Planning Commission Agenda Packet 2012-08-14 18-45 Table of Contents
Agenda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
l. draft minutes of 07-10-2012
Draft Minutes 07-10-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology
Staff Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1 . ABAG memo dated July 25, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2. ABAG memo dated July 10, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3. Director's Report
Director's Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
1
AGENDA
C U P E RT I N O CITY OF CUPERTINO
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino Community Hall
Tuesday,August 14, 2012
ORDER OF BUSINESS
SALUTE TO THE FLAG: 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subiect: draft minutes of 07-10-2012
Recommended Action: approve or modify draft minutes of 07-10-2012
Pa�e: 4
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
POSTPONEMENTS/1ZEMOVAL FROM CALENDAR
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any
matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law
will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect to a matter not on the
agenda.
CONSENT CALENDAR
PUBLIC HEARING
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
2. Subiect: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology
Recommended Action: Accept Report
Description: Report is provided for informational and discussion purposes only.
Pa�e: 10
2
Tuesday, August 1-�, 2012
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Environmental Review Committee
Housing Commission
Mayor's Monthly Meeting with Commissioners
Economic Development Committee Meeting
REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
3. Subiect: Director's Report
Recommended Action: Accept Report
Pa�e: 52
ADJOURNMENT
If yozz challer�ge the actior� of the Planr�ir�g Conanaiss�ior� ir� cozz��t,yozz naay be linaited to��ais�ir�g or�ly thos�e
is�s�zzes�yozz o��s�onaeor�e els�e��ais�ed at the pzzblic hea��ir�g des�c��ibed ir� this�ager�da, o�� ir������itter�
co����espor�der�ce delive��ed to the City of Czzpe��tir�o at, o��p��io�� tq the pzzblic hea��ir�g. Pleas�e r�ote that
Planr�ir�g Conanais�s�ior�policy is�to allo��� ar�applicar�t ar�d g��ozzps�to speak fo�� 10 nair�zztes�ar�d ir�dividzzals�
to speak fo�� 3 nair�zztes�.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA),the City of Cupertino will make
reasonable efforts to accommodate persons with qualified disabilities. If you require special
assistance,please contact the city clerk's office at 408-777-3223 at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Department after
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning Department
located at 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours.
For questions on any items in the agenda, or for documents related to any of the items on the
agenda, contact the Planning Department at (408) 777-3308 or planning@cupertino.org.
3
CTTY OF CUPERTINO
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, CA 95014
CITY OF CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES
6:45 P.M. Ju1�- 10, 2012 TUESDAY
CUPERTINO COMMUNITY HALL
The regula�Planning Commission meeting of July- 10, 2012 ��as called to order at 6:45 p.m. in the
Cupertino Communit�-Hall, 10350 Toi7e Avenue, Cupertino, CA. b�-Chair Mart�-Miller.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
Commissioners present: Chairperson: Mart�-Miller
Vice Chairperson: Don Sun
Commissioner: Paul Brophy-
Commissioner: Winnie Lee
Commissioner: Clinton Bro��nlev
Staff present: Communit�-Development Director: Aa�ti Shrivastava
Cit�-Planner: Ga��-Chao
Senior Planner: Colin Jung
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. Minutes of the June 12, 2012 Plunning Commission meeting:
Com. Brophy:
• Noted that the vote on Approval of Minutes for Ma�-8 and Ma�-22, 2012 should reacl:
�1-0-0
MOTION: Motion by Com. Lee,second by Vice Chair Sun,and unanimously carried
5-0-0, to approve the June 12, 2012 Planning Commission minutes as
amended.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS:
• Ga��-Chao, Cit�-Planner, noted a letter received regarding Item 2, Political Signs; and a letter
submitted b�-Aa�-ti Shrivasta�a«hich he hacl not�-et revie«ed.
POSTPONEMENTS/REMOVAL FROM CALENDAR: None
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Cathy Helgersan, resident:
• Eipressed concern about the eicessive pollution from the LeHigh Cement Plant and provided
contact numbers for the communit�-to contact the Ba�-Area Air Qualit�-Control (BAAQC) to
4
Cupertino Planning Commission 2 Ju1�- 10, 2012
report the emissions (800-224-6367). She requested that the Planning Department advise the
Cit�- Council to sue LeHigh on behalf of the citizens of Cupertino; and stated that the
pollution is flo��ing over into Cupertino polluting the air,��ater and soil.
• She noted that the plant does not shut do��n during Spare the Air Da�-s; the BAAQC has done
nothing and refuses to cite them an�-longer; and the EPA and State Water Board does nothing
about the pollution violations. She asked for communit�-support and said she��ould continue
to attend the Planning Commission and Cit�- Council meetings to voice her concerns. She
asked for the Planning Commission's support and to talce the matter seriousl�-as it negatively
affects all Cupertino families.
Aarti Shrivastava, Community Development Director:
• Said that the spealcer has been aclvised that the cit�- does not ha�e jurisdiction over LeHigh
matters and «as notified of the agencies that monitor them, as «e11 as a«ebsite devoted to
Lehigh matters.
PUBLIC HEARING
2. MCA--2012-01 Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.104 (Sign Ordinance)
City of Cupertino rega�ding the placement of temporai}-political signs in the right-
Cit���ide Location of-«a�.
Gary Chao, City Planner,presented the staff report:
• Revie��ed the application for the Municipal Code Amendment to Chapter 19.104 Sign
Ordinance, rega�ding the placement of tempora�}- political signs, as outlined in the attached
staff report. In the last �-ear, the cit�- has received questions and concems regarding the
ordinance on political signs; in response to that staff has initiated an ordinance amendment
process to consider cla�ify-ing and revising the sign ordinance. The prima��- focus of the
ordinance amendment entails cla�ify-ing regulations rega�ding the location ��here political
signs are allo��ed and aclding language to cla�if�-the enforcement process.
• He eiplained that the prima��-focus of the ordinance amendment entails cla�i�-ing regulations
rega�ding the location ��here political signs a�e allo��ed; also aclding language to cla�if�- the
enforcement process. The cui7ent ordinance allo��s political signs in public right-of-��a�-on1�-
in residential and institutional zones; the ordinance does encourage but not require adjacent
propert5- o��ners' consent for the signs to be placed along the parlc strip in front of their
propert5-. He said that the enforcement process is not entirel�- clea�, pa�ticula�l�-refei7ing to
the impound fee or penalties, and ��hen the cit�-can collect the signs. As pa�-t of the eiercise,
staff conducted resea�ch of 15 sui7ounding cities to ascertain their roles and policies in
governing political signs. He summa�ized that all but one cit5- prohibited temp signs ��ithin
public right-of-��a�- or public property and on1�- Mountain Vie�� allo��s political signs on
public propert5-,��ith a pre-approved list of sites��here the�-allo�� signs to be located.
• He eiplained the sign reclamation process in different cities, as outlined in the staff report.
• Staff is proposing to revise the ordinance language to prohibit the displa5- of political signs
��ithin public right-of-��a�- or on any- public properties; and also change the ordinance to
cla�ifi- that the applicabilit5- of the sign collection fee ��ould apply- to the responsible pa�-t5-
��hether or not the�- collect their signs after the cit�- has piciced them up. Language has also
been cla�ified that political signs be considered de minimus signs ��hich is a sign of little
value in terms of its construction and materials, and the ordinance is proposed to be changed
to allo�� the de minimus signs to be disposed of b�-the cit�-if not claimed ��ithin three da�-s.
The ordinance proposes to acld a one-time disposal fee for the signs that are not reclaimed.
There a�e no other changes proposed for other types of temporai�-signs.
5
Cupertino Planning Commission 3 Ju1�- 10, 2012
• Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Cit�-Council the adoption
of the proposed amendments in accordance��ith the model resolution. The project is eiempt
from CEQA.
• Staff ans��ered questions relative to the different regulations pertaining to realtors' signs and
political signs.
City Attorney:
• Said that the issue is that the propert5-o��ner is the one��ho decides��hat the�-��ant to sa�-, and
��hen talking about the public right-of-��a�- it is the public property; the public entit�- is
basicall�- saying they do not ��ant to be engaged in this speech; you can put a sign on y-our
front la��n, or put a sign on your building, but that is because it is �-our property and it is �-our
speech; as opposed to putting the sign on the public propert5- then it arguably- becomes the
speech of the public,and the cit�-is sa5-ing the5-are not engaging in that.
Discussion continued rega�ding signs on public rights-of-��a�-.
Chair Miller opened the public hearing. There��as no one present��ho��ished to spealc;the public
hea�ing��as closed.
Com. Brophy:
• Said after reacling the ordinance and the summa�ies of the other cities, he felt that the
ordinances a�e being placed for the convenience of the cit�-staff,the Public Works Department
so that the�-don't ha�e to a�bitrate issues.
• He said he understood that it is a valid reason to consider such an issue, and refei7ed to the
opening language from the cit�- of Mountain Vie�� ��hich he felt should be the determining
factor: "the freedom of political eipression and the eichange of political ideas are fundamental
principles of our constitutional s�-stem and an integral pa�t of a free societ�; the purpose and
intent of this a�ticle is to provide minimum regulations regarding the posting, maintenance,
and removal of political signs". Fifteen cities eicept Cupertino have talcen the position that
the aclministrative convenience of their Public Worlcs Department is more important than the
values that��ere previousl�-eipressed.
• Said the issue is that supposedly- people a�e putting signs in front of somebod�-'s house that
the�-didn't ask for; all that needs to be done is to change the rules so that the property o��ners
or renters ha�e control over the parlcing strip there, and that��hen the�- call to complain, the
solution is not Code Enforcement or Public Worlcs, it is ��hoever staffs the call and tells them
if the�-didn't put it there and don't support it,the�-can thro�� it a��a�-. It is a solution in sea�ch
of a problem and adds compleiit5-to the issue. He said that candidates for political off�ice face
man�- challenges and the�- should find «a�-s not to add to the candidates' burdens. He
suggested the�-recommend to Cit�-Council that the�-move on and focus on other issues.
Gary Chao:
• Cla�ified that there have been complaints rega�ding the blightness and number of signs��ithin
the public right-of-��a�-or pa�lc strips; and although some complain about signs in front of their
homes, the�- also see them ��hen driving a�ound to��n, and don't lilce the fact that the
candidates are using public land to«a�d their cause.
Com. Brophy:
• Said he felt the issue people complain about is not so much a sign in front of somebod�-'s
house on the pa�lcing strip, but the signs placed illegally- on private properties, such as Shell
Gas Station, Beacon Station, etc. The�- a�e unsightly and mess�- and the property o��ners
have the right to get rid of the signs regardless of��hat the cit�-'s ordinance is.
6
Cupertino Planning Commission 4 Ju1�- 10, 2012
Com. Lee:
• Said she felt the�- should find a ��a�- to allo�� the political signs in the public right-of-��a�-
provided the�- have the adjacent property o��ner's consent; and she ��as opposed to an�-
disposal fees, impound or collection fees. If a sign is placed in an illegal place, cit�- staff
«ould remove it and store it for 20 calenda�days, as an�-other sign. If a political sign is found
on public propert5-,it should be subject to immediate removal b�-the cit�-��hich is��hat staff is
recommending and has been in place so fa�, and other cities are presently-doing that.
• She aslced for input on ha�ing a section of the ordinance that prohibits unla��fu1 removal or
interference of local signs, ��hich ��ould read: "It shall be z�nlawfi�l and in violation of this
aNticle to deface, Nemove, alteN, make additions to oN conceal a political sign withoz�t the
consent of the candidate oN in the case of ballot measz�Nes, the sponsoN of the paNticz�laN ballot
measz�Ne position. "
Com. Brownley:
• Aslced for cla�ification before providing comment on Com. Lee's suggestion; if the language
��ould be compatible or ��ould it be diff�icult to have that language ��ith Com. Brophy-'s
comments to simplifi-the process and have language stating, that if the private property o��ner
didn't agree to this sign being in the public right-of-��a�- in front of the private propert5-, the
o��ner could remove it. He said he felt that the language suggested b5- Com. Lee ma�- be a
contradiction to that.
Com. Lee:
• Said it��as not in contradiction; it is still illegally-placed, so either the cit�-can remove it if the
candidate doesn't have permission in the public right-of-«a�- b�-the adjacent property o«ner.
Either the cit�- can remove it or the private propert5- o��ner��hich is acljacent to the strip can
remove it.
City Attorney:
• Said that it ma5- present conflicting situations; there ��ould be people a�guing ��hether or not
there ��as permission, ��hether or not something ��as illegal and ��hether or not��hatever the
person did «as acceptable for them to do. She opined that it «ould create an enforcement
nightma�e for the cit�; therefore the�- ��ould have to decide one ��a�- or another, but not do
both.
Com. Brownley:
• Said the previous Commission considered, instead of malcing it illegal to place them in public
right-of-��ay, creating altemative language stating "if placed in public right-of-��a�-in front of
�-our private propert5-and you don't approve of that�-ou can remove it."
Com.Brophy:
• Concui7ed, and said that in effect it��as assigning a property right to the property in front of
the pa�lc strip, because the pa�lc strip has a quasi-private nature to it, stating that the
enforcement process is that if somebod5-puts a sign in the front of his house, he has the right
to remove it;just as he��ould if the5-put the sign in his 5-a�d.
• Pointed out that man�-of the permanent real estate signs are in the pa�lcing strips as seen��hen
driving a�ound the cit�; things function normall�- and Code Enforcement manages to get
through the da�- ��ithout turmoil. He said he didn't anticipate it being any different; and
suggested the�-ha�e a self-enforcing mechanism.
7
Cupertino Planning Commission 5 Ju1�- 10, 2012
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said he concui7ed ��ith Com. Brophy on attempting to resolve the issue aclministrativel�-. He
said he felt ti}-ing to enforce the ne�� regulations relative to collection of fees ��ould on1�-
invite more problems for the cit�-in his opinion; and there ��ere other��a�-s to solve it rather
than going to another level to infringe the basic right to guide the people.
• He said the benefit to Cupertino should be considered and it can be solved piece b5-piece, not
jumping around to other levels. He said he felt the proposal��as a step too fa�.
Chair Miller:
• Said that ha�ing gone through the political process three times, he��as a��a�e of the trials and
tribulations of dealing«ith the issues and signs, and categorized it into tluee aspects:
(1) The anno�-ance/nuisance value that neighbors or people put up ��ith during the political
process. He agreed ��ith Com. Brophy-'s comments that the cit�-'s political process is unique,
cultural and traclitional and for a short period. He said he«as disappointed«ith the lo« voter
turnouts and to some eitent could argue that the signs heighten a��a�eness of a fundamental
right and responsibilit�-of citizens to go out and vote.
(2) An increase in enforcement has been proposed ��hich��i11 require aclditional resources,
and even at additional resource levels it��i11 be difficult to enforce. The focus has been on
parlc strips; most signs go up in the pa�lc strips in front of houses and most people putting up
signs aslc for permission to put the signs up. A comment��as macle b�- staff that sometimes it
is a sui7ogate for the applicant and those things do happen and some of that is done improperly-
and illegally.
(3) Faimess relative to the different candidates. Said he has seen candidates putting up
signs that hide other signs; he has gone out himself to place signs and ��hen retuming the neit
da�-the signs��ere gone and he repeated the process on1�-to find the signs repeatedly-removed.
Said he agreed��ith Com. Lee that the�-should address that issue; ho��ever, he did not see it as
enforceable. Simila�ly, most of the signs in neighborhoods go up in the median strips for
various reasons; the homeo��ner sa�-s he ��ants to put the sign up but not on his la��n because
of various maintenance issues, and suggests putting it on the median strip.
• Said he supported Com. Brophy-'s suggestion, that rather than malcing it illegal and putting the
burden on the cit�- to enforce it, requiring phone calls and fee collections, he agreed the�-
should malce it legal in the median strips in front of private residences; ��ith the permission of
the homeo��ner and if to the eitent the homeo��ner can be given the po��er to remove it if the�-
choose to, the�- can al��a�-s remove theu permission. It is a ��a�- to settle it ��ithin the
communit�-as opposed to having the cit5-be superimposed and being the enforcer, and having
to devote aclditional resources to dealing ��ith it. B�- malcing it legal at the discretion of the
homeo��ner,is solving problems rather than adding to them.
• Said that other public a�eas ��here signs a�e placed include the median strip on DeAnza
Bouleva�d, up and do��n Foothill Bouleva�d on ��hat appea�s to be private property; in the
underpass on Foothill and 280 ��hich is Caltrans. He said all those should continue to be
considered illegal, but the major issues happen in the neighborhoods and he ��ould prefer to
address that b5-giving the po��er to the homeo��ner to decide��hether he��ants it there or not
and have the po��er to remove it.
• He said that follo��ing the election, most candidates malce a good faith effort to either picic up
the signs or have someone else picic them up. For those signs that a�e not piciced up, it is the
appropriate time for the cit�-to picic them up and charge a fee to the sign o��ner/candidate
Vice Chair Sun:
• Said he concui7ed.
8
Cupertino Planning Commission 6 Ju1�- 10, 2012
Motion: Motion by Com. Brophy,second by Com.Brownley, and unanimously carried
5-0-0 that relative to temporary political signs, the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council that they not accept the proposed changes by staff;
but instead the city enact a policy of recognizing the rights of property owners or
residents to have control over what signs go in the park strip in front of their
house; and that as a policy the city inform any residents who are given a sign or
have a sign that they don't want there, to be informed they have a right to remove
it; fees relative to picking up, storing and getting rid of signs go with the current
ordinance.
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW COMMITTEE: No meeting
HOUSING COMMISSION: No meeting
MAYOR'S MONTHLY MEETING:
• Com. Bro��nle�- said he attended the meeting and ��ould present a report of the meeting at the
nezt Planning Commission meeting. .
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: No meeting.
REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
• Written report submitted.
• Aa�-ti Shrivastava reported that the Biltmore application ��ould be going to CitS- Council; in
terms of projects coming to the Planning Commission, she reported there ��ere a number of
large projects that��ould be brought foil�a�d to the Planning Commission;in the future.
• She discussed a recent article on the affordable housing decision in San Jose, ��hich she said
had no implications for Cupertino.
Adiournment: The meeting ��as acljourned to the neit regula� Planning Commission meeting
scheduled on August 14, 2012 at 6:45 p.m. (The Ju1�- 24 meeting ��i11 be
cancelled)
Respectfully-Submitted: /s/Elizabeth Ellis
Elizabeth Ellis, Recording Secretai�-
9
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE •CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
C U P E RT I N O (408)777-3308• FAX(408)777-3333
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Agenda Item No. 2 Agenda Date: August 14, 2012
Application: N/A
Applicant: None
Property Location: N/A
ApplicaHon Summary: Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology
Recommendation:
Report is provided for informational and discussion purposes only.
Background:
The RHNA Methodology specifies how all cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay
Area will provide a fair share of the regiori s housing need, both market rate and
affordable.
Discussion:
On July 19, 2012 the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board
met and adopted the Draft RHNA Methodology for the cycle covering 2014-2022.
Attached is the July 10, 2012 ABAG memo which discussed in detail the proposed
methodology and tables showing the proposed RHNA numbers for each jurisdiction in
the Bay Area. Also, the July 25, 2012 ABAG memo discussing the methodology
adopted at the July 19ti�meeting and the resulting RHNA numbers is attached.
Before discussing the over-all RHNA methodology factors, it is important to
understand the definition of a Priority Development Area (PDA). A Priority
Development Areas (PDAs) are locally-identified, infill development opportunity areas
within existing communities. 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 pedestrian-friendly environment served by
transit. To be eligible to become a PDA, an area had to be within an existing
community, near existing or planned fixed transit or served by comparable bus service,
and planned for more housing.
10
There are several types of PDAs, employment investment areas, housing and the cores,
corridors and stations areas PDA designated by VTA. Cupertino does have a
designated PDA which will be discussed later in this report.
Factors influencing the overall RHNA in the approved methodology are as follows:
• Household formation growth: If growth projected in the Priority Development
Area (PDA meets or exceeds 110% of the jurisdictiori s household formation
growth, it is not assigned additional growth outside the PDA. This ensures that
cities with large PDAs are not overburdened.
• Minimum Housing Floor: Jurisdictions receive a minimum of 40 percent of their
household formation growth but not to exceed 1.5 its 2007-2014 RHNA. This
factor encourages all jurisdictions to produce a fair portion of total housing need.
• 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.
Cities that exceeded their RHNA obligation in these two income categories
received a lower score resulting in a lower allocation.
• Employment: In non-PDA areas, the employment was factored using 2010 job
estimates for each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with higher employment received a
higher score.
• Transit: In non-PDA areas, transit was factored for each jurisdiction.
Jurisdictions with higher transit frequency and coverage received a higher score.
Three factors figure significantly into Cupertino's proposed RHNA number of 1,059
units.
First, Cupertino does have a designated PDA which stretches along the Stevens Creek
corridor from Highway 85 south to Lawrence Expressway and also covers the
intersection of DeAnza and Stevens Creek Boulevards and DeAnza Boulevard north to
Homestead Road. The PDA was designated by the Valley Transportation Authority as
part of its Cores, Corridors and Station Areas program.
The PDA designation allows the City to apply for One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) funding
for pavement management and road rehabilitation, transportation enhancement and
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality programs. The PDA designation does result in
minimal extra housing units being added to Cupertino's RHNA in the methodology.
On June 13, 2012, Cupertino sent a letter to ABAG supporting the PDA designation.
The second factor affecting Cupertino's RHNA allocation is the overall growth
designated to the PDA. Originally, ABAG received an estimate from VTA of 866 units
in the PDA,while Cupertino's existing General Plan,which runs through 2020, allows
for growth of 422 units in the PDA. The resulting recalculation decreased Cupertino's
11
eight-year RHNA allocation for 2014-2022 from 1,358 to 1,059. Cupertino's current
General Plan, covering the seven-year period 2007-2014,has an allocation of 1,170.
Finally, an income allocation factor was applied to the RHNA. Basically, cities
considered more affluent are given a higher percentage of low and very-low income
units through a formula. This results in a higher concentration of very-low and
moderate income units in Cupertino's allocation.
Next Steps:
• The City has until September 10, 2012 to comment on the most recent approval
and most likelv will submit another comment letter.
• Apri12012, ABAG will issue the Final Allocations
• May 2013, ABAG adopts the Final Allocations
• June-July 2013, State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) reviews the Final Allocations
• October 2014,jurisdictions submit approved Housing Elements for HCD review
Prepared by: Vera Gil, Senior Planner
Approved by:
/a/Aarti Shrivastava
Aarti Shrivastava
Community Development Director
1: ABAG Memo dated July 25, 2012 with RHNA numbers
2: ABAG Memo dated July 10, 2012 with detailed info. on methodology.
12
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS �
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area A6AG
JUly 25, 2�12
San Francisco Bay Area
City Managers and Planning/Community Development Directors,
The Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process for the San Francisco Bay Area
reached its second milestone. On July 19, 2012, the ABAG Executive Board adopted the Draft
RHNA Methodology and Preliminary Subregional Shares for the fifth cycle: 2014 - 2022 for all
jurisdictions and subregions by income category. The adoption finalized the Draft RHNA
Methodology according to the recommendations submitted by ABAG Staff in response to the
input received during the 60-day public comment period that began on May 18, 2012 and closed
on July 16, 2012. This milestone was reached through your involvement and the diligent efforts
performed by the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC). The HMC represents a diverse set
of interests that reflect both local and regional needs. This regional committee created the
adopted Draft RHNA Methodology through an iterative process of worlcshops and meetings that
began in January 2011. As we have reached the half-way point in the RHNA process, this memo
provides an overview of the adopted RHNA Methodology and Subregional Shares as reflected in
Resolution(s) 12-12 and 12-13. Finally, this memo details the next RHNA steps for local
jurisdictions and subregions.
13
Final Draft RHNA Methodology
1. :Sustainability Component
This component advances the goals of SB 375; this factor 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. 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.
As of July 19, 2012, the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy has been modified to a feasible
growth concentration over the 2014-2022 RHNA cycle. This new distribution results in a
shifting of approximately 3,500 units or 1.5 percent of the total regional allocation. This
modification shifts housing units from Oaldand, Newark, and San Jose primarily to medium
sized cities within the employment commute shed of these cities.
2. Fair:S'hare Component
This component achieves the requirement that all cities and counties in California worlc 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 for very-low and low income units received higher
allocations. Fair Share scoring is addressed through the factors listed below.
• Uppe��Hozzs�ir�g Th��es�hold: 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.
Page 2 of 6
14
• Mir�inazzna Hozzs�ir�g Floo��: 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.
• Pas�t RHNA Pe�fo��naar�ce: 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.
• Enaploynaer�t: In non-PDA areas, the employment was factored using the 2010 job
estimates for a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with higher employment received a higher score.
• Ti�ar�s�it: In non-PDA areas, transit was factored for each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions with
higher transit frequency and coverage received a higher score.
3. Income allocation (Amended as of�July 19, 2012�
The income allocation factor 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.
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.
Page 3 of 6
15
On July 19, 2012, the calculation of current income groups by jurisdiction was modified.
This calculation was based on the regional median household income instead of the county
median household income. This adjustment provided a better regional alignment of the
income distribution formula of 175 percent. Using the median income for the region
eliminates this disparity and places all counties on equal footing.
This adjustment did not change a jurisdiction's total allocation, but shifted the distribution
across its income categories. Counties with residents that are above the regional median
household income(Contra Costa, Marin, San Mateq and Santa Clara) experienced a shift
towards a greater concentration of units in the very-low, low, and moderate income
categories. Counties with residents below the regional median household income(Alameda,
Napa, San Franciscq Solanq and Sonoma) experienced shifts towards a greater
concentration in the above moderate income category
-�. :Sphere oflnfluence Adjustments
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 SOL 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.
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 Mateq Santa Clara, Solanq 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.
Page 4 of 6
16
Subregions Shares
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 0.7883%, San Mateo will receive 8.7334%, and Solano will receive
3.7113% of the region's total RHND.
Next Steps
The most recent adoption authorizes the beginning of the 60-day Revis�ior�s�ar�d Appeals�process.
During this period, each jurisdiction and subregion are allowed to request for revisions to its
allocation or submit an appeal to the RHNA process.i The objective of the appellate process is to
allow ABAG Staff to worlc directly with local jurisdictions and subregions to discuss its
proposed allocation of housing units for the Sti'2014-2022 RHNA cycle. The deadline to submit
an appeal or to request for a revision is September 18, 2012. To ensure that ABAG Staff will
have adequate time to respond to requests before or by the next Executive Board Meeting on
September 20, 2012, we are recommending that jurisdictions and subregions submit their request
by September 10, 2012. Requests or questions regarding the Revis�ior� ar�d Appeals�process
should be sent to RHNA Feedbacic�abag.ca.gov.
By Apri12013, ABAG will issue Final Allocations that will be subject to a final adoption by the
ABAG Executive Board. In June and July 2013, the Department of Housing and Community
Development(HCD) will review the San Francisco Bay Area RHNA Plan. Thanlc you for your
involvement in this process. By the end of August we will be distributing a technical report that
details the mechanics of the RHNA methodology. In this report, you will find worlcsheets and
explanations to each step we toolc to calculate the individual allocations to jurisdictions and
subregions. For a list of the upcoming phases for the RHNA process, please see the attached list
of events at the end of the enclosed pacicet.
i Government Code S6»84.0�(b)
Page 5 of 6
17
Respectfully,
,�
��� �:�;,�-r�
�` � W1rG�`nn. �---._..._ ._--.
d
Miriam Chion
Acting Director of Planning and Research, ABAG
Attachment A: Draft RHNA (released on Ju1�- 19, 2012)
Page 6 of 6
18
DRA, REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+
REGION 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990
Alameda County
Alameda 442 247 282 745 1,716
Albany 80 53 57 144 334
Berl<eley 530 440 581 1,395 2,946
Dublin 793 444 423 615 2,275
Emeryville 275 210 258 749 1,492
Fremont 1,707 922 974 1,829 5,432
Hayward 862 490 625 2,044 4,021
Livermore 835 472 494 916 2,717
Newark 328 166 157 422 1,073
Oakland 2,050 2,066 2,803 7,782 14,701
Piedmont 24 14 15 7 60
Pleasanton 713 389 405 551 2,058
San Leandro 502 269 350 1,156 2,277
Union City 316 179 191 415 1,101
Alameda County Unincorporated 428 226 294 814 1,762
9,885 6,587 7,909 19,584 43,965
Contra Costa County
Antioch 348 204 213 677 1,442
Brentwood 233 123 122 278 756
Clayton 51 25 31 34 141
Concord 794 442 556 1,670 3,462
Danville 195 111 124 125 555
EI Cerrito 100 63 69 165 397
Hercules 219 117 100 243 679
Lafayette 146 83 90 107 426
Ma rt i nez 123 72 78 194 467
Moraga 75 43 50 60 228
Oakley 316 173 174 500 1,163
Orinda 84 47 53 42 226
Pi nole 80 48 42 126 296
Pittsburg 390 253 315 1,058 2,016
Pleasant Hill 117 69 84 176 446
Richmond 436 304 408 1,276 2,424
San Pablo 55 53 75 264 447
San Ramon 514 278 281 338 1,411
Walnut Creek 601 353 379 892 2,225
Contra Costa County Unincorporated 372 217 242 530 1,361
5,249 3,078 3,486 8,755 20,568
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
19
DRAi REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+
Marin County
Belvedere 4 3 4 5 16
Corte Madera 22 13 13 24 72
Fa i rfax 16 11 11 23 61
Larl<spur 40 20 21 51 132
Mill Valley 41 24 26 38 129
Novato 111 65 72 166 414
Ross 6 4 4 4 18
San Anselmo 33 17 19 37 106
San Rafael 239 147 180 437 1,003
Sausalito 26 14 16 23 79
Tiburon 24 16 19 19 78
Marin County Unincorporated 55 32 37 60 184
617 366 422 887 2,292
Napa County
American Canyon 116 54 58 164 392
Calistoga 6 2 4 15 27
Napa 185 106 141 403 835
St. Helena 8 5 5 13 31
Yountville 4 2 3 8 17
Napa County Unincorporated 51 30 32 67 180
370 199 243 670 1,482
San Francisco County
San Francisco 6,207 4,619 5,437 12,482 28,745
6,207 4,619 5,437 12,482 28,745
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
2�
DRAi REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Above
Very Low Low Moderate
Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+
San Mateo County
Atherton 36 27 29 14 106
Belmont 116 63 67 121 367
Brisbane 25 13 15 30 83
Burlingame 280 149 158 388 975
Colma 20 8 9 30 67
Daly City 408 194 225 681 1,508
East Palo Alto 64 54 83 266 467
Foster City 148 87 76 119 430
Half Moon Bay 52 31 36 67 186
Hillsborough 50 29 34 16 129
Menlo Park 237 133 145 219 734
Millbrae 193 101 112 272 678
Pacifica 121 68 70 154 413
Portola Valley 21 15 15 13 64
Redwood City 706 429 502 1,147 2,784
San Bruno 365 166 208 555 1,294
San Carlos 195 107 111 183 596
San Mateo 859 469 530 1,172 3,030
South San Francisco 576 290 318 922 2,106
Woodside 23 13 15 11 62
San Mateo County Unincorporated 100 61 72 106 339
4,595 2,507 2,830 6,486 16,418
Santa Clara County
Campbell 252 137 150 390 929
Cupertino 354 206 230 269 1,059
Gilroy 235 159 216 473 1,083
Los Altos 168 99 112 96 475
Los Altos Hills 46 28 32 15 121
LosGatos 200 112 132 173 617
Milpitas 1,000 568 563 1,145 3,276
Monte Sereno 23 13 13 12 61
Morgan Hill 272 153 184 315 924
Mountain View 810 490 525 1,088 2,913
Palo Alto 688 430 476 585 2,179
San Jose 9,193 5,405 6,161 14,170 34,929
Santa Clara 1,045 692 752 1,586 4,075
Saratoga 147 95 104 92 438
Sunnyvale 1,780 992 1,027 2,179 5,978
Santa Clara County Unincorporated 22 13 14 28 77
16,235 9,592 10,691 22,616 59,134
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
21
DRAi REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+
Solano County
Benicia 94 54 56 123 327
Dixon 50 24 30 93 197
Fairfield 861 451 514 1,664 3,490
Rio Vista 15 12 16 56 99
Suisun City 105 40 41 169 355
Vacaville 287 134 173 490 1,084
Vallejo 283 178 211 690 1,362
Solano County Unincorporated 16 9 12 26 63
1,711 902 1,053 3,311 6,977
Sonoma County
Cloverdale 39 29 31 111 210
Cotati 35 18 18 66 137
Healdsburg 31 24 26 75 156
Petaluma 198 102 120 321 741
RohnertPark 180 107 126 482 895
Santa Rosa 943 579 756 2,364 4,642
Sebastopol 22 17 19 62 120
Sonoma 24 23 27 63 137
Windsor 120 65 67 187 439
Sonoma County Unincorporated 219 126 159 428 932
1,811 1,090 1,349 4,159 8,409
REGION 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990
RHNA Methodology adopted by ABAG Executive Board on July 19, 2012.
ABAG is scheduled to issue Final Allocation in April 2013 and to adopt in May 2013.
22
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS �
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
A6AG
MEMO
To: ABAG Eiecutive Board
From: Ezra Rapport, Eiecutive Director
Date: Ju1�- 10, 2012
Subject: Final Regional Housing Need Allocation Methodolog5-
Background
The Regional Housing Need Allocation(RHNA) Methodolog5-specif�ies ho�� all cities and counties in the
Ba�-Area��orlc to provide a fau sha�e or proportion of the region's total and affordable housing need,
��hich is a core requirement of the Housing Element La��. At the Ma�- 17, 2012 meeting,the ABAG
Board approved a Draft RHNA Methodolog5-recommended b�-the Housing Methodolog5-Committee
(HMC)and staff. At that boa�d meeting and thereafter staff received comments on economic feasibility,
regional equit5-implications, and individual local allocations of the proposed draft methodolog5-and
distribution. This input«as collected from ABAG Eiecutive Boa�d Members,local jurisdictions,
communit�-aclvocates, and the public.
The public comment period for Draft RHNA Methodology has closed and all comments ha�e been
revie«ed (See Appendii C). Staff has ca�efull�-considered the comments and is recommending t«o
adjustments to the RHNA Methodolog5-and reporting on one technical correction to the Jobs-Housing
Connection Strateg5-that��il1 have some impact on the sample RHNA allocations presented at the Ma�-
17, 2012 Eiecutive Boa�d meeting. The technical correction and acljustments have been sent to the HMC.
The proposed actions and adjustments that incorporate the comments on the Draft RHNA Methodolog5-
a�e described in the follo��ing pages.
Final Draft RHNA Methodology � 7/10/12
Page 1 of 6
23
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS �
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
A6AG
Action 1: Adoption of the Final RHNA Methodology
Technical Corrections and Proposed Adjustments
T��o technical coi7ections ha�e been completed that effect RHNA and the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strategy.
The first technical coi7ection revises the Priorit�-Development Areas (PDAs)in Santa Cla�a County,
��hich is an input into RHNA. PDA designations require approval b5-1oca1 jurisdictions��ith land use
authorit�-b�-council resolution. In April of 2012, ABAG and the Santa Cla�a Valle�-Transportation
Authorit5-(VTA) sought duection from the cities and count�-on the designation of VTA Cores, Corridors,
and Station Areas��ithin their respective jurisdictions as Priorit�-Development Areas. This��as done to
verif�-that all Priorit�-Development Area designations are supported b5-the local communit�-in��hich
the�-are located (See Appendii B for a description of input received). Changes to the PDA a�e based on
this input from the associated local jurisdictions.
The PDA frame��orlc reflects the aspirations of local jurisdictions for the development potential of
individual PDAs. This frame��orlc is an essential component to the gro��th projections for each PDA in
the Jobs-Housing Connection Strateg5-. These gro��th projections a�e the initial inputs into the RHNA
methodolog5-. In sum, an�-corrections made to the PDA frame��orlc affect the gro��th projections��hich
result in changes to both the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy and RHNA methodology.
The second technical coi7ection modifies the Jobs-Housing Connection Strateg5-to better account for
regional vacanc�-rates. Calculations��ere changed to eiclude vacation, seasonal,migrant fa�m��orlcer, or
other types of recreational housing from the number of vacant units in the region. These t��o technical
corrections ha�e minor impacts to the Draft RHNA presented in Ma�-2012.
T��o adjustments a�e presented for the Board consideration for adoption of the Final RHNA
Methodology. The first acljustment, Gro��th Concentration, strengthens a fair sha�e distribution bet��een
la�ge cities and medium cities«ith high job gro«-th and transit access. The second acljustment, Income
Distribution,is a revision to the RHNA methodology on the median income calculation.
These revisions altered the RHNA Methodology.
Final Draft RHNA Methodology � 7/10/12
Page 2 of 6
24
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS �
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
A6AG
Adjustment 1: Growth Concentration
Rationale and PNOCess
The draft Jobs-Housing Connection Strateg5-��as first released in Ma�ch 2012 for public comment, and
significant revisions��ere macle to this Strateg5-in the draft release Ma�-2012. The Ma�-version of the
Jobs-Housing Connection Strateg5-substantiall�-increased the number of units forecast for the three
la�gest cities in the Ba�-Area(San Jose, San Francisco, and Oaldand), adding approiimatel�-36,000 units
bet��een 2010 and 2040. This more concentrated housing distribution resulted in improved regional
sustainabilit�-as measured against the SCS peiformance targets.
Discussions��ith local jurisdictions and the three la�ge cities ha�e continued rega�ding ho�� to acldress the
impact of this change for the cities and the region. Discussion at the Eiecutive Board meeting on MaS-
17, 2012 acldressed the need to ensure a fau sha�e distribution bet«een la�ge cities and medium cities«ith
high job gro��th and transit access (See Appendii A).
ABAG staff hacl conversations��ith local jurisdictions and further anal�-sis indicated that some core cities
require investments in transit infrastructure,utilities,and improvements in public seivices before the�-can
assume a high level of housing production. Talcing this factor into account along��ith the eipected pace
of recovei�-from the current housing and fiscal crisis, ABAG shifted a small share of housing production
(1.5 percent)in the Draft RHNA Methodolog5-from Oaldand, San Jose, and Ne��arlc to the balance of the
region. This minor adjustment retains a strong housing production in San Jose and Oaldand. On a smaller
scale,the sha�e of housing production in Solano and Sonoma Counties��as also reduced for the 2014-
2022 period due to simila�economic constraints. These adjustments do not change the 2010-20401ong-
term gro��th totals in the Jobs-Housing Connection Strateg5-. It only-defers gro��th to a later period.
Impact on RHNA Methodology
This ne�� distribution results in approiimately 3,500 units or 1.5 percent of the regional allocation shifting
from jurisdictions mentioned above to cities that ma�-ha�e the capacit5-for housing production in the
RHNA time period. Housing units��ere shifted primarily to medium sized cities��ithin the employment
commute shed of San Jose and Oaldand. Cities in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, and
Santa Clara��ere affected as represented in the table as sho��n:
Final Draft RHNA Methodology � 7/10/12
Page 3 of 6
25
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS �
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
A6AG
Table 1. Results from Adjustment 1 —Growth Concentration
San Jose 2,436 4% Fremont �67 9%
Oaldand 623 7% Sunn�,-vale 392 3%
Ne«ark 79 7% Santa Cla�a 279 7%
Pleasanton 158 8%
Sonoma Count� 367 �°o San Ramon 126 10%
Solano Count�- 113 2% San Ca�los 61 11%
Source: See Appendii A for RHNA results.
Adjustment 2: Income Distribution
Rationale and PNOCess
At the meeting on May 17, 2012,the Eiecutive Boa�d requested that ABAG staff anal�-ze an adjustment
resulting in a greater equitable distribution of the region's affordable housing need or��here evei�-
jurisdiction��ith median household income above the Ba�-Area a�erage should talce on at least as much
of the region's lo��er income housing need as it did in the 2007-2014 RHNA planning period.
Based on several meetings and eichanges��ith equit5-stalceholders and local jurisdictions, ABAG staff
proposes to address this request through an adjustment in the calculation of income groups (vei�-lo��,
lo«,moderate, and above moderate) b5-city. This calculation is based on the regional median household
income instead of the count�-median household income. This adjustment provides a better regional
alignment of the income distribution formula of 175 percent(See Appendii A).
When using the count�-median household income as the standard, significant dispa�ities occur��ithin the
region. For eiample,in 2009,the count�-median income for Marin��as $87,728��hile Alameda Count�-
��as $68,863. When using the count�-median household income to calculate the cit�-income sha�es,
Ma�in��ould have to produce less affordable housing than Alameda County, even though the regional
Final Draft RHNA Methodology � 7/10/12
Page 4 of 6
26
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS �
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
A6AG
need in Ma�in is greater. Using the median income for the region eliminates this dispa�it5-and places all
counties on equal footing.
Effect on RHNA Methodology
Changes��ere made to the RHNA income distribution calculation. This��i11 not change a jurisdiction's
total allocation, but shift the distribution across its income categories. Counties��ith residents that are
above the regional median household income (Contra Costa, Ma�in, San Mateo, and Santa Clara)
eiperienced a shift to��a�ds a greater concentration of units in the vei�--lo��,lo��, and moderate income
categories. Counties��ith residents belo�� the regional median household income(Alameda,Napa, San
Francisco, Solano, and Sonoma) eiperienced shifts to«a�ds a greater concentration in the above moderate
income categoi}-(See Appendii A).
Action 2: Approval of Sub-regional Shares
Napa, San Mateo, and Solano counties, and all cities��ithin each county, are the three subregions created
in this RHNA c�-cle. These counties a�e each considering an altemative housing allocation methodology.
The share of the Regional Housing Need Determination(RHND)total for each of these subregions is
defined b�-the ratio bet��een the subregion and the total regional housing gro��th for the 2014 to 2022
period in the Jobs-Housing Connection Strateg5-and RHNA. The public comment period for the proposed
subregional sha�es has concluded and ABAG has not received comments on this topic. If both
adjustments proposed for Action 1 a�e approved,the sha�e for each subregion (Napa, Solano, and San
Mateo Counties)��ill change b5-less than 02 percent��hen compared to the Draft RHNA Methodolog5-
approved in Ma�-2012.
Final Draft RHNA Methodology � 7/10/12
Page 5 of 6
27
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS �
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
A6AG
Staff Recommendation
ABAG staff recommends that the ABAG Eiecutive Board adopt Resolutions 12-12 and 13-12
authorizing the follo��ing actions:
• Action 1: Adoption of the Final Draft RHNA Methodology
ABAG staff recommends the Eiecutive Boa�d adopt Resolution 12-12 including the GNOwth
ConcentNation and Income Dist�ibz�tion acljustments to the Draft RHNA Methodolog5-for the
approval of the Final Draft RHNA Methodolog5-and release of the Final Draft RHNA to local
jurisdictions.
• Action 2: Approval of Subregional Shares
ABAG staff recommends the Eiecutive Board adopt Resolution 13-12 approving the subregional
sha�es for the Napa, San Mateo and Solano subregions, based on the Final Draft RHNA Methodolog5-
under Action 1.
Next Steps
Draft Allocation Released July 19,2012
Acfion to be tal.en bv ABAU E�ecufive Board
Public Comment Period:Revisions to Draft Allocation September 18,2012
ABAG Responds to Requests for Revisions By November 1_5,2012
Deadline for Subregions to Submit Final Allocation and Resolution Februarti�1,2013
ABAG Adoption of Final Allocation at Public Hearing Mry 16,2013
Acfion to be tal.en bv ABAU E�ecufive Board
Local Governments Adopt Housing Element Revision October 201�
Attachinent A: Resolution 12-12
Attachinent B: Resolution 13-12
Final Draft RHNA Methodology � 7/10/12
Page 6 of 6
28
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
EXECUTIVE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 12-12
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A FINAL METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATING THE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION (2014-2022) AMONG LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS AND RELEASING DRAFT ALLOCATIONS
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is a joint powers
agency formed pursuant to California Government Code §§ 6500, et seq., and is the
council of governments (COG) for the San Francisco Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Housing Element Law (Act) at California
Government Code §§ 65580, et seq., each COG and the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) are required to determine the existing and
projected housing needs in the COG's region [Regional Housing Need Determination
(RHN)]; and
WHEREAS, under the Act, ABAG determines each city's and county's share of
the RHND through the regional housing need allocation process (RHNA); and
WHEREAS, the Executive Board authorized formation of the Housing
Methodology Committee (HMC) and charged it, in part, with the responsibility of
advising staff on the methodology for allocating the regional housing need among local
jurisdictions (RHNA Methodology); and
WHEREAS, effective May 17, 2012, the Executive Board authorized release of
the Draft RHNA Methodology for public review and comment and conducted a public
hearing on June 6, 2012, to receive additional written and oral comments; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the comments received during the comment
period, completed one technical adjustment and devised two (2) proposed adjustments
for consideration by the Executive Board, all as described in the staff inemorandum
dated July 10, 2012.
-1-
29
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 12-12
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Board of the
Association of Bay Area Governments hereby revises the Draft RHNA Methodology
issued on May 17, 2012, with the changes, if any, indicated and described in
attachment A to this resolution.
The foregoing adopted by the Executive Board this 19th day of July, 2012.
Mark Luce
President
Certification of Executive Board Approval
I, the undersigned, the appointed and qualified Secretary-Treasurer of the Association
of Bay Area Governments (Association), do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was adopted by the Executive Board of the Association at a duly called meeting held on
the 19th day of July, 2012.
Ezra Rapport
Secretary-Treasurer
Approved as To Legal Form
Kenneth K. Moy
Legal Counsel
-2-
30
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
EXECUTIVE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 12-12
ATTACHMENT A
Effective July 19, 2012, the Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area
Governments adopted as the Final RHNA Methodology, the Draft Methodology issued
on May 17, 2012, with the changes marked on this cover sheet and described in the
attached staff memorandum dated July 10, 2012.
Adopted Not Adopted Description of Adjustment
❑ ❑ Adjustment 1 — Growth Concentration
❑ ❑ Adjustment 2 — Income Distribution
Mark Luce
President
Ezra Rapport
Secretary-Treasurer
-1-
31
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
EXECUTIVE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 13-12
RESOLUTION APPROVING ALLOCATION OF A SHARE OF THE REGIONAL
HOUSING NEED TO EACH OF THE NAPA, SAN MATEO AND SOLANO
SUBREGIONS
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is a joint powers
agency formed pursuant to the agreement of its members and California Government
Code §§ 6500, et seq., and is the council of governments (COG) for the San Francisco
Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Housing Element Law (Act) at California
Government Code §§ 65580, et seq., each COG and the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) are required to determine the existing and
projected housing needs in the COG's region; and
WHEREAS, under the Act, ABAG determines each city's and county's share of
the regional housing need through the regional housing need allocation process
(RHNA); and
WHEREAS, local governments have the option of forming a RHNA subregion to
allocate a share of the regional housing need among themselves; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2011 , ABAG acknowledged the formation of three (3)
RHNA subregions comprised as follows: the County of Napa and the five (5) cities in the
county (Napa Subregion), the County of San Mateo and the twenty (20) cities in the
county (San Mateo Subregion) and the County of Solano and the seven (7) cities in the
county; and
WHEREAS, by letter dated April 6, 2007, HCD has determined a range for the
Regional Housing Need (RHN), including the need for income-based units, and staff has
elected to use the lowest numbers in the range; and
WHEREAS, the Act requires ABAG to assign a share of the RHN, including
income-based units, to each of the Napa, San Mateo and Solano Subregions; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2012, the Executive Board issued proposed shares to
each of the Napa, San Mateo and Solano Subregions for public comment; and
WHEREAS, staff has recommended changes to the Draft RHNA Methodology
released on May 17, 2012 that affect the proposed shares for each of the Napa, San
Mateo and Solano Subregions as described in the staff memorandum dated
July 10, 2012.
-1-
32
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 13-12
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Board of the
Association of Bay Area Governments hereby adopts as the final subregional shares for
the Napa Subregion, San Mateo Subregion and Solano Subregion as shown in
Attachment A.
The foregoing adopted by the Executive Board this 19th day of July, 2012.
Mark Luce
President
Certification of Executive Board Approval
I, the undersigned, the appointed and qualified Secretary-Treasurer of the Association
of Bay Area Governments (Association), do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution
was adopted by the Executive Board of the Association at a duly called meeting held on
the 19th day of July, 2012.
Ezra Rapport
Secretary-Treasurer
Approved as To Legal Form
Kenneth K. Moy
Legal Counsel
-2-
33
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
EXECUTIVE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 13-12
ATTACHMENT A
Growth Concentration
No Adjustments Growth Concentration Only Income Distribution Only
and Income Distribution
Subregional Shares �
Napa County o.8� 0.8� 0.8� 0.8�
San Mateo County 8.5/ 8.7/ 8.5/ 8.7/
Solano County 3.8% 3.7% 3.8% 3.7%
Adopt: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
Mark Luce, President
Ezra Rapport, Secretary-Treasurer
34
Appendix
Appendix A � Preliminary Housing Allocations by Jurisdiction
L Alternative Proposals: Draft Regional Housing Need Allocation (2014-2022)
IL County Share
III. Draft RHNA Units Change by Using Regional Median Household Income
Appendix B � RHNA Methodology and Process
L Bacicground
IL Overview of RHND/RHNA Methodology
III. Statutory Factors and Survey Factors
IV. Housing Methodology Committee (I�VIC)
Appendix C � Comments on RHNA Draft Methodology
L Summary of Input Collected
IL Matrix of Letters Received
III. Letters Received
Appendix D � 2014-2022 RHNA Schedule
L RHNA Timeline
35
Appendix A � Preliminary Housing Allocations by Jurisdiction
L Alternative Proposals: Draft Regional Housing Need Allocation (2014-2022)
IL County Share
III. Draft RHNA Units Change by Using Regional Median Household Income
36
�,.,-„ REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Growth Concentration
No Adjustments Growth Concentration Only Income Distribution Only and Income Distribution
Above Above Above Above
Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate
Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+ 120%+ 120%+ 120%+
Alameda County
Alameda 469 267 288 664 1,688 475 270 293 678 1,716 436 244 278 730 1,688 442 247 282 745 1,716
Albany 86 57 59 131 333 86 57 59 132 334 80 53 56 144 333 80 53 57 144 334
Berkeley 580 445 578 1,273 2,876 592 455 591 1,308 2,946 519 431 568 1,358 2,876 530 440 581 1,395 2,946
Dublin 783 454 441 498 2,176 817 474 461 523 2,275 761 426 405 584 2,176 793 444 423 615 2,275
Emeryville 296 228 240 682 1,446 304 235 248 705 1,492 268 203 250 725 1,446 275 210 258 749 1,492
Fremont 1,641 902 950 1,472 4,965 1,790 985 1,039 1,618 5,432 1,564 844 891 1,666 4,965 1,707 922 974 1,829 5,432
Hayward 949 532 625 1,852 3,958 960 539 634 1,888 4,021 852 483 616 2,007 3,958 862 490 625 2,044 4,021
Livermore 866 496 521 800 2,683 875 501 527 814 2,717 827 466 488 902 2,683 835 472 494 916 2,717
Newark 372 198 186 396 1,152 346 184 173 370 1,073 353 179 169 451 1,152 328 166 157 422 1,073
Oakland 2,518 2,232 2,951 7,633 15,334 2,401 2,135 2,827 7,338 14,701 2,150 2,159 2,925 8,100 15,334 2,050 2,066 2,803 7,782 14,701
Piedmont 24 14 15 7 60 24 14 15 7 60 24 13 15 8 60 24 14 15 7 60
Pleasanton 681 385 391 443 1,900 735 416 423 484 2,058 660 360 374 506 1,900 713 389 405 551 2,058
San Leandro 545 282 351 1,028 2,206 560 291 362 1,064 2,277 488 261 340 1,117 2,206 502 269 350 1,156 2,277
Union City 334 193 202 371 1,100 333 193 202 373 1,101 316 179 191 414 1,100 316 179 191 415 1,101
Alameda County Unincorporated 445 232 282 707 1,666 469 244 297 752 1,762 406 214 278 768 1,666 428 226 294 814 1,762
10,589 6,917 8,080 17,957 43,543 10,767 6,993 8,151 18,054 43,965 9,704 6,515 7,844 19,480 43,543 9,885 6,587 7,909 19,584 43,965
Contra Costa County
Antioch 337 198 207 675 1,417 341 201 211 689 1,442 343 200 210 664 1,417 348 204 213 677 1,442
Brentwood 231 120 121 283 755 230 121 121 284 756 233 123 122 277 755 233 123 122 278 756
Clayton 50 25 31 34 140 50 25 31 35 141 51 25 31 33 140 51 25 31 34 141
Concord 767 431 551 1,664 3,413 775 436 559 1,692 3,462 786 437 549 1,641 3,413 794 442 556 1,670 3,462
Danville 194 111 124 125 554 194 111 124 126 555 195 111 124 124 554 195 111 124 125 555
ElCerrito 95 61 67 162 385 98 62 69 168 397 97 61 67 160 385 100 63 69 165 397
Hercules 218 114 99 249 680 217 113 99 250 679 219 117 100 244 680 219 117 100 243 679
Lafayette 127 72 79 94 372 145 83 90 108 426 128 73 79 92 372 146 83 90 107 426
Martinez 121 71 78 196 466 121 71 78 197 467 123 72 78 193 466 123 72 78 194 467
Moraga 68 39 46 57 210 74 43 50 61 228 69 39 46 56 210 75 43 50 60 228
Oakley 311 171 172 509 1,163 310 170 171 512 1,163 317 173 174 499 1,163 316 173 174 500 1,163
Orinda 84 47 53 41 225 84 47 53 42 226 85 47 53 40 225 84 47 53 42 226
Pinole 78 46 39 126 289 79 47 41 129 296 79 46 41 123 289 80 48 42 126 296
Pittsburg 368 245 305 1,042 1,960 377 251 314 1,074 2,016 381 246 306 1,027 1,960 390 253 315 1,058 2,016
Pleasant Hill 115 68 84 178 445 114 68 84 180 446 117 69 83 176 445 117 69 84 176 446
Richmond 413 299 397 1,260 2,369 421 305 406 1,292 2,424 428 298 399 1,244 2,369 436 304 408 1,276 2,424
San Pablo 52 53 75 267 447 52 53 75 267 447 55 53 75 264 447 55 53 75 264 447
San Ram on 466 251 253 315 1,285 511 276 277 347 1,411 469 253 256 307 1,285 514 278 281 338 1,411
Walnut Creek 588 345 374 896 2,203 592 347 377 909 2,225 596 350 376 881 2,203 601 353 379 892 2,225
Contra Costa County Unincorporat 352 206 231 514 1,303 366 215 241 539 1,361 357 208 232 506 1,303 372 217 242 530 1,361
5,035 2,973 3,386 8,687 20,081 5,151 3,045 3,471 8,901 20,568 5,128 3,001 3,401 8,551 20,081 5,249 3,078 3,486 8,755 20,568
For ABAG Executive Board Meeting on July 19, 2012
37
�,.,-„ REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Growth Concentration
No Adjustments Growth Concentration Only Income Distribution Only and Income Distribution
Above Above Above Above
Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate
Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+ 120%+ 120%+ 120%+
Marin County
Belvedere 4 3 4 5 16 4 3 4 5 16 4 3 4 5 16 4 3 4 5 16
Corte Madera 20 11 12 28 71 20 11 12 29 72 22 12 13 24 71 22 13 13 24 72
Fairfax 16 9 11 25 61 15 9 11 26 61 16 11 11 23 61 16 11 11 23 61
Larl<spur 36 17 20 58 131 36 17 20 59 132 40 20 21 50 131 40 20 21 51 132
Mill Valley 38 23 25 43 129 38 23 24 44 129 41 24 26 38 129 41 24 26 38 129
Novato 99 60 68 186 413 99 60 68 187 414 111 65 72 165 413 111 65 72 166 414
Ross 6 3 4 5 18 6 3 4 5 18 6 4 4 4 18 6 4 4 4 18
San Anselmo 30 16 18 42 106 30 15 18 43 106 33 17 19 37 106 33 17 19 37 106
San Rafael 212 145 183 498 1,038 203 140 177 483 1,003 248 153 186 451 1,038 239 147 180 437 1,003
Sausalito 24 13 15 28 80 24 13 15 27 79 26 14 16 24 80 26 14 16 23 79
Tiburon 23 16 18 21 78 23 16 18 21 78 24 16 19 19 78 24 16 19 19 78
Marin County Unincorporated 53 32 38 71 194 50 30 36 68 184 58 34 39 63 194 55 32 37 60 184
561 348 416 1,010 2,335 548 340 407 997 2,292 629 373 430 903 2,335 617 366 422 887 2,292
Napa County
A merican Canyon 127 61 64 148 400 124 60 62 146 392 119 55 59 167 400 116 54 58 164 392
Calistoga 7 2 4 14 27 7 2 4 14 27 6 2 4 15 27 6 2 4 15 27
Napa 214 117 151 381 863 207 112 146 370 835 191 110 146 416 863 185 106 141 403 835
St. Helena 8 6 5 12 31 8 5 5 13 31 8 5 5 13 31 8 5 5 13 31
Yountville 5 2 3 7 17 5 2 3 7 17 4 2 3 8 17 4 2 3 8 17
Napa County Unincorporated 54 33 34 59 180 54 33 34 59 180 52 30 32 66 180 51 30 32 67 180
415 221 261 621 1,518 405 214 254 609 1,482 380 204 249 685 1,518 370 199 243 670 1,482
San Francisco County
San Francisco 6,529 4,738 5,475 11,389 28,131 6,646 4,833 5,590 11,676 28,745 6,096 4,530 5,323 12,182 28,131 6,207 4,619 5,437 12,482 28,745
6,529 4,738 5,475 11,389 28,131 6,646 4,833 5,590 11,676 28,745 6,096 4,530 5,323 12,182 28,131 6,207 4,619 5,437 12,482 28,745
For ABAG Executive Board Meeting on July 19, 2012
38
�,.,-„ REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Growth Concentration
No Adjustments Growth Concentration Only Income Distribution Only and Income Distribution
Above Above Above Above
Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate
Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+ 120%+ 120%+ 120%+
San Mateo County
Atherton 36 26 28 15 105 36 26 28 16 106 36 26 29 14 105 36 27 29 14 106
Belmont 110 58 65 133 366 110 58 66 133 367 116 63 67 120 366 116 63 67 121 367
Brisbane 20 10 13 28 71 23 12 15 33 83 21 12 13 25 71 25 13 15 30 83
Burlingame 261 137 150 427 975 260 137 150 428 975 281 150 158 386 975 280 149 158 388 975
Colma 17 7 8 31 63 18 8 8 33 67 19 8 8 28 63 20 8 9 30 67
Daly City 369 175 219 743 1,506 368 174 219 747 1,508 409 194 225 678 1,506 408 194 225 681 1,508
EastPalo Alto 50 51 88 277 466 50 51 88 278 467 65 54 83 264 466 64 54 83 266 467
FosterCity 144 81 65 139 429 144 81 65 140 430 148 86 76 119 429 148 87 76 119 430
Half MoonBay 48 31 32 74 185 48 31 32 75 186 52 31 36 66 185 52 31 36 67 186
Hillsborough 49 28 34 18 129 49 28 34 18 129 50 29 34 16 129 50 29 34 16 129
M enlo Park 217 130 125 238 710 223 134 130 247 734 230 129 140 211 710 237 133 145 219 734
Millbrae 179 94 107 298 678 178 93 107 300 678 194 102 112 270 678 193 101 112 272 678
Pacifica 114 61 69 169 413 114 61 68 170 413 121 69 70 153 413 121 68 70 154 413
Portola Valley 21 14 13 16 64 21 14 14 15 64 21 15 14 14 64 21 15 15 13 64
Redwood City 646 406 490 1,242 2,784 644 405 490 1,245 2,784 708 429 502 1,145 2,784 706 429 502 1,147 2,784
San Bruno 307 144 190 564 1,205 329 154 204 607 1,294 341 155 194 515 1,205 365 166 208 555 1,294
San Carlos 168 90 95 182 535 186 100 106 204 596 176 96 100 163 535 195 107 111 183 596
San Mateo 777 424 503 1,248 2,952 795 434 515 1,286 3,030 839 458 516 1,139 2,952 859 469 530 1,172 3,030
South San Francisco 515 242 313 972 2,042 529 249 322 1,006 2,106 560 282 308 892 2,042 576 290 318 922 2,106
Woodside 22 13 15 12 62 22 13 15 12 62 23 13 15 11 62 23 13 15 11 62
San Mateo County Unincorporatec 86 55 64 105 310 94 60 70 115 339 91 56 66 97 310 100 61 72 106 339
4,156 2,277 2,686 6,931 16,050 4,241 2,323 2,746 7,108 16,418 4,501 2,457 2,766 6,326 16,050 4,595 2,507 2,830 6,486 16,418
Santa Clara County
Cam pbell 224 122 142 420 908 229 124 145 431 929 247 134 147 380 908 252 137 150 390 929
Cupertino 335 203 213 303 1,054 336 203 214 306 1,059 353 205 230 266 1,054 354 206 230 269 1,059
Gilroy 204 157 215 505 1,081 203 157 216 507 1,083 236 159 215 471 1,081 235 159 216 473 1,083
LosAltos 162 99 107 108 476 161 98 107 109 475 168 100 112 96 476 168 99 112 96 475
LosAltos Hills 45 28 31 18 122 45 28 31 17 121 46 28 32 16 122 46 28 32 15 121
LosGatos 189 107 130 190 616 188 107 131 191 617 200 112 132 172 616 200 112 132 173 617
Milpitas 911 492 508 1,241 3,152 944 511 527 1,294 3,276 964 548 542 1,098 3,152 1,000 568 563 1,145 3,276
M onte Sereno 23 12 13 14 62 23 12 13 13 61 23 13 13 13 62 23 13 13 12 61
M organ Hill 233 139 167 322 861 250 148 179 347 924 254 143 172 292 861 272 153 184 315 924
Mountain View 717 428 484 1,142 2,771 751 449 508 1,205 2,913 773 467 499 1,032 2,771 810 490 525 1,088 2,913
Palo Alto 637 405 441 634 2,117 653 417 454 655 2,179 670 419 462 566 2,117 688 430 476 585 2,179
San Jose 8,948 5,396 6,383 16,638 37,365 8,334 5,031 5,964 15,600 34,929 9,862 5,793 6,595 15,115 37,365 9,193 5,405 6,161 14,170 34,929
Santa Clara 898 606 660 1,632 3,796 961 649 708 1,757 4,075 977 646 701 1,472 3,796 1,045 692 752 1,586 4,075
Saratoga 143 91 102 102 438 143 90 102 103 438 147 95 104 92 438 147 95 104 92 438
Sunnyvale 1,544 873 872 2,297 5,586 1,647 933 932 2,466 5,978 1,667 929 961 2,029 5,586 1,780 992 1,027 2,179 5,978
Santa Clara County Unincorporatec 16 9 11 25 61 20 12 14 31 77 17 10 11 23 61 22 13 14 28 77
15,229 9,167 10,479 25,591 60,466 14,888 8,969 10,245 25,032 59,134 16,604 9,801 10,928 23,133 60,466 16,235 9,592 10,691 22,616 59,134
For ABAG Executive Board Meeting on July 19, 2012
39
�,.,-„ REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022)
Growth Concentration
No Adjustments Growth Concentration Only Income Distribution Only and Income Distribution
Above Above Above Above
Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate Very Low Low Moderate
Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total Moderate Total
0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120% 0-50% 51-80% 81-120%
120%+ 120%+ 120%+ 120%+
Solano County
Benicia 106 62 66 113 347 100 58 62 107 327 100 58 60 129 347 94 54 56 123 327
Dixon 56 24 35 82 197 56 24 35 82 197 50 24 30 93 197 50 24 30 93 197
Fairfield 974 507 575 1,510 3,566 950 495 562 1,483 3,490 882 462 525 1,697 3,566 861 451 514 1,664 3,490
Rio Vista 19 13 17 55 104 18 13 16 52 99 16 12 17 59 104 15 12 16 56 99
Suisun City 119 47 51 151 368 114 45 50 146 355 109 42 44 173 368 105 40 41 169 355
Vacaville 315 149 178 441 1,083 315 148 178 443 1,084 287 135 173 488 1,083 287 134 173 490 1,084
Vallejo 319 197 219 625 1,360 318 197 219 628 1,362 284 178 210 688 1,360 283 178 211 690 1,362
Solano County Unincorporated 18 10 12 25 65 18 10 11 24 63 17 9 12 27 65 16 9 12 26 63
1,926 1,009 1,153 3,002 7,090 1,889 990 1,133 2,965 6,977 1,745 920 1,071 3,354 7,090 1,711 902 1,053 3,311 6,977
Sonoma County
Cloverdale 48 34 37 98 217 47 33 36 94 210 41 30 32 114 217 39 29 31 111 210
Cotati 40 25 18 59 142 39 24 17 57 137 36 19 19 68 142 35 18 18 66 137
Healdsburg 37 27 27 65 156 37 27 27 65 156 31 24 26 75 156 31 24 26 75 156
Petalu ma 220 119 119 271 729 224 121 121 275 741 196 100 118 315 729 198 102 120 321 741
RohnertParl< 233 137 143 446 959 217 127 133 418 895 193 115 135 516 959 180 107 126 482 895
Santa Rosa 1,197 683 840 2,163 4,883 1,134 647 798 2,063 4,642 996 611 796 2,480 4,883 943 579 756 2,364 4,642
Sebastopol 29 18 24 55 126 27 17 24 52 120 23 18 20 65 126 22 17 19 62 120
Sono ma 30 22 30 55 137 30 22 30 55 137 24 23 27 63 137 24 23 27 63 137
Windsor 140 80 75 165 460 134 76 72 157 439 125 68 70 197 460 120 65 67 187 439
Sono ma County Unincorporated 266 145 171 385 967 256 139 165 372 932 228 131 165 443 967 219 126 159 428 932
2,240 1,290 1,484 3,762 8,776 2,145 1,233 1,423 3,608 8,409 1,893 1,139 1,408 4,336 8,776 1,811 1,090 1,349 4,159 8,409
REGION 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 187,990
For ABAG Executive Board Meeting on July 19, 2012
40
vr�F►r REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (2014-2022�
Growth Concentration
No Adjustments Growth Concentration Only Income Distribution Only
and Income Distribution
County Share
Alameda County 23.2% 23.4% 23.2% 23.4%
Contra Costa County 10.7% 10.9% 10.7% 10.9%
Marin County 1.2% 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
Napa County 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8%
San Francisco County 15.0% 15.3% 15.0% 15.3%
San Mateo County 8.5% 8.7% 8.5% 8.7%
Santa Clara County 32.2% 31.5% 32.2% 31.5%
Solano County 3.8% 3.7% 3.8% 3.7%
Sonoma County 4.7% 4.5% 4.7% 4.5%
For ABAG Executive Board Meeting on July 19, 2012
41
Draft RHNA Units Change by Using Regional Median Household Income Instead of County Median Household Income
Median Household Income Draft RHNA Units Change
County Median Amount Amount Very Above
Low Moderate
Household Income Below Region Above Region Low Moderate
Alameda $68,863 $7,058 -885 -402 -236 1,523
Contra Costa $77,838 $1,917 93 28 15 -136
Marin $87,728 $11,807 68 25 14 -107
Napa $68,416 $7,505 -35 -17 -12 64
San Francisco $70,040 $5,881 -433 -208 -152 793
San Mateo $84,426 $8,505 345 180 80 -605
Santa Clara $85,569 $9,648 1,375 634 449 -2,458
Solano $67,920 $8,001 -181 -89 -82 352
Sonoma $63,848 $12,073 -347 -151 -76 574
Region $75,921
Note: The calculations show the changes from Income Distribution Only (purple) minus No Adjustments (green)
Source: Median Household Income data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2005-2009 American Community Survey, via DOF and HCD
42
Appendix B � RHNA Methodology and Process
L Bacicground
IL Overview RHND/RHNA Methodology
III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors
IV. Housing Methodology Committee (I�VIC)
43
L Background: Legislation, Goals, and Regional Policy
The State of Califomia, since 1980 has required each to��n, city, and unincorporated a�ea to plan for its
sha�e of the state's housing need for people of all income levels. This requirement is the Housing Element
La�� (Chapter 1143, Statutes of 1980; AB 2853)that created the Regional Housing Need Allocation. The
statutoi�-objective regarding RHNA requires that t��o major steps be completed before a cit�-receives its
RHNA allocation. Fust,the Califomia Depa�tment of Housing and Communit�-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 b�-income categories. This allocation
process is based on eight-5-ea�zoning capacit5-and does not consider local government constraints.
In acldition to AB 2853,the acloption 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 gro��th into locations that promote altematives to automobile travel.
The cha�-t belo�� sho��s the integration of RHNA State goals and Regional Policies.
Integrution of RHNA S'tute G'ouls&Regionul Policies
RHNA Objecti�-es Re�ional Policies
• Increase tlie liousing suppl� and inii of liousing • Suppoit eiisting cominuiuties.
n pes,tenure and affordabilin in all cities and
counties w itlun the region in an equitable • Create compact healtli� cominuiuties w ith a
maiuier,w luch shall result in each jurisdiction di�ersin of housing,jobs,acti�ities,and sei�ices
recei�ing an allocation of uiuts for low and�ei� to meet the dail� needs of residents.
low income households.
• Increase transportation efficienc� and choices.
• Promote infill de�elopment and socioeconomic
equin,tlie protection of en�iroiunental and . Increase liousing affordabilin, suppl� and
agriculh�ral resources,and the encouragement choices.
of efficient de�elopment patterns.
• Promote impro�ed interregional relationslups. . Protect and stew ard natural habitat open space
and agricultural land.
• Allocate a low er proportion of housing need to
an income categoi� w hen a jurisdiction alread� . Impro�e social and econoinic equin.
lias a dispropoitionatel� lugli sliare of
liouseliolds in tliat income categoi�,as . Promote econoinic and fiscal liealtli
compared to the counn w ide distribution of
households in that categoi� from the most . Consei�e resources,promote sustainabilin and
recent deceiuual Uiuted States census. impro�e en�iroiunental qualin.
• Protect public health and safen.
44
IL Overview of 2014-2022 RHND/RHNA Methodology
HCD: Regional Housing Need Determination
For the 8.8�-ear period from Janua��-2014 through October 2022,HCD determined that the Ba�-Area
��ould requue 187,990 ne�� housing units. This determination is based on population projections
produced b�-the Califomia Department of Finance (DOF),��hich also toolc into account the uncertaint�-
rega�ding the national econom�-and regional housing ma�lcets. The Housing Element La�� requires HCD
to help regions increase the mii of housing types among cities and counties equitably-b5-providing
gro��th distributions based on income categories. The income allocation for the region is as follo��s:
2014—2022 RHNA
Very Low 24.8%
U to 50 Percent of Median Income
Low 15.4%
Bet��een 51 and 80 Percent of Median Income
Moderate 17 go�o
Bet��een 81 and 120 Percent of Median Income
Above Moderate 42.0%
Above 120 Percent of Median Income
For this c�-cle only,HCD macle an acljustment to account for abnormall�-high vacancies and unique
ma�ket conditions due to prolonged recessiona��- conditions,high unemployment, and unprecedented
foreclosures.
ABAG: Regional Housing Need Allocation Methodology
1. Sustainability Component
Objective: To advance the goals of SB 375,the Sustainabilit�-Component is based on the Jobs-
Housing Connection Strategy, ��hich allocates ne�� housing development into Priorit�-Development
Areas (PDAs) and non-PDAs. B�-concentrating ne�� development in PDAs,the Strateg5-helps
protect the region's natural resources,��ater supply, and open space by reducing development
pressure on rural areas. This allo��s the region to consume less energy-,reducing household costs and
the emission of greenhouse gases.
Process and Factors: Follo��ing the land use distribution specified in the Jobs-Housing Connection
Strateg5-, 70%(131,593)of the 187,990 units determined b�-HCD��i11 be allocated to PDAs and the
remaining 30%(56,397)��i11 be directed to non-PDA locations.
2. Fair Share Component
Objective: To achieve the requirements of AB 2853 (the original housing element la��)that requires
that all cities and counties in Califomia��orlc to provide a fair sha�e or proportion of the region's total
and affordable housing need. In pa�-ticula�cities that had strong transit net��orks,high employment
rates, and performed poorly-on the 1999-2006 RHNA c�-cle received higher allocations.
Process and Factors: Fair Share scoring is addressed through the factors listed belo��.
i. Upper Housing Threshold: If gro��th projected by the Jobs-Housing Connection Strategy in
PDAs meets or eiceeds 110%of the jurisdiction's household formation gro��th,it is not
45
assigned additional gro��th outside the PDA,��hich ensures that cities��ith large PDAs a�e
notoverburdened.
ii. Minimum Housing Floor: Jurisdictions a�e assigned a minimum of 40 percent of their
household formation gro��th but not to eiceed 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 lo��-and vei�--lo�� income units that
��ere permitted in the 1999-2006 RHNA c�-cle��ere used as a factor for this c�-cle. For
eiample, cities that eiceeded theu RHNA obligation in these t��o income categories received
a lo��er score.
iv. Employment: In non-PDA a�eas,the emplo5-ment��as factored using the 2010 job estimates
for a jurisdiction. Jurisdictions��ith higher emplo5-ment received a higher score.
v. Transit: In non-PDA areas,transit��as factored for each jurisdiction. Jurisdictions��ith
higher transit frequenc5-and coverage received a higher score.
3. Income allocation
Objective: This ensures that jurisdictions that al�ead�-supply-a la�ge amount of affordable housing
receive lo��er affordable housing allocations. This also promotes the state objective for increasing the
mii of housing types among cities and counties equitably. The income allocation requirement is
designed to ensure that each jurisdiction in the Ba�-Area plans for housing people of evei�-income.
Process and Factors: The income distribution of a jurisdiction's housing need allocation is
determined b�-the difference bet��een the regional proportion of households in an income categoi}-
and the jurisdiction's proportion for that same categoiy. Once determined,this difference is then
multiplied b5- 175 percent. The result becomes that jurisdiction's "acljustment factor."The
jurisdiction's adjustment factor is added to the jurisdiction's initial proportion of households in each
income categoi}-. The result is the total sha�e of the jurisdiction's housing unit allocation for each
income categoi�-.
4. Sphere of Influence adjustments
Objective: Evei�-cit�-in the Ba�-Area has a Sphere of Influence (SOI),��hich can be either
contiguous«ith or go be5-ond the cit�-'s boundai�-. The SOI is considered the probable future
boundai�-of a cit�-and that cit�-is responsible for planning«ithin its SOL The SOI bounda��-is
designated b5-the count�-'s Local Area Formation Commission(LAFCO). The LAFCO influences
ho« government responsibilities a�e divided among jurisdictions and seivice districts in these a�eas.
Process and Factors: The allocation of the housing need for a jurisdiction's SOI��here there is
projected gro��th��ithin the spheres va�ies b�-countt-. In Napa, San Mateo, Santa Cla�a, Solano, and
Sonoma counties,the allocation of housing need generated b�-the unincorporated SOI is assigned to
the cities. In Alameda and Contra Costa counties,the allocation of housing need generated b�-the
unincorporated SOI is assigned to the count�-. In Masin County, 62.5 percent of the allocation of
housing need generated b�-the unincorporated SOI is assigned to the cit�-and 37.5 percent is
assigned to the count��.
46
5. Subregions Shares of the Regional Housing Needs Determination
Napa, San Mateo and Solano counties��ith the inclusion of all cities��ithin each count�-ha�e formed
the three subregions for this RHNA c�-cle. These counties a�e each considering an alternative housing
allocation methodolog5-. The sha�e of the RHND total for each of these subregions is defined b�-the
ratio bet��een the subregion and the total regional housing gro��th for the 2014 to 2022 period in the
Jobs-Housing Connection Strateg5-,��hich is the same ratio as in RHNA.Napa��il1 receive 0.8%, San
Mateo��il1 receive 8.5%, and Solano��i11 receive 3.8%of the region's total RHND.
47
IIL Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors
,Stalz�to�y FactoNs
The RHNA statutes delineate specific factors that had to be considered for inclusion in the methodolog5-,
including:
• Water and se��er capacit5-
• Land suitable for urban developlent or conversion to residential use
• Protected open space—lands protected b�-state and federal government
• CountS-policies to protect prime agricultural land
• Distribution of household gro��th
• Ma�lcet demand for housing
• Cit�--centered gro��th policies
• Loss of affordable units contained in assisted housing
• High housing cost burdens
• Housing needs offa�m��orlcers
• Impact of universities and colleges on housing needs in a communit�-
With the aclvice of the HMC, ABAG staff considered ho�� to incorporate the statutoi�-factors into the
allocation methodolog5-,ho�� to allocate units b�-income, and ho�� to addresss issues such as spheres of
influence,the goals of SB 375, and the relationship to subregions. Theu goal has been to develop an
allocation methodology that is consistent��ith the RHNA and SB 375 objectives and statutoi�-
requuements.
,Sz�NVey of FactoNs
On Januai�-24, 2012, ABAG sent a suive�-form to each planning director of evei�-local jurisdiction in
the region. The objective of the suive�-��as to collect information on specific factors or aclditions to be
considered in developing the allocation methodolog5-. ABAG received responses from 40 jurisdictions or
roughly-a 36%response rate.
The RHNA suive�- revealed that the proposed RHNA methodolog5- for the upcoming c5-cle must cla�ifi-
gro��th assumptions to the model and should do more to talce into account eiceptions (e.g. federall�-
o��ned land) and constraints (e.g. topography- of vacant land) to housing development. Findings from
individual responses have macle it appa�ent that the dissolution of redevelopment functions across the
state is no« a sizable detei7ent to ne« housing and job gro«-th. The majorit5- of jurisdictions did not
possess the appropriate data or ��ere unclear on the eiisting and projected relationship bet��een jobs
outside theu a�ea and housing (see SurveS- Question 2). Across all respondents, there is a moderate to
high level of concern about the feasibilit�- of RHNA allocations in the face of the economic do��ntum.
Respondents��ould lilce to see that allocations a�e commensurate to realistic opportunities and constraints.
L Results Overview by Survey Category:
A. Relationship between Jobs and Housing
• 35%of respondents recorded at least a 1:1 job to housing ratio. Most of��hich noted a
stable up«ard gro«-th«ith concems about built out rates.
48
• 51%of respondents reported that at least 20%or more of the distribution of anticipated
household gro��th, as it relates to opportunities to maiimize the use of public transit and
eiisting transit infrastructure a�e nea�h�ithin Priorit�-Development Areas (PDAs).
Altematively, 24%reported that 100%of the anticipated gro��th��il1 not be nea�transit.
B. Opportunities and Constraints
• 59%of respondents identified four or more constraints of the seven categories provided
b�-the suive�-. Land suitabilit�-, se«er, and«ater capacit5-«ere commonl�-selected as
development detei7ents.
• The Cities of Brent��ood, Campbell, Fairfield, and Healdsburg ha�e an opportunistic
capacity on multiple variables provided b�-the suive�-to��elcome housing development.
C. Demand
• The majority of respondents felt that the ma�ket demand for housing is a�erage and
projected to remain the same. The demand for jobs«as seen as average to signif�icant and
anticipated to remain high given the unemployment rate.
• Approiimatel�- 84%of respondents felt that there has not been a loss or project that there
��i11 be a loss in affordable housing units. Ho��ever, all of the remaining 16%of
respondents identified that there is a loss of affordable units that��il1 continue to��orsen
due to the dissolution of redevelopment.
IL Key Findings by County(Jurisdictions Surveyed):
A. Alameda
(Dublin, Fremont,Ha«�a�d, Livermore,Ne«a�lc,Piedmont,Pleasanton, and San Leandro)
• Cit�-of Livermore«il1 be re-designating industriall�-zoned land to residential to
accommodate TOD development and to acldress the Cit�-'s 2007-2014 RHNA. Thus,the
ratio of jobs to housing estimated in a build out«il1 decrease. General Plan intends to
channel ne�� development��ithin cit�-limits nea�eiisting seivices and create higher
densit�-infill housing nea�services and transit. The Cit�-��il1 need to re-designate/rezone
aclditional land to facilitate Transit Oriented Development and affordable housing to meet
its RHNA. The Citv has an Urban Gro��th Bounda��-and t��o Prioritv Conseivation Areas
(in North and South Livermore)that support and fulfill communit�-and regional efforts
for sma�-t gro��th nea�seivices/transit and protection of agriculture and sensitive habitat
and resources.
• Cit�-of Pleasanton recentl�-rezoned 70 acres of(mostly-previously-commerciall�--zoned)
land for future multi-famil�-housing.
• Cit�-of Fremont feels that the�-have capacit5-and opportunities to receive ne�� housing
development.
• Cit�-of Fremont and the Cit�-of Ha�-��ard are concemed about the loss of affordable
units. The deed on several projects that contained affordable restrictions has eipired.
49
• The Cit�-of Ha�-��a�d noted a plan that has not been finalized: "Planning directors of
Alameda Count�-have been��orlcing��ith the Count�-Transportation Commission on a
"Loca11�-Prefei7ed Scenario"��hich seelcs to direct gro��th to certain areas��ithin each
cit�-. This has been presented to ABAG for an SCS strateg5-."
B. Contra Costa
(CountS-of Contra Costa, Brent��ood, ClaS--ton, Danville, LafaS-ette,Pleasant Hill, and Walnut Creelc)
• Contra Costa has a ULL. Recent LAFCO revie�� points to three-pa�ty agreement bet��een
Danville, Dan Ramon, and Contra Costa Countt-regarding acljustments to Danville's and
San Ramon's respective SOIs along the Camino Tassaja�a corridor east of Alamo Creelc
(currently-pa��tially-in Danville's SOI).
• The Cit�-of Brent��ood reported that the demand for higher-level jobs is vei�-high. The
cit�-has aclequate enti�-level min��age emplo5-ment. Gro��th in the emplo5-ment sector is
a priorit5-of the cit�-council.
• Demand for housing across the count�-remains lo�� eicept��ithin the Cit�-of Lafa�-ette.
The cit�-also reports a concem rega�ding affordable housing: "inventoi�-of federall�-
subsidized lo«-income rental units at rislc of conversion indicated one propert5-«ith 66
Section 8 units at risk of conversion in neit 10 vea�s."
C. Marin
(To��n of Corte Madera, La�lcspur, To��n of Ross, and Sausalito)
• Cit�-of Sausalito reported that the vacanc�-rate among the city's o��ner housing is 2.3%;
6.4%among the cit5's rental housing. The ma�lcet demand for housing is relativel�-high.
Cit�-also indicated that there is a gro��ing need for��orlcers in the ma�ine and fish
indu sti�-.
• To��n of Ross indicated that housing prices are high for single family-units and homes
continue to se1L There ha�e been no requests to develop sites that a�e zoned for multiple
famil�-housing.
D. Napa
(Count�-of Napa)
• Se«er,«ater and land suitabilit�-a�e the biggest constraints to potential development.
• 2620%or households spend more than 30%on their income on housing.
• Feels that affordabilit�-is not an issue, as Count�-manages a count�--��ide Section 8
program.
E. San Mateo
(Da1�-City, To��n of Hillsborough, Millbrae, and San Bruno)
• Da1�-Cit�-is eipecting that housing supply-and production��i11 eiceed job gro��th. But is
eipecting that the rate of job gro��th��il1 decline.
50
• Cit�-of Hillsborough reported that their Site anal�-sis for 2009 Housing Element sho��s
finite availabilit�-for 134 ne�� primai�-units. Although second units ma�-be
accommodated,the to«n's infrastructure and seivices«ould lilcel�-not be able to
accommodate gro��th be�-ond the 134 ne�� prima��-units.
• Cit�-of San Bruno eipressed additional housing constraints: (1)restriction��ithin 70dB
noise contour of SFO (2) small and shallo�� lots��ith multiple o��nership along transit
corridors of El Camino Real and San Bruno (3) Local height limit ordinance (Ord. 1284)
limiting building height.
F. Santa Clara
(Campbell, Cupertino, To��n of Los Altos Hills, Milpiltas, Mountain Vie��, Sa�atoga, and Sunn�,-vale)
• To��n of Los Altos is zoned almost entirel�-Residential-Agricultural(R-A)��ith 1 acre
min lot size. There is no commercial,retail, or industrial zoned land, and no PDA or
GOA.
• The Cit�-of Campbell and Mountain Vie�� eipressed the capacity to receive increased
housing gro��th.
• The Cit�-of Sunn�,-vale has one 5-acre unincorporated a�ea that is pre-zoned for medium
densit�-. There is no specific agreement bet��een Sunn�-vale and the count�-for
development of that land.
G. Solano
(Count�-of Solano, Faii�ield, and Vaca�ille)
• The Cit�-of Vacaville reported that 34%of residents are emplo5-ed in Vaca�ille (2000
Census) The city is cui7ently updating its General Plan and considering the addition of an
emplo5-ment center in a ne�� gro��th a�ea.
• Count�-as a��hole reported a lo�� demand for housing and jobs in the area given the
economic climate.
• Cit�-of Fairfield's General Plan and Count�-General Plan direct gro��th to incorporate
a�ea. The cit�-also has an agreement��ith the Solano I�rigation District,��hich limits
anneiation
H. Sonoma
(CountS-of Sonoma,Healdsburg, and Petaluma)
• Count�-as a��hole reported a lo�� demand for housing and jobs in the area given the
economic climate.
• Cit�-of Healdsburg reported that there are no formal agreements that aim to direct
gro��th, only-policies to provide communit�-sepa�ators and urban gro��th bounda�ies.
51
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPEPTINO,CA 9501�-3255
C V p E RT�N Q (�08)777-3308 • FAX(408)777-3333 • �lanning@cu�ertino.org
Subject: Report of the Community Development Director
Planning Commission Agenda Date: Tuesday,August 14, 2012
Political Signs:
1. The Council adopted the following amendments related to Political Signs and
conducted the first reading of the Sign Ordinance on August 7, 2012:
• Allow political signs in the park strip in the public right-of-way only in
Residential zones with adjacent property owner or resident consent
• Political signs placed without consent in the park strip may be removed and
disposed of by the adjacent property owner or resident
• Modify the definition of"Signs of de minimus value" to exclude political
signs
• Change enforcement process to:
o Provide two (2) business days for correction of violation
o Hold signs for 20 days
The second reading is expected to be conducted on August 21, 2012. The Ordinance
would go into effect on September 20, 2012.
The City Council also adopted a Resolution to amend the fee schedule to add a fee.
A new Sign Recovery fee for Political Signs at$3 per sign was created to be assessed
when a political sign is retrieved. The revised fee schedule will go into effect on
October 6, 2012.
2. Housing Element
In response to questions in the past about the City's obligations related to the
Housing Element, staff has prepared the attached fact sheet to provide basic
information on Housing Element requirements.
Upcoming Dates:
Date Event Time Location
Friday, August 10 Cinema at Sundown 8:30pm Memorial Park
"Enchanted" Amphitheater
52
HOUSING ELEMETfT FACT SHEET
State law requires each city and county to adopt a gene�ral plan containing at least seven mandatory
elements including housing. Unlike the other general ��lan elements, the housing element is required to
be periodically updated and is subject to detailed statutory requirements and mandatory review by a
State agency, the California Department of Housing ar.�.d Community Development (HCD). The City
Council adopted Cupertino's most recent Housing Ele�nent on April 6, 2010 and HCD certified the
Housing Element on June 24, 2010.
Housing Elements have been mandatory portions of' local general plans since 1969. The goals of a
Housing Element and Regional Housing Needs Plan are to:
• Increase the housing supply and the mix of housi�lg types in an equitable manner
• Promote infill development and socio-economic E;quity
• Promote an improved intra-regional relationship l�etween jobs and housing
Housing Element law requires local governments to aclequately l�an to meet its existing and projected
housing needs including their share of the regional hoiising need. Housing Element law is the State's
primary market-based strategy to increase housing supply, affordability and choice. The law recognizes
that in order for the private sector to adequately addre��s housing needs and demand, local governments
must adopt land-use plans and a regulatory environme:nt which provide opportunities for, and do not
unduly constrain, housing development. In order to meet the requirement of adequately planning to
meet the existing need,jurisdictions must zone adequate sites and not unduly constrain new
development.
As mentioned earlier, under state Housing Element la�v, a jurisdiction must plan to meet its existing and
projected housing needs, but is not expected to produce the housing units. Until recently,jurisdictions
were not penalized for poor unit production. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has
built into the recently approved RHNA methodology a.means of allocating higher percentages of low
and very-low income units to those jurisdictions that have underperformed in the last RHNA cycle.
Housin� Element lawsuits
Should a jurisdiction not have a Housing Element in a�mpliance with State Law, then they may be
subject to a lawsuit. Non-compliance with an existing Housing Element is also makes a jurisdiction
susceptible to a lawsuit.
Housing Element lawsuits are typically brought fot•ward by affordable housing advocates, property
owners and/or developers. In addition to the parties listed, the California Attorney General's Office also
has the authority to file civil action against a City. N[ost recently, the Attorney General's Office joined
an ongoing lawsuit against the City of Pleasanton for non-compliance with its Housing Element. In
most cases of non-compliance, the State has rescinded the Housing Element certification which means
the City may no longer receive State and Federal grants for transportation and housing. Courts may also
impose moratoria on local land use authority (take away local control of land use decisions).
Should moratoria be imposed, the City would not be able to issue permits or accept development
applications which are a primary source of revenue�. While a building moratorium is a worst case
scenario, it is not outside the realm of possibility, as similar situations have occurred throughout the
1
53
region and the state. Below is a list of jurisdictions that have faced Housing Element lawsuits, with the
exception of Folsom, all the jurisdictions were sued for Housing Element non-compliance:
• Folsom: The City of Folsom previously signed an agreement with housing advocacy groups to
produce 650 affordable units within a period of four years. The City didn't adhere to the agreement
and was sued by Legal Services of Northern Califc�rnia (LSNC). The Court ordered a moratorium on
development of 600 acres until the Housing Element was certified by HCD. A stipulated judgment
required the City to rezone 128 acres for affordable housing, create incentives for developers, and
create an affordable Housing Trust Fund. The City was ordered to pay attorney fees.
• Folsom: In response to the lawsuit from Legal Services of Northern California, mentioned above,
the City of Folsom created several programs, incl�.�ding an inclusionary housing program, to further
its affordable housing goals listed in its Housing �;lement. The Housing Element was subsequently
approved with the goals and programs in place by the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). In November 2010, the City Council of Folsom chose to eliminate the
inclusionary housing program despite recommen��ations from City staff to the contrary. Shortly
thereafter, the Sacramento Housing Alliance filed a lawsuit against the City of Folsom stating that
the elimination of the program is inconsistent wi.th the approved Housing Element. On July 19,
2012, the Court ruled with the Sacramento Housing Alliance that eliminating the program is
inconsistent with the approved Housing Element. It remains to be seen if the City of Folsom will
attempt revise the Housing Element with a Ger�eral Plan amendment and whether HCD would
consider approving the Housing Element with the ��rogram eliminated.
• Sacramento County: Sacramento County was sued by LSNC, claiming the County failed to
implement its Housing Element. The Court ordered the County to adopt new development standards
for multi-family projects and enact amendments to the zoning ordinance to ensure that multi-family
projects are reviewed through a simplified proces:;. A moratorium was also imposed, prohibiting all
building except multi-family residences. Sacramento County later adopted an Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance requiring provision of affordable housirig. The County was ordered to pay attorney fees.
• Mission Viejo: The City of Mission Viejo faile�d to comply with a commitment in its adopted
Housing Element to rezone adequate sites. HCI� subsequently rescinded its certification of the
Housing Element, and a lawsuit was brought by California Affordable Housing Law Project and
Legal Aid. The Court issued a writ against the City and ordered moratoria on the three sites the City
had identified but had not rezoned.
• Pleasanton: The City of Pleasanton committed to rezoning 30-40 acres to high density residential in
its Housing Element. The City failed to rezone the properties, and similar to the Mission Viejo case,
HCD rescinded its certification of the Housing El��ment. Urban Habitat subsequently filed a lawsuit
based on Housing Element non-compliance, as well as a voter-approved growth management
ordinance. The California Attorney General joinf;d the lawsuit in August 2009. The case remains
pending.
A partial listing of other jurisdictions who have faced legal challenges on their Housing Elements
include: Alameda, Benicia, Camarillo, Corte Madera, Dana Point, Encinitas, Fremont, Healdsburg,
Mendocino County, Napa County, Oxnard, Pasadena, Pittsburgh, Rohnert Park, San Diego, Santa Cruz
County, Santa Monica, Santa Rosa, Seal Beach, and Sonoma County.
2
54