Loading...
25 ABAG Regional Housing 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3308 FAX (408) 777-3333 tnioF CUPEIQ"INO Community Development Department SUMMARY AGENDA NO. ;15 AGENDA DATE: November 6, 2006 SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor to send a letter on behalf of the City Council supporting the proposed Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) formula. . RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council authorize the Mayor to forward the attached letter supporting the formula developed by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Committee. The formula allocates housing units based on housing unit growth, existing and projected jobs and projected growth around transit stations. The growth numbers are based on Projections 2007, which significantly reduced the projected job generation in Cupertino. BACKGROUND: Every seven years the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) conducts a process to allocate the fair share of housing growth to jurisdictions in the nine-county Bay Area region. The current effort represents the fourth RHNA cycle. The Director of Community Development was one of three representatives from Santa Clara County who participated on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation Committee, along with Laurel Prevetti, Deputy Director of Planning for San Jose and Regina Brisco, a Housing Planner for Gilroy. DISCUSSION: The Regional Housing Needs Allocation Committee formula allocates housing units based on housing unit growth, existing and projected jobs and projected growth around transit stations. The growth numbers are based on Projections 2007, which significantly reduced the projected job generation in Cupertino. The combination of the formula and the revised projections 2007 housing and job growth, results in an allocation to Cupertino of 1.084 housing units versus 2.720 units allocated in the orevious RHNA orocess. Attached are the allocations under the RHNA Committee formula. The column on the left outlines a potential allocation for all cities assuming the allocation from the State for the nine County Bay Area is the same as the previous RHNA process, which was 230,743 housing units. The final number from the State could be higher or lower. Santa Clara County historically gets dS-1 Authorize the Mayor to ,send a letter on behalf of the City Council SUDDortina the oroDosed Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Reaional Housina Needs Allocation (RHNA) formula. November 6, 2006 Page 2 the highest allocation at around 25% of the regional total or about 58,000 units based on the previous allocation. The column on the far right represents the number allocated in the last RHNA process. Proposed Formula The formula recommended by the RHNA committee is based on: . 40% projected housing growth . 20% existing jobs as of 2007 . 20% projected job growth between 2007 and 2014 . 10% job growth within 1/2 mile of a transit stop . 10% housing growth within 1/2 mile of a transit stop The number allocated is a function of the formula and the projected number of job and housing growth by Projections 2007. Planning staff, particularly Senior Planner Peter Gilli, worked extensively with ABAG projections staff to realistically count jobs and get the number of housing units to reflect recent growth and annexations. Consequently, the job numbers dropped about 8,000 jobs from past projections and the number of housing units increased to reflect annexations and new housing units. Cupertino's numbers in Projections 2007 are much closer to a jobslhousing balance than previous projections. Enclosed is an ABAG staff memo dated October 17, 2006 "RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2" which provides more explanation on the different formulas and factors. Next Steps The RHNA Committee recommendation goes to the ABAG Executive Board on November 16, 2006. City Manager David Knapp sits on the ABAG Executive Board. The ABAG Board has until December 31, 2006, to adopt the fmal formula after which there is a 60-day public comment period before it becomes effective. Following ABAG adoption of the formula the State needs to issue the final number of housing units to the nine-county ABAG region which is expected before March 2007. At that time we will know our fmal fair-share number. Agencies taking a higher allocation, particularly San Francisco and San Jose and some of the smaller agencies with higher numbers such as Palo Alto, may lobby for a formula that is more favorable to them. Also, the fmal numbers from the State have not come down so the numbers could grow regardless of the final formula. This allocation applies to the period 2007 through 2014, at which point ABAG will go through this process again. After the ABAG Exec Board and State actions we will know the new numbers for the GP. Even so, the number of housing units is likely to increase a little over the number currently in the GP because these numbers are for the period 2007-2014 and are over and above our previous fair- share allocation. After all of the above it will be appropriate to amend the GP Housing Element. We will spend late 2007 through 2008 going through the public hearing process. Final amended Housing Elements are due in the ABAG region before June 2009. ;;)5";). Authorize the Mayor to send a letter on behalf of the City Council suooortina the orooosed Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Reaional Housina Needs Allocation (RHNA) formula. November 6, 2006 Page 3 Submitted by: Approved for submission: ~ David W. Knapp City Manager Enclosures: Draft letter supporting the RHNA Committee Allocation Formula Allocation tables for bay area cities with the Committee Proposal ABAG Staff memo dated October 17,2006 "RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2" d5~3 Office of the Mayor 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, CA 95014 (408) 777-3212 CITY OF CUPEIUINO ~ovember6,2006 ABAG Executive Committee Association of Baty Area Governments Planning and Building Safety Department 350 Main Street Oakland, CA 90245-3813 Subject: Support for the RHNA Committee allocation formula Dear ABAG Executive Committee Members The Cupertino City Council is pleased to support the allocation formula developed by the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) committee. The RHNA Committee spent the past six months going over the options and discussing reasonable methodologies to allocate housing units. The formula allocates a fair share of housing based on where growth has occurred in the past and where growth is projected to occur in accordance in Projections 2007 and the factors in the State statute. The formula for the first time, allocates a portion of the housing based on smart growth principles by encouraging growth near transit stations. The Bay Area needs to direct growth along the transit corridors and discourage suburban sprawl if we are going to limit congestion. The formula gives communities planning on growth to choose smart growth by balancing job generation with housing units. Thank you for opportunity to participate and comment on the process. Sincerely, Richard Lowenthal Mayor d 5-'1 10/24/06 11 :41 AM ALAMEDA ALBANY BERKELEY DUBLIN EMERYVILLE FREMONT HAYWARD LIVERMORE NEWARK OAKLAND PIEDMONT PLEASANTON SAN LEANDRO UNION CITY UNINCORPORATED ALAMEDA COUNTY ANTIOCH BRENTWOOD CLAYTON CONCORD DANVILLE EL CERRITO HERCULES LAFAYETTE MARTINEZ tJ MORAGA ~ OAKLEY 0\ ORINDA PINOLE PITTSBURG Planned Trans Committee Proposal Scenario A 40% HH Growth 20% Jobs 2007 20% Job Grpwth, 10% Trans Job Growth, 10% Trans HH Growth 230.743 2,070 255 2,680 3,065 1,124 5,415 3,576 3,989 884 16,397 39 3,359 2,572 1,996 1,273 48,694 2,251 2,398 158 3,753 565 577 419 382 1,182 217 861 225 404 2,930 IModerate Trans Greater Transit Emphasis Housing I Combo Emphasis Jobs Emphasis Scenario 2 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 60%HH 40% HH 60% HH Growth 40% HH Growth Growth 20% 20% Jobs Growth 50% 40% Jobs Trans HH 50% HH Growth Jobs 2014 2014 20% Growth 20% Growth 50% 20% Trans 10% Trans Trans Job Trans Job Previous Jobs Growth Job Growth Job Growth Growth Growth RHNA 230.743 U 230.743 e 230,743 I 230.743 I 230.743 - 230,743 2,452 2,067 1,917 1,884 1,864 2,162 301 255 299 266 202 277 1,908 1,824 3,249 2,975 2,259 1,269 3,784 3,982 2,991 3,054 3,602 5,436 904 850 1,059 1,012 1,237 777 5,188 5,186 5,544 5,645 4,923 6,708 3,302 2,826 3,731 3,420 3,314 2,835 5,194 4,059 3,700 3,438 3,443 5,107 896 678 999 863 480 1,250 12,908 14,591 14,327 14,882 21,046 7,733 20 15 71 58 11 49 3,876 3,182 3,409 3,278 2,594 5,059 2,479 2,464 2,592 2,590 2,595 870 2,408 2,150 1,732 1,787 1.973 1,951 1,535 1,288 1,467 1,308 1,010 5,310 47,156 45,418 47,085 46,461 50,554 46,793 2,918 2,697 2,230 2,156 2,213 4,459 2,990 3,199 2,230 2,251 2,922 4.073 204 195 163 153 170 446 4,003 3,467 3,994 3,669 3,390 2,319 595 482 734 636 366 1,110 392 492 469 511 801 185 599 514 395 371 412 792 225 307 530 491 372 194 1 ,425 1,126 1,283 1,156 894 1,341 224 208 279 247 178 214 1,156 1,113 787 767 967 1,208 151 181 295 273 214 221 470 446 469 427 387 288 3,012 2,548 2,041 1,912 2,651 2,513 10/24/06 11 :41 AM PLEASANT HILL RICHMOND SAN PABLO SAN RAMON WALNUT CREEK UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA CNTY BELVEDERE CORTE MADERA FAIRFAX LARKSPUR MILL VALLEY NOVATO ROSS SAN ANSELMO SAN RAFAEL SAUSALlTO TIBURON UNINCORPORATED MARIN COUNTY AMERICAN CANYON CALlSTOGA NAPA 8T HELENA YOUNTVILLE ~ UNINCORPORATED l'\ NAPA COUNTY 1 E)'.. SAN FRANCISCO Planned Trans Committee Proposal Scenario A 40% HH Growth 20% Jobs 2007 20% Job Growth, 10% Trans Job Growth, 10% Trans HH Growth 230,743 I 616 2,977 319 3,362 2,839 964 27,396 24 237 77 749 294 1,980 25 148 1,901 182 115 510 6,243 667 87 1,905 114 88 605 3,466 40,728 fModerate Trans Greater Transit Emphasis Housing Emphasis Jobs Emphasis Combo Scenario 2 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 60% HH 40% HH 60% HH Growth 40% HH Growth Growth 20% 20% Jobs Growth 50% 40% Jobs Trans HH 50% HH Growth Jobs 2014 2014 20% Growth 20% Growth 50% 20% Trans 10% Trans Trans Job Trans Job Previous Jobs Growth Job Growth Job Growth Growth Growth RHNA 230,743 U 230,743 I 230,743 e 230,743 I 230,743 ~ 230,743 ~ 621 502 825 710 380 714 3,545 3,143 3,173 2,932 2,748 2,603 394 311 364 322 231 494 4,431 3,817 3,508 3,215 3,067 4,447 2,573 2,455 3,285 3,034 2,588 1,653 1,215 1,050 1,005 919 844 5,436 31 ,145 28,254 28,058 26,153 25,793 34,710 13 13 42 35 11 10 250 188 312 268 132 179 81 68 100 87 53 64 471 636 758 774 874 303 265 198 426 359 138 225 2,323 2,079 1,904 1,919 1,517 2,582 20 19 37 32 16 21 117 88 230 192 63 149 1,770 1,604 2,206 2,081 1,174 2,090 157 111 272 238 48 207 86 57 175 142 51 164 622 397 614 520 221 521 6,175 5,457 7,077 6,647 4,297 6,515 1,046 840 558 531 632 1,323 97 61 112 94 34 173 2,312 1,915 2,188 1,948 1 ,485 3,369 64 48 200 164 34 142 87 71 120 103 55 87 585 379 858 715 218 1,969 4,191 3,315 4,036 3,556 2,457 7,063 28,269 40,695 37,159 44,530 49,847 20,372 10/24/06 11 :41 AM CLOVERDALE COT A TI HEALDSBURG PETALUMA ROHNERT PARK SANTA ROSA SEBASTOPOL SONOMA WINDSOR UNINCORPORATED SONOMA COUNTY REGION lJ U\ I ....J Planned Trans Committee Proposal Scenario A 40% HH Growth 20% Jobs 2007 20% Job Growth, 10% Trans Job Growth, 10% Trans HH Growth 230,743 I 489 387 403 1,999 1,770 6,504 165 328 688 1,294 14,026 230,743 IModerate Trans Greater Transit Emphasis Housing Emphasis Jobs Emphasis Combo Scenario 2 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 60% HH 40% HH 60% HH Growth 40% HH Growth Growth 20% 20% Jobs Growth 50% 40% Jobs Trans HH 50% HH Growth Jobs 2014 2014 20% Growth 20% Growth 50% 20% Trans 10% Trans Trans Job Trans Job Previous Jobs Growth Job Growth Job Growth Growth Growth RHNA 230,743 U 230,743 I 230,743 I 230,743 ~ 230,743 I 230,743 I 495 582 419 438 543 423 357 323 262 279 229 567 341 375 414 409 319 573 2,135 2,046 2,158 2,049 1,683 1,144 2,343 1,957 1 ,495 1,627 1,245 2,124 7,839 6,973 6,779 6,445 5,439 7,654 110 128 261 226 127 274 270 313 471 418 308 684 848 787 636 627 636 2,071 955 1,012 1,990 1,718 945 6,799 15,691 14,496 14,886 14,237 11 ,4 73 22,313 230,743 230,743 230,743 230,743 230,743 230,743 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS o Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area ABAG MEMO To: From: Date: Subject: Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) ABAG Staff October 17, 2006 RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 Background As part of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) has been tasked with assisting ABAG staff in developing the methodology for allocating shares of the regional housing need to each city and county in the Bay Area. By statute, there are nine factors that must be considered in developing the allocation methodology.! Factors are used to assign a share of the region's total housing need to individual jurisdictions. The factors cannot be used to change the total regional housing need. Therefore, the factors are always expressed as a share of the regional total. If used as factors, these same shares are then used to assign a proportion of the regional housing need to the jurisdiction. Over the past several months, the HMC has been working to determine which factors should be included in the methodology. The committee's discussion has been framed by the need for the methodology to meet the statutory RHNA objectives as well as to further the Bay Area's regional goals for growth. In the interest of developing the allocation methodology, the HMC requested that ABAG staff generate several possible allocation scenarios for their consideration. The scenarios include factors related to housing, jobs, and areas served by public transportation. The flrst set of scenarios was discussed at the October 12th HMC meeting. The committee felt that we should be more consistent in matching job and housing growth, or jobs and housing at a single point in time. The HMC also asked us to look using jobs in transit areas in the methodology. This memo describes the scenarios that were developed based on feedback from the committee. The different ways of using these factors, and the policy implications of each, are also presented. Revised Regional Allocation Scenarios The HMC has identtfled three broad categories of factors to be considered for inclusion in the methodology: . Housing Employment Access to public transit . . 1 Government Code Section 65584.04(d). Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7970 info@abag.ca.gov Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756 dS-'fj RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17/06 Page 2 The allocation scenarios are separated into two major categories. The flrst three scenarios include only factors related to housing and employment. They demonstrate a "Moderate Transit Emphasis" because they are based on Projections, which incorporates the regional smart growth principles to direct growth to existing communities and areas ,near public transit.2 The rest of the scenarios (Scenarios 4 through 10) are also based on Projections, but they include "transit" as an additional factor, and therefore represent a "greater transit emphasis". Only existing, flxed transit infrastructure, such as heavy and light rail systems and ferries3 are included. Transit is included in four distinct ways: 1) housing growth near transit, 2) total housing (2014) near transit, 3) employment growth near transit, and 4) total (2014) employment near transit. The sample scenarios use the transit factor in various combinations of these four distinct variables to demonstrate different policy options. All scenarios are based on the draft numbers from the Projections 2007 forecast. These numbers are currently being reviewed by local governments, and therefore it is likely that some changes will occur. Also, the total regional need number in the scenarios is from the 1999-2006 RHNA period, and is used only for demonstration purposes. It is possible that the total regional need will be signiflcantly higher for the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Moderate Transit Emphasis These scenarios focus on housing and jobs as the major determinants of future housing need. Projected household growth represents the need to provide housing for natural population increases. In addition, the presence of jobs in a community also generates demand for housing to accommodate workers. Over time, linking jobs to housing will result in a better jobs-housing balance throughout the region. During the discussion of the flrst set of allocation scenarios at the October 12th HMC meeting, several committee members requested that we look at ways to better address jobs-housing balance more directly. Suggestions included looking at employed residents as a factor or making an adjustment for jobs-housing ratios. Staff explored using these types of factors, but found that the resulting allocation scenarios did not yield satisfactory outcomes, i.e. the result was numerous negative allocations. Therefore, the jobs-housing balance issue was addressed by placing more emphasis on existing employment centers and by only using housing growth in some of the scenarios presented below. Scenario 1: Total Housing & Emplqyment This scenario equally weights a jurisdiction's total households and total jobs in 2014. Using the totals for 2014 accounts for existing housing and employment, as well as the increment of growth expected between 2007 and 2014. This scenario results in more housing going to jurisdictions with existing high concentrations of both housing and jobs. Because jobs and housing are equally 2 In 2002, ABAG's Executive Board resolved to use the regional goals and Network of Neighborhoods vision as the basis for Projections forecasts. Since then, Projections assumes that, over time, local land use policies will move the region closer to meeting the regional goals. The policy-based Projections specifically forecast more growth in existing communities and near transit, while directing growth away from agricultural areas and open space. 3 The rail service providers included are: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain, San Francisco MUNI light rail, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) light rail. ;;/ 5 -Cf RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17/06 Page 3 weighted, this scenario does the least to improve existing jobs/housing imbalances in the region, as it maintains existing proportions of jobs and housing in each jurisdiction. Scenario 2: Housing & Emplqyment Growth This scenario is equally weighted between a jurisdiction's expected growth in both households and jobs between 2007 and 2014. This scenario does not consider existing concentrations of either jobs or housing and so housing is not directed to areas where there are either large amounts housing or jobs in the region. While this avoids putting additional housing where there is already lots of housing, it also emphasizes employment growth, where additional housing may be needed. This scenario addresses jobs-housing balance based solely on future employment growth. It does not seek to adjust the existing balance between housing and jobs. Scenario 3: Emplqyment Emphasis Scenario 3 has a strong employment emphasis. Household growth is equally weighted with total jobs (2014). However, this scenario does not consider the existing concentrations of housing, only planned household growth. In this way, housing is not directed to those areas that have already built a significant amount of housing. This scenario also uses 2014 jobs. The effect of this is to place more housing in jurisdictions with both large existing employment bases and in those that are anticipated to experience employment growth. This scenario has the greatest potential for consistency between local and regional policy, for it considers both locally and regionally planned growth, and has a strong employment component. This scenario only directs housing to those jurisdictions that are planning for growth (according to a meld of regional and local policy via Projections.) It also directs housing to both existing and growing employment centers. Greater Transit Emphasis These scenarios include factors related to housing and employment, but add a factor to direct growth to areas with access to public transit. Choosing to include a factor in the methodology that directs growth to areas with public transit would reinforce the importance of encouraging growth in areas with a variety of transportation options. In effect, it would give extra weight to this regional goal, over what has already been done in the Prrjections forecast. It is expected that the most significant impacts from the use of the regional goals in Prrjections will not begin to take effect until 2010. Directing growth to areas with public transit in the methodology would ensure that this regional goal influences development patterns during the RHNA period. Housing Emphasis Scenario 4 &5: Heaf!)' Housing Emphasis These scenario have a strong housing emphasis, as 80 percent of projected housing need is based on either existing households or projected growth - 60 percent overall housing or housing growth and 20 percent near transit. Scenario 4 is the more heavily weighted toward housing than Scenario 5, as it ;) 5 -10 RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17/06 Page 4 uses total (2014) housing. Scenario 5 uses household growth, which only assigns units based on planned household growth, eliminating impact of existing housing stock. Jobs are accounted for only 20 percent in each scenario. Existing job centers are considered in scenario 4, while only those areas expected to experience job growth are considered in scenario 5. Overall, these scenarios are heavily weighted toward housing as the primary determinant of housing need, with the added factor transit, either existing or planned homes near transit. Scenarios 6 & 7: Moderate Housing Emphasis Scenarios 6 and 7 both consider either total or planned employment near transit, however housing is still presented as the primary determinant of housing need. Scenario 6 considers existing and planned (2014) households and jobs, with additional weight given to existing and planned jobs in transit areas. This scenario offers consideration of existing concentration of housing and employment in all communities. Greater weight is given to communities that have existing and planned employment growth near transit. However, this scenario may not effectively address existing regional jobs/housing balance, for those areas with high concentrations of housing; especially those jurisdictions with transit are given a relatively higher share of the regional housing need (60 percent vs. 40 percent) than those with high employment concentrations. Scenario 7 only considers housing and job growth, not existing concentrations of either. Only those areas with anticipated housing and job growth are considered, with greater weight given to communities with employment growth planned near transit. This scenario avoids placing housing in those communities with high housing concentrations; however, it also does not effectively address existing employment concentrations and therefore may not effectively address existing regional jobs/housing balance. Employment Emphasis Scenarios 8: Heary Emplf!Yment with Heary Transit Emphasis Scenarios 8 & 9 have the greatest emphasis on employment, while also considering transit. Theses scenarios assign units based 40 percent household growth, with no consideration of existing concentrations of housing. Therefore, these scenarios do not consider those areas in the region that are currently housing rich. Both scenarios use total jobs as the highest determinant of regional need. In terms of transit, Scenario 8 uses 10 percent and Scenario 9 uses a 20 percent weight on those areas with planned employment growth near transit. Both of these scenarios may adequately address jobs-housing balance, as housing is directed to both existing employment centers and to areas with relatively high planned jobs. Transit Combo Scenario 10: Combo - Heary Transit with Housing Emphasis This scenario gives transit the highest emphasis of all the scenarios by giving 40 percent allocation to those jurisdictions with either planned housing or employment growth near transit. It also is the one example that is inclusive of all transit areas, i.e. those with both employment and housing. Those jurisdictions without transit would only be given an allocation based on overall household growth. d 5 -II RHNA Allocation Methodology Scenarios - Round 2 10/17/06 Page 5 Because this scenario uses household growth factor that is applicable to all jurisdictions (those with and without transit), housing is the primary determinant of housing need. Summary The scenarios described above demonstrate the degree to which the regional housing needs methodology can be used to support regional housing policy. How housing, employment and transit are considered in the methodology can significantly alter the policy implications of the methodology. . Current regional policy places incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations. Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing and employment as factors (Scenarios 1-3) ~ould be inclusive of "transit" as a policy issue. Using transit as an additional direct factor (Scenarios 4-10) would give transit a greater degree of policy consideration. Those jurisdictions with transit, under scenarios 4-10 would receive a relatively higher proportion of the allocation than those jurisdictions without transit. . Considering total existing and planned housing (2014) in the methodology gives those jurisdictions with existing relatively high concentrations of housing in the region - the most housing dense urban communities a relatively higher proportion of the housing allocation. . Considering only housing growth gives those jurisdictions that are planning for housing growth (according to both regional and local policy) a relatively greater portion of the housing need. . Considering existing and planned employment (2014) gives those jurisdictions with both high existing concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a greater share of the housing need. This may have the greatest impact in directing housing to job centers and may be most effective in addressing regional jobs-housing imbalance. ;>.5-1a. Formulas for Methodology Examples Housing Methodology Committee October 19,2006 1. 50% * (Share of Regional Households in 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) 2. 50% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014) 3. 50% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) 4. 60% * (Share of Regional Households in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Households within Y2 mile of transit in 2014) 5. 60% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y2 II?-ile of transit) 6. 60% * (Share of Regional Households in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Jobs within Y2 mile of transit in 2014) 7. 60% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y2 mile of transit) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y2 mile of transit) 8. 40% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 50% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 10% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014 within Y2 mile of transit) 9. 40% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 40% * (Share of Regional Jobs in 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014 within Y2 mile of transit) . 10. 60%* (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014) + 20% * (Share of Regional Household Growth between 2007 and 2014 that is within Y2 mile of transit) + 20% * (Share of Regional Job Growth between 2007 and 2014 within Y2 mile of transit) ;;;5-13 EXHIBITS BEGIN HERE Planned Trans Moderate Trans Greater Transit Emphasis Committee Housing Proposal Emphasis Jobs Emphasis Combo Scenario A Scenario 2 Scenario 7 Scenario 8 Scenario 9 Scenario 10 40% HH Growth 60% HH 40% HH 60% HH 20% Jobs 2007 Growth 40% HH Growth Growth 20% 20% Job Growth, 20% Jobs Growth 50% 40% Jobs Trans HH 10% Trans Job 50% HH Growth Jobs 2014 2014 20% Growth 20% Growth, 10% Growth 50% 20% Trans 10% Trans Trans Job Trans Job Previous Trans HH Growth Jobs Growth Job Growth Job Growth Growth Growth RHNA 10/24/06 11:41 AM 230,743 I 230,743 II 230,743 II 230,743 I' 230,743 ~ 230,743 I 230,743 ~ SAN MATEO COUNTY 18,332 18,332 18,332 18,332 18,332 18,332 16,305 CAMPBELL 722 675 571 1,010 868 452 777 CUPERTINO 1,084 1,114 881 1 ,440 1,239 653 2,720 GILROY 1,578 1,825 1,719 1,637 1,590 1,515 3,746 LOS ALTOS 295 235 214 447 382 180 261 LOS ALTOS HILLS 75 66 72 105 93 69 83 LOS GA TOS 522 431 349 786 664 265 402 MILPITAS 2,652 2,413 2,526 2,857 2,808 2,079 4,348 MONTE SERENO 38 42 47 46 43 45 76 MORGAN HILL 1,317 1,518 1,536 1,293 1,331 1,381 2,484 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2,804 2,733 2,479 3,024 2,834 2,558 3,423 PALO ALTO 3,607 2,734 2,691 4,381 4,009 3,184 1,397 m SAN JOSE 32,173 38,690 34,490 30,916 29,512 30,766 26,114 SANTA CLARA 6,140 5,389 6,128 6,496 6,717 6,051 6,339 SARATOGA 270 264 242 363 318 204 539 )( R' SUNNYVALE 4,481 4,931 4,314 4,486 4,437 3,779 3,836 UNINCORPORATED 174 150 202 198 213 195 1 ,446 "" " SANTA CLARA COUNn 57,933 63,208 58,459 59,486 57,057 53,376 57,991 :J: "- i e , 570 644 462 716 614 306 413 f'. BENICIA \j DIXON 608 744 760 658 619 693 1 ,464 ~ FAIRFIELD 3,934 4,723 4,496 4,262 3,974 3,981 3,812 m ,~~ RIO VISTA 1,120 1,4 76 1,581 1,092 1,072 1 ,485 1,391 ~ SUISUN CITY 804 908 1,026 757 781 1,065 1,004 Jl VACAVILLE 2,672 3,376 3,150 2,860 2,648 2,699 4,636 -I VALLEJO 4,123 4,675 4,814 4,097 3,913 4,358 3,242 UNINCORPORATED 93 29 30 181 149 27 2,719 SOLANO COUNTY 13,925 16,576 16,318 14,625 13,770 14,614 18,681 d5-roA