG is consistent with the SCS. The SCS, RTP and RHNA will be adopted simultaneously in early 2013 (see Attachment 1- SCS Schedule). 1-1 January 25, 2011 Sustainable Communities Strategies Update Page 2 The primary goal is to build a Bay Area which continues to thrive and prosper under the changing circumstances of the twenty-first century. A successful SCS will: • Recognize and support compact walkable places where residents and workers have access to services and amenities to meet their day-to-day needs; • Reduce long commutes and decrease reliance that increases energy independence and decreases the regiori s carbon consumption; • Support complete communities which remain livable and affordable for all segments of the population, maintaining the Bay Area as an attractive place to reside, start or continue a business, and create jobs. . • Support a sustainable transportation system and reduce the need for expensive highway and transit expansions, freeing up resources for other more productive public investments; • Provide increased accessibility and affordability to our most vulnerable populations; • Conserve water and decrease our dependence on imported food stocks and their high transport costs. In recognition of these other goals, ABAG and MTC will adopt performance targets and indicators that will help inform decisions about land use patterns and transportation investments. These targets and indicators will apply to the SCS and the RTP. The targets and indicators are being developed by the Performance Targets and Indicators Ad Hoc Committee of the Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG), which includes local planning and transportation staff, non-profit organizations, and business and developers' organizations. The targets are scheduled for adoption early 2011 and the indicators will be adopted in spring 2011. BUILDING ON EXISTING EFFORTS In many respects the SCS builds upon existing efforts in many Bay Area communities to encourage more focused and compact growth while recognizing the unique characteristics and differences of the regiori s many varied communities. FOCUS Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are locally-identified and regionally adopted infill development opportunity areas near transit. Cupertino does not currently have a PDA. While PDAs are only three percent of the region's land area, local governments have indicated that based upon existing plans, resources, and incentives, the PDAs can collectively acc�mmodate over fifty percent of the Bay Area's housing needs through 2035. The current RTP _ allocates an average of $60 million a year to PDA incentive-related funding. Future RTPs, consistent with the SCS, will be structured to provide policies and funding that is supportive of PDAs and potentially other opportunity areas for sustainable development in the region. PARTNERSHIPS To be successful, the SCS will require a partnership among regional agencies, local jurisdictions, Congestion Management Agencies (CMAs), transit agencies, and other regional stal<eholders. 1-2 January 25, 2011 Sustainable Communities Strategies Update Page 3 MTC and ABAG are engaged in an intense information exchange with County-Corridors Working Groups throughout the Bay Area. Cupertino's Director of Community Development is working with the Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCCAPO), primarily composed of planning directors from each city and from Santa Clara County, to address these issues. Other City staff inembers are involved in working groups of planners and transportation officials coordinated by and supported technically by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). The City/County Managers Association and the Santa Clara County Cities Association are also active in reviewing key policy actions related to the SCS. In addition to the County-Corridor Working Groups, a Regional Advisory Working Group (RAWG), composed of local government representatives and key stakeholders throughout the region, provides technical oversight at the . regional level. The Director of Community Development is a participant in those meetings. PROCESS - SCS SCENARIOS The final SCS will be the product of an interactive process that includes a sequence of growth and supportive transportation scenarios. Starting with an Initial Vision Scenario (February 2011), followed by more detailed SCS scenarios that refine the initial vision scenario (Spring and Fa112011), and final draft (early 2012). Initial Vision Scenario ABAG and MTC will release an Initial Vision Scenario in February 2011 based in large part on input from local jurisdictions through the county/corridor engagement process and information collected by December 2010. The Vision Scenario will encompass an initial identification of places, policies and strategies for long-term, sustainable development in the Bay Area. Local governments will identify places of great potential for sustainable development, including PDAs, transit corridors, employment areas, as well as infill opportunity areas that lack transit services but offer opportunities for increased walkability and reduced driving. As noted earlier, Cupertino has not currently proposed a PDA. The Initial Vision Scenario will: ■ Incorporate the 25-year regional housing need encompassed in the SCS; ■ Provide a preliminary set of housing and employment growth numbers at regional, county, jurisdictional, and sub-jurisdictional levels; , ■ Be evaluated against the greenhouse gas reduction target as well as the additional performance targets adopted for the SCS. Detailed Scenarios By the early spring of 2011 the conversation between local governments and regional agencies will turn to the feasibility of achieving the Initial Vision Scenario by working on the Detailed Scenarios. The Detailed Scenarios will be different than the initial Vision Scenario in that they will take into account constraints that might limit development potential, and will identify the infrastructure and resources that can be identified and/or secured to support the scenario. 1-3 January 25, 2011 Sustainable Communities Strategies Update Page 4 � MTC and ABAG expect to release a first round of Detailed Scenarios by July 2011. Local jurisdictions will provide input, which will then be analyzed for the release of the Preferred Scenario by the end of 2011. The County/Corridor Working Groups as well as the RAWG will facilitate local input into the scenarios through 2011. The analysis of the Detailed Scenarios and Preferred Scenario takes into account the Performance Targets and Indicators. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION As described above, the eight-year RHNA must be consistent with the SCS. Planning for affordable housing in the Bay Area is one of the essential tasks of sustainable development. In the SCS, this task becomes integrated with the regional land use strategy, the development of complete communities and a sustainable transportation system. The county/corridor engagement process will include discussions of RHNA, since both the SCS and RHNA require consideration of housing needs by income group. The process to update the RHNA will begin in 2011: • A Housing Methodology Committee for the region will be appointed in January 2011. Meetings will continue through September 2011. At the Santa Clara County � level, the RHNA Methodology Committee will include 2 staff from cities (San Jose and Morgan Hill) and 2 alternates (Cupertino and Sunnyvale), and a staff inember from Santa Clara County. • Cities must determine whether they want to form a sub-regional RHNA group by March 2011. If so, they must follow the same timeline for formulation as the Methodology Committee. • Local jurisdictions will provide input prior to the adoption of the RHNA methodology by September 2011. • The final housing numbers for the region will be issued by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to ABAG by September 2011. • The Draft RHNA will be released by ABAG by spring 2012. • ABAG will adopt the Final RHNA by the end of summer 2012. • Local governments will address the next round of RHNA in their next Housing Element update (2014-2022). • The distribution of housing needs will then inform the Detailed SCS Scenarios. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN The SCS creates an explicit link between the land use choices and the transportation investments. MTC and ABAG's commitment to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and provision of housing for all income levels translates into an alignment of the development of--r places committed to these goals and transportation, infrastructure and housing funding. The regional agencies will work closely with the CMAs, transportation agencies and local jurisdictions to define financially constrained transportation priorities in their response to a call for transportation projects in early 2011 and a detailed project assessment that will be completed by July/ August 2011; the project assessment will be an essential part of the development of Detailed SCS Scenarios. The RTP will be analyzed through 2012 and released for review by the end of 2012. ABAG will approve the SCS by March 2013. MTC will adopt the final RTP and SCS by Apri12013. 1-4 January 25, 2011 Sustainable Communities Strategies Update Page 5 Regional agencies will prepare one Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for both the SCS and the RTP. This EIR might assist local jurisdictions in streamlining the environmental review process for some of the projects that are consistent with the SCS. Local jurisdictions are currently providing input for the potential scope of the EIR. Regional agencies are investigating the scope and strategies for an EIR that could provide the most effective support for local governments. ADDITIONAL REGIONAL TASKS MTC, ABAG and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District are coordinating the impacts of CEQA thresholds and guidelines recently approved by the Air District. The Air District is currently developing tools and mitigation measures related to the CEQA thresholds and guidelines to assist with development projects in PDAs. The four regional agencies will be coordinating other key regional planning issues including any adopted climate adaptation- related policy recommendations or best practices encompassed in the Bay Plan update recently released by Bay Area Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). CUPERTINO'S ROLE IN THE SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY The City will Ue asked to respond to several key questions over the coming year and beyond, such as (but not limited to): 1. How do our current policy documents (General Plan, Specific Plans and Area Plans) relate to the SCS? 2. How much housing and employment should/can the City accommodate to provide a meaningful contribution to smart growth and sustainable development mandates of the Bay Area and balance new growth opportunities with the existing character of the City of Cupertino? 3. Where are the key areas where the City expects to accommodate new housing and employment within the next 25 years? 4. What are the key local sustainable development issues/ strategies that might be advanced through the SCS (e.g. type of housing, employment centers, affordable housing, opportunities for enhanced commercial revenue, etc.)? 5. What infrastructure investments would be needed to support additional development in Cupertino (e.g., enhanced school facilities, open space, transportation/transit, etc.)? � 6. _ How should the City Council, Commission and staff participate in the SCS process? The SCS provides an opportunity for the City of Cupertino to advance local goals as part of a coordinated regional framework. The SCS will help begin a dialogue on balancing issues at the local level (new housing, jobs, etc.) while addressing regional objectives. As such, it may serve as a platform for cities and counties to discuss and address a wide spectrum of challenges, including high housing costs, economic development, affordable and accessible transportation, and public health, and identify local, regional, and state policies to address them. 1-5 January 25, 2011 SustainaUle Communities Strategies Update Page 6 NEXT STEPS The following is an outline of key steps in the SCS process in 2011: • October/November 2010; Staff input to Planned Development Areas (PDAs) and other "opportunity" areas. • February 2011: Release of the Initial Vision Scenario. � March/Apri12011: Local agency feedback to the Initial Vision Scenario. • April-August 2011: Release of Detailed SCS Scenarios and local agency input. Re�onal Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) • January 2011: Appointrnent of RHNA Methodology Committee. • March 2011: Determination wheth�r to participate in subregional housing methodology effort. • February-August 2011: Participation and review of housing methodology (ABAG and/or subregional), including local agency input. Input to the Initial and Detailed Vision scenarios will encompass reviews by staff, the Planning Commission, and City Council, and the community through the hearing process. Prepared by: Aarti Shrivastava, Director of Community Development ��-L-�G,� l/ �S'�l��Gi-0 O� ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1: Draft Schedule of City Input for Sustainable Community Strategies and Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process Attachment 2: Letter from ABAG Outlining Process for Subregional RHNA Determinations Attachment 3: Place Type Description Charts (ABAG/MTC) G:planning/pdreport/pc2/2011/SCA Update012511.doc 1-6 v c � rv C Q� a�i a�i � rn ro � rn j W a v �7 • — .p � � v Q 0 J Sustainable Communities Strategy �Planning �Process: � ►� ,�,�� j:.�cz�� ;�� _°��r� Phase 1: PerformanceTargets andVision Scenario � � ayArea � � � GHGTarget i Laal 4�1 CARB/Bay Area ,��;`Regional Response to � - leadership Roundtable Meeting ` i Revised Oraft Public ;`,; ; Final Public j�'��ase One Decisions: � Workshop Govemment �l GHG Workshop � �,; CARB Draft GHG Target j�j ` �': P�rtidpa[ion Plan Participation �• GHG Targets � SuIflliltt - " L_I � - -- ' � Plan � a �` I ^ ,(�_�` Projedions I�li� 2011 B�se Case � Development �� v �_ ( � � � � �9 r o � cQ ._ � }, 4 v 3 a a MTC ABAG 1PC • PerformanceTargets � Drah Public Partidpation Plan County/Corridor Engagement oo Ysion Scenano • Public Participation Plan � i ' —. _ _ _ ; �' AQAG Reyional '�' MTC Policy � Iteyional Advisory � t. � cutive � County and Corridor � a Planniny (omoiiitee � Advisory founcil Workiny Group V� �,rkiny Group Workiny Groups � � � � �1 CARB / Releases Draft GHG Target MTC asac JPC MTC Commission � -� � � '� CARB lssues � Adopt �` Projedions � j Final GHG Target l� Methodology ( I' p') 2011 I � (Statutory forJobs/Housing �-� Base Case � Targeq Forecast (Statutory � � Adopt Target) �� Voluntary ' Performance � Targets � Initial Vsion kenario . � Dereloped by laal Govemment I I MTC ABAG JPC M1C ABAG 1PC ABAG Executive Board MTC ABAG 1PC MTC Commission zo,o . ............ . _ ......... .............................. . .. ............. ......._. .,-- _ _ _ __ _ - _ ... . . . ..... . . . .__ . . . .. _ .. . ._. .. _ __ _ _ _ _ _ *Subject to change F(,1 �; ,� L,,; � Meeting for Discussion/ u� JOINT meeting of the ABAG Administrative Committee, the Joint Poliry Committee ' I. ABAG -ABAGAdministrative Committee , � , Decision DowmentRelease ; 1PC-JointPoliryCommittee �,Jai�sE , Pu61ic Comment and the MTC Planning Committee for Discussion/Public Comment i MT(- MTC Planning Committee __ __ --- - - _ _ _ _- -- - _ _ _ . For more information on key actions and decisions and how to get involved, visit OneRayArea.org �.. a � n � � � � � u.► � Sustainable Communities Strategy �lanning �rocess: '� a :��, � � ; � , �;; ,�:_�: ��r �� Phase 2: Scenario Planning, Transportation Policy & Investment Dialogue, and Regional Housing Need Allocation L ayArea c� Targeted StakeholderWorlcshops Public Hearing on Ta�geted StakeholderWorkshops f0 v and Coun Worksho s ' Vliase Two h' P RHNA Methodology and Coun Worksho s .. ............. .............. .... .......�.. .......... .,' ctions eusions: � � . . . . . - . . . ry . . . . . �, p . - . . . . . . . . . . I ' � Initial Ysioo Scenano h' P � rn Web Survey Possibie Web ARivi Surve U dates Possible � r� • Financial Forecasts , � v, Telephone Poll and Comment Opportunities Telephone Poll a� C '• Detailed XS kenarios � � w • RHNA Methodology � �•`—' � AQAG Reyional `�' FATC Policy � Reyional Advisory � Executive � County and Corridor • Preferred SCS Scenario j v� Planning Comtnittee � Advisory (otuuil Workiuy Group Workiny Group Workinq Groups � � 0 a. � � J _. __ • Draft RHNA Plan � � ---_. _ ___ _._ Release Initial �sion Scenario Develo ment of ��on of Det�iled P Techoiwl Analysis of SCS Scenario Results Release Preferred Approve Preferred SCS Scenario Planniny B m Public Diuussion Detailed XS kenarios SCS kenarios 5C5 Scenario kenano (or EIR � to be evaluated � Scenarios Develop Dtaft 25-Year Transportation flnaadal Fornwsts and Transportation Policy Investment Dialogue � Transportation Policy a Committed Transportation Funding Poluy ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . - ; I and Investment Dialogue � 1 ; Call for Transportation Projects and Projed Performance Assessment � � Release Draft RHNA Adopt RHNA State Dept. of Housing Release Draft ! Regional Hoasiny �._.. Start Negiooal Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Methodologies Methodology & Community Development RNNA Plan ; Need Allocation � Issues Housing Determination � Malysis of Equity Issues of Derelop Equity Analysis Methodology � Initial Ysion kenario for Detailed SCS Scenarios Equity Malysis of SCS kenarios � Equity Analysis ! MTC I �, ABAG I � (SCS Scenarios) MTC m.° MiC BAG ABAG MTC MTC MTC ABAG +r ABAG ABAG Executive Board ABAG ABAG ABAG �` � 1PC 1PC JPC 1PC ' a ABAG Executire Board ABAG E�cecutive Board � (BHNA� (RHNA) j I . ..-.,,. � � , . . , s; ��, ` �'Y _ .. � �� , _ �' , � . 1 � . 1 t� � �-. � 1 ,. : ; �� , c � � U � I . . . . . . . .. ...... .. ... . . . ..... __. ..._ __ __ __....__ _ _ _ ............... __. ... ., 1 1..._...._ _ . --- _ _. *Subjedtochange �•�,�; �+- �; Meetin forDiscussion/ �►� Q I ABAG-ABAGAdministrativeCommittee _; g 101NT meeting of the ABAG Administrative Committee, the loint Policy Committee 101NT document release by �,� , , "K Decision Document Release ;,� � 1PC-laint Poliry Committee �il � � Public Comment and the MTC Planning Committee for Discussion/Public Comment ABAG and MTC , MTC- MTC Planning Committee <_. For more information on key adions and decisions and how to get involved, visit OneCayArea orq Sustainabte Communities Strategy �lanning �rocess: ' � � � ,� - �. : � �,: � i. � ° �.. }� Phase 3: Housing Need Allocation, Environmental/Technical Analyses and Final Plans Phase 4: Plan Adoption L ayArea Pliase Tl�ree EIR Kick-Off County Workshops/Public Hearings on Draft SCSlRTP & EIR I Actions/Decisions: (koping) Web Activity: Surveys, Updates and Comment Opportunities Web Activity: Surveys, Updates & Comment Opportunities • Draft SCS/RTP Plan Public Meeting � � ............ ...... ......................... . ...................... ......................... .................. ' ....... .........,.......... ..,...... j • Drah EIR � �. . i � ................ � � ' • Draft RHNA Plan � � � �� ' ABAG Reqional �' MTC Poliry � fiegional Advisory �. Executive � County and Corridor !, • Final RHNA . a� c� Planning Commiltee lldvisory Council � Workinq Group Working Group Workiny Groups � � ; - ... _ _ . -- _ __-- - E ,� i � v� _ _ _ � w ,. ______ 1 o '�, i Phase Four � �- �o � Prepare SCS/RTP Plan � Release Oraft SCS/RTP Response '�; pdopt i Decisions: v �'" � � � � � � � � � � � � � " � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Plan for55-Day Reriew to Camments ; • Final 5CS/RTP Plan � � . . . ..� ..... �. .. ., on DraftSCS/RTPs � Plao SCS/RTP ' J • final EIR Condud EIR Assessment , Agency Release Droft EIR ;• final Conformity � Develop CEQA 5tre�mlining Consistency P ' Consultation for 55-Da Review Res onse -� !_ ___ ___ .__ _____._ � � olides on Mitigation Y Release Draft to Comments on �' Certify i �, Measures Conformity Anafysis EIR and tir Quality Fnal EIR � � for 30-Day Review I Q i Prepare Transportation Confortnity Malysis i Contormity Malysis � C� s ........................ .......................... � ; Make � ..� Draft RHNA Plan Public Hearing Release ABAG Adopts ,' Conformity ; Close of Comments/ on RHNA Appeals Final RHNA final RHNA Determination ! Start of Appe�ls Process Response to Comments State Department of � from RHNA Appeals Nousing & Community Development � Reviews Fnal RHNA I i Conduct Equity Assessment of Draft SWRTP Plan Release Equiry � , ........... .......................,.............,............................, .—� --^---- v � �o j �° o MTC paAG Exeative Board � �'� ABAG Executive Bwrd ABAG Executive Board ABAG Fxecutive Board ABAG Executive Board MTC MTC ABAG i ." ¢ (RHNA) (RHNA� (RHNA) ABAG ABAG T � 1pC MTt Commission 0 a -�. _ �. �„ { :, ._ . ,r . � _ , - ,:, .� , , �� - - _ ,� i �� , � � ,�� zoiz .... ... . . . . ... . ........ ... y _ . .. .. .. .. . . ::: ._ . . .. .... .. . _ _ . . . . ___ _ _ . .._ __� zoi�� _ ' _ ' _ _ _ . . _ . _ ___.. ._ ° Ii � �;�_ �. � T,. .:r'� '�'�i� �. -,„ ._, , ,� � .... : , . .. '� I� 1 • i r 1 � i r . �. ., � , � � i � � j ,. i *Subject to change �, �., Meeting for Discussion/ w JOINT meeting of the ABAG Administrative Committee, the Joint Policy Committee Q )OINT dOCUment felease by ABAG - ABAG Administrative Committee , ,� Decision Document Release ,,,� 1PC-loint Poliry Cammittee �� Public Comment and the MTC Planning Committee for Discussion/Public Comment ABAG and MTC I MTC- MTC Planning Committee --- __ _— _ _ - ___ _ -- __ _ __ _ . _ _._ __ _ For more information on key actions and decisions and how to get involved, visit Onel;ayl�rea.ory ,• ASSOCIAT'ION OF BAY I�REA GOVERNMEN Attachment 2 Representing City and Counry Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area October 12 �o � o M E M O To: Responsible Local Government Representative From: Paul Fassinger, A.BAG Research Director Re: 2014-22 Regional Housing Need Allocation- Requirements to Form a Subregion The fifth Regional Housing Needs Deternlination and Allocation (RHND and RI�TA) process for the 2014-2022 planning period is scheduled to begin in January 2011. The Regional Housing Needs Determination and Allocation are mandated by State housing element law (Government Code Section 65588), which requires local governments in California to adopt a general plan for the physical development of the city, city and county, or county. The housing element is one of the seven mandated elements of the local general plan. Within the housing element, cities and counties are to demonstrate how the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community can be met. The intent of the law is to allow the private market to adequately address housing needs and demand, by requiring local governments to adopt land use plans and regulatory systems which provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development. " As in last RHI�TA cycle, in this upcoming RI�TA period local governments will have the opportuniiy to form "subregions". According to state law, at least two or more cities and a county, or counties, may form a subregional entity for the purpose of allocating the subregion's e�sting and projected housing need for housing among its members. A subregion may include a single county and each of the cities in that county or any other combination of geographically contiguous local govemments. All subregions need to be approved by the adoption of a resolution by each of the local governments in the subregion as well as by the council of governments. Local governments choosing to form subregions will be responsible for devising the Regional Housing Needs Allocation methodology, which will be used to allocate the 2014-2022 RHIVA to its members. ABAG will assign a subregional share of the Bay Area's total Regional Housing Need Deternunation to the subregion. The total Regional Need Determination is determined by the State Department of Housing and Community Development. The subregion's share of the total RHND is to be consistent with the distribution of households assumed for the comparable time period within the Regional Transportation Plan. , u� Each subregion would also be required to undertake the revision, appeal and final allocation process. The final subregional allocation would be submitted to ABAG for approval by the HCD. In the event the subregion fails to make the allocation or can not complete the allocation process within the state mandated deadlines, ABAG will be required to allocate the subregion's share of housing to the � jurisdictions within the subregion, according to the regionally adopted method. � If there is interest in your community to form a subregion with your neighboring jurisdiction(s) please � � note the schedule below. The deadline for forming a subregion is March 16, 2011. All members of the proposed subregion will have to have resolution's confirming their participation in the subregion by this date. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94b04-2o50 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7985 info@abag.ca.gov � Location: Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street� � Oakland, California 94607-4756 DRAFT DATES — SUBJECT' TD CHANGE .v y.��'#Y.yti:C?�1i r '1�::1�f(H! : � �t��l�' ! r r�., '° C �� " �' _�Tl`r w.rv �� "•r7:.IHt$=�� i��k'":L'i�.�u�•' ^ "�Nr•��•y' �':,' i r -M�lestones_�� .� . � �;;Corx% i fiion�D te� '�' ` p� �..... ;'�,�_. _p.- , , � Update Growth Forecast � December 1, 2011 Survey Jurisdictions on RHNA factors January 1, 2011 Subregions Inform ABAG of Intention to Form March 16, 2011 Deadline for Subregion Formation Consult with HCD on Determination July 1, 2011 Adopt Draft RHNA Method July 21, 2011 Subregions Adopt Proposed Method Final RHNA Method/Public Hearing September 15, 2011 Subregions Adopt Final Method HCD issues Regional Housing Needs Determination October 1, 2011 Housing Need Assigned Subregions Draft RHND Allocation January 19, 2012 Subregions Make Draft Allocation ABAG Reviews Subregion Allocation Locat Gov't Request for Revisions to RHNA March 15, 2012 Local Jurisdictions May Request Revisions ABAG Responds to Revisions/Appeals Period Begins May 17, 2012 Subregion Responds to Revision Request Final Date to File Appeal/Public Hearing on Appeals July 19, 2012 Local Jurisdictions May Appeal Subregions Make Proposed Final • Proposed Final RNNA Allocation July 19, 2012 Allocations Board Adopts Final RHNA Plan (Public Hearing) September 20, 2012 Subregion Adopts Final Allocation Plan HCD Adopts RHN Plan October 1, 2012 Housing Elements Due Se tember 10, 2014 DRAFT DATES — SUSJECT TO CHANGE ABAG staff is available to discuss the subregion option with you and to answer any questions you may have. Please contact Christy Riviere at (510)464-7923 or email christ�r(�abag.ca.�ov. :� •- 1-11 2 � 14 � I � N � � � n � � �D � rt W � . Centers � ' ��- ' •�- ' •�- • - '. • . '�� • . C � �,-��y��."'£,�#k# y v�' �', �� . ,a°t-�s.'"k '7�.` s X � � 3�s��, �`` �°- �°�, � � • � � � � �i e; ��a s r ��;: `�_, �:, +, ,�; �� ,�,��,,,,.��',� � '�< �`�,f��. High-density mix of residential, commercial, employment, and civic/cultural uses. Regional-serving destination retail opportunity; need for local-serving retail Integrating dense mix of housing and employment into built-out context. Moderate- to high-density mix of residential, commercial, employment, and civicicultural uses. Regiona!-serving destination retail opportunity; need for local-serving and community- serving retail Moderate- to high-density mix of residential, commercial, employment, and civic/cultural uses. Regional-serving destination retail opportunity; need for local-serving and community- serving retail Introducing housing into predominantly employment uses and improving connections/access to transit. Moderate-density mix of residential, commercial, employment, and civic/cultural uses. Community-serving and destination retail opportunity; need for local-serving retail. (ncreasing densities while retaining scale and improving transit access. Integrating high-density housing into existing mix of housing and employment to support local-serving retail. Downtown San Francisco, Downtown Hayward, Berkeley, Oakland & San Jose Redwood City & Santa Rosa Pleasant Hill BART, Dublin/Pleasanton BART Hercules Waterfront, Suisun City, Napa, Livermore . . ... . . . � ,.c��.s.�.�,�,k �*�** �'F'^.' �v''^'� _�£ �k; � y, ;t ��.". - °�,� "�i7" �: ."ql.x.�`c "��, " .= ^' - v �..� �€�"F�,+c+�' `r - [1J Station Area typically refers to half mile radius around station or roughly 500 acres •[2] Station Areas are typically a mix of characteristics of several Place Types. These examples are meant to be illustrative of the qualities only. Primary center of economic Significant center of economic Significant center of economic Local center of economic and � and cultural activity, and cultural activity with and cultural activity with community activity. � regional-scale destinations. regional-scale destinations. --- — _ __. .. _ --- – -- -- -_ _ _ _ �,,., � .� � .s ��.. _ _ ti,� U�_,_, BART, LRT/Streetcar, BRT, Commuter Rail, Local Bus �.� �:. } � t�; u �� ;�,'�;+?�"� �.�� LRT/Streetcar, BRT, Commuter Rail, Potentially Ferry, Local Bus LRTIStreetcar, BRT, Local Bus �� . � Moderate - to high-density, Low- to moderate-density, Moderate-density mix of !�redominantly residential uses predominantly residential uses residential, commercial, w with supporting commercial with supporting commercial employment, and civic/cultural and employment uses. and employment uses. uses. Primarily local-serving retail opportunity; need for some community-serving retail Primarily local-serving retail opportunity. � Primarily local-serving retail opportunity; need for some community-serving retai! Expanding local-serving retail Integrating i�oderate-density Expanding local-serving retail opportunities and increasing housing and supporting opportunities and increasing high-density housing local-serving retail. high-density housing opportunities. opportunities. Fruitvale in Oakland, Whisman Station in Mountain Japantown in San Jose, View, EI Cerrito de! Norte, Church/Nlarket in San Ohlone Chynoweth in San Francisco Jose, Glen Park San Pablo Avenue, EI Camino Real, Geary Boulevard, International Boulevard 15 Predominantly residential Predominantly residential Local focus of economic and district with good access to district organized around community activity without �� Regional and Sub-Regional transit station distinct "center" '' ' Centers • • ' ' 18 Centers �� x��:��.�� _ ., �'' �� A �-�"�".�.�"L��it��''�t+�`., , ...�t,��";c� .# -"�..�'"".,. "�`''� -:� �� '=; t� ,d,'L'xa, c �":��°'-��'�+.�"'"�;� _.�, %^�rzY��"�+,: �� - �a� .,��; � t ..;x�F� �- 8,000 - 30,000 5,000 -15,000 2,500 -10,000 3,000 - 7,500 � - . . ,ra. `:t� - �c. r `�z` '�bce t�,.�a. 6��"s� .M-.� pw ;�w# _ x� ?i .�.� r. -'s<^�, � :4: _ �' + '.Y ac � �..�"i{ ,� x.,�:�- �.M ``,`l?t . „�::�. �ro�-K. L '^i� e.., a � t. ,:�� .�. � n .�, 5� :'� .. '� �:�„� ..,,,, �� . �`:,*�. ' s� z .. �; �, `: �t c - �.5,.. ? "f�xY �, �� 1 '� �_�, s , � :, .�'�.w,s� _,�.,"?� .. �-.� '#`a. w: . ,_..� > ..?.. � U n , .' �s.., - ' �. � - -,. .�� .-. - _� :�+t`� , �? , �-.�, r �... ..,.. _ � � � +�A'An :.,+++ +�i': �d,nt;�'�a%ia.*� �. .�...s-"�:�"i�t:.�..+�.a` , �.,. .i-. - �"� �-'� . �"w r � d�-'' � �x �,. t � . �.+"" t ;'h .,�t.-a:'�,. � �:: ,n....?%�- ��..�s�'��.�.it I � - �� . . ,;. . ..,� .. - . . . ... . . .. .. . . .. ... . . .. .. . .. . . _ ., .. ... .. .. _. . . . . . ., . .._.. .,.. ._. . ..,... . __ .... __ _. �,�_,. � �� *.�.;'. . � �, � . . .- 75-300 dulacre 50 -150 du/acre 35 -100 du/acre 20 - 75 du/acre ;� ;�. e �� : , .. . . � ' " � , ry -.:;.; ; �M�; +' �, �, �:. 3 .�- „ "`�'° ..�. c . a� at�{ ' _ � +t^* *1, " ��' ^Y � 3'Sr .. a� • �.;.;:� .�,� `�'� r: s � ::>F�u�' s� `�, �s� .s;` .�..a,xy '�ia.'� -�,.� , :.r �_ z ' � . Sw : iY^i s . .,,.� :,�a w r. . �;,% .'� * a..'r: . �s.. � 7 a , '�4' Y � : � S ,,�";'� �y^'' ' zy 1. -�, �% 4 s�.s`� �a,`� r �r '"<' � r t:, t «y - .5, ".y s 3w..s ;�[* �� - �, -� � ��.� °i� �' �� . y . : ,.r , .,._ . .. . ,: .. .,� ._ - w . . , . .' F, xw� ,�. " x . � �. - � , , , . ..�Y t ., �,: d, ,. . . '� �;,:a.��,� L�,.�* ::.af�. �+srx;c9�,�-��iw ��- .-.�.-K. . _ w_ �q�35'�*�_,.,:� 4�� ...A..... ��,. S ap.i� ,. , `'5.,.., .sis,x.. _ . . i�a . :.a , . �ros: 9.r a �. . .»� . . ...a -+� • , a ., .: '�''""._ 'i ;C' t . - �- r �..' .i` �' �. T"'"�� `3 < � ��, ' � - . `,y � .s�"" --�.,s„ q .t?�c«. � � � .>r�� ,.+ '4_T f`°y"a'. 1;�,,..3. . tY x c � . � ti, x ��a e „�fb '"a r ��.�- r.`..�.srK�. _ x n`, � � _.. . a _ ; _: ° _"'`�-;.�.._ .�.. �-..;. , a.c, _;�. �. _.. , = .. ... w �� . . . �` . , p . � , a:- � , �, . .-� , , .. _ .,, . �4 , �_ �.- - , , > :, � ., .._ . . ; i. 40,000 -150,000 5,000 - 30,000 7,500 - 50,000 2,000 - 7,500 -,..... .�Y, ��::;=� •„-��.� � r,�:- r :��.. : ., g'... ., .. _,-.-aa.w., ..-. �.s,- �x. .�};.-„: q,�'..:.� :��- � s ..:.e�, _. �... ��:�. ��..,. � �` �s �::.r:�, ..,.. .f..ri-�-ts.e:,, i , . .i�.;w � ?.:s -t � �' � � � � ti�•� ' , � ,� . �"' � r'=�� `;�k-t� y ��.., �'�} 'ak+,°� �, �k9s.rs��eJ3�.� .wio 1 �:. ;'�;.:�;.+ ']..: �<�c:aP �»wae:a..r�ebY:.'Ra3c,�wnG%:.+iN�e.4rts+*�x:�• � � : m > r ., . ,..:r� �,�"aw��-�.cN" "� ��.k-�-�;` _�,�. �� a�u.+��°-�'�:. ur�. y 'b�ctke:��`-'�� .,a,:�:.. � � .:a.r� w�� . .. ,��-, . .�,; _�,-- � , .. - - � - - - , _ .� � . � �'�� , �� :,. . s :. . . ::.� � ;:; F - �sx' , •z �.. � ,�,' . ; .., . ... . � ��. ��3", �g.. �. ��:� �i��. . ...� ... . ' ". � ..:. , J S.OFAR 2.5FAR 4.OFAR 2.OFAR � `; � �`�� , ,. , , �, ��:� �� x�,��- �� ;;� r ,� - . �.� .. :� n„.-, � , ; .. ,� �•� [1] Station Area typically refers to half mile radius around station or roughly 500 acres [2] See attached building types for more detail on each type. [3] The MTC TOD Policy corridor housing thresholds—which represent an average for the entire corridor—still apply to Resolution 3434 Transit Expansion projects. [4J Allowable densities within the 1/2-mile station area should fall within this range and should be planned in response to local conditions, with higher intensities in close proximity to transit and neighborhood-serving retail areas. . � High rise & mid rise Mid-rise, low-rise, some Mid-rise, low-rise, some Mid-rise, low-rise, ��..�� , apartments/condos high-rise and high-rise and town- townhomes, small lot townhomes homes single family 19 Mid-rise, low-rise, town- Low-rise, townhomes, homes some mid-rise and small �' y j � .��. � lot single family � ° �n.� r .:, f � ,� � �'".�',« �w �� °'.Y�,r �� .-" i� . , ""�' �.:: y '�' �3.� �, � -a v�,��S� ,.,.,.�'W �.�.. �-a..A*t•.a4M w�*..+�ia�e��Y +.s:+;,��"+'�. f 'S� -r , .gs'.+r,�,g�"-'�t'-� ,o r^ , �'¢��F:a:��' :°�� - �'.��;��"'t�'Y'".��s �: .: `�'� 2,500 -10,000 1,500 - 4,000 . �. � �, ';.:. � :" -. r, �"�' ,� +�4 �'+,�� .�7 a .�" -z z, : +��'�. e 4"e�� .'.. � w��.... . t�.�.��_��`�.��.��n,,t _ .,h;u�.f �.x�:�a..�a�+.: � . �► � 40 -100 du/acre 20 - 50 du/acre Mid-rise, low-rise, townhomes, small lot sf off immediate corridor 2, 00� - 5, 000 25 - 60 dulacre �'� �' b � , sz�-: s 's_.�. ':. y. � � . . � -�.s .n � ._�„ .�- :; �,� . . . . e" - ,� � �.�� a�, '�' �� R'�'�� . k.�e . . .. . . ^z��dc -., »rxLp+.._ . . ..M.��v�-w�a� � a*+ �q�y.,: '�"r`,z., . .. � . . � . . � . . . � r � ' �s'„� E , t r''-' � A �"� .wa� '> °b . �'�'-x . . . . . . . . . "�, .. ... . . � �� `. . �� p f N.A. N.A. 750 -1,500 :� ��.� f x. � �> �. .� , - � � � ., .� ::.-a �P , . � �+.„��. . „ e = � , � 4 ,�. q ��. �ai` w �_ : . . �. , � � �e"��i4s+ _ � x-w :......x�- _#`, ��.,,�:.. .'.. �`.»s. ..�i.t�iw1..,,.,,,� i.c� � `v �'.�� N �'��'.�.4a.�a.-,,.py.%.."�r�u,?.;;-...4�.�.�+..»'.,,�.,. ....r � ... .. .. , '. �. . . . .. . . .., � ' _ _ 4 „7"..� c.�.;AG� ,� 'a° m � :- .: -,,.,',�� " ^ . � . .. . . �� ,� �� . . r � � .., „�" . c= �''�� .. �� 4 . �� . - ^ s �;.. � , , .t?'< 4 - %r �,._ . =.� „ � a�� 1.0 FAR `�1.0 FAR 2.0 FAR k.�? _ . � . _ � 4 . �? a �:��t � d.:�, � ,�x .r ,.� s - a : : h � �' .v, s ��, .� ., .. . . ..Y NG +� .4 �:� y { �` � '�` � . 4 • �.. .,.. rt.«, � -_ .n . _ J ".N�sa . ..�%F Cv .'^Y�+ _ 3 .a b++� . .eT* a e., n YR..§ "4.:-4 xu . , v �.w . . . . ... . �