HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Digest 2011-08-05TOWN COUNCIL WEEKLY DIGEST
August 1- 5, 2011
Tiburon
1. Letter - Chas. & Dale Sofnas - 70 Round Hill Road Tree Issue
2. Memo - Town Clerk - Sea Otter Awareness Week, 9/25-10/1/11
3. Letter - Pt. Tiburon Homeowners - Restroom in Vicinity of Railroad/Ferry
Museum
4. Yearly Recap - Design Review Submittals - July 2011
5. Monthly Report - Office of Design Review - July 2011
Agendas & Minutes
6. Meeting Cancellation - Planning Commission - August 10, 2011
Regional
a) Letter - Mayor - City of Novato - RHNA for City of Novato
b) Estuary - Bay Delta News - August 2011
c) Western City -August 2011 *
Aizendas & Minutes
d) None ,
* Council Only
DIGEST
RECEIVED 75 Round Hill Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
August 1, 2011 AUQ Z011
Tiburon Town Council TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
1505 Tiburon Blvd. TOWN OFTIBURON
Tiburon, CA 94920
Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005 required the developer of 79 Round Hill (Mr. Carl Weissensee)
to trim and/or remove trees, which he did, to create a long term view for us of the Belvedere Lagoon
from our Living Room, Dining Room, and Master Bedroom.
Six weeks ago, Mr. Weissensee planted new trees on 79 Round Hill in the same location as the
previous trees he was required to trim and/or remove, and these new trees now block our
same view of the Belvedere Lagoon created for us in Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005.
Scott Anderson suggests we use the Tiburon View Ordinance to enforce the view created for us in
Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005. However, we feel Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005
did not intend that the Tiburon View Ordinance be used to give the developer another hearing to try to
nullify and overturn Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005 by planting new trees in the same location
as the previous trees he was required by the Town to trim and/or remove, and which now block our
same view of the Belvedere Lagoon created in Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005.
Our newly-created long term views of the Belvedere Lagoon from our Living Room, Dining Room, and
Master Bedroom are fully described in detail and photograph in the enclosed Dan Watrous 3/16/2010
letter which states: "The "long term" views referred to in Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005 are
more fully described in Condition of Approval No. 15 of that resolution. I have also shaded orange a
copy of the photograph you submitted with your letter (Exhibit B) to indicate that the tree trimming
conducted meets or exceeds the amount required under Condition of Approval No. 15 of Resolution No.
10-2005. To summarize, the owner of the property at 79 Round Hill Road has complied with the
requirement to trim and/or remove trees to create a window view for your property".
A year after Mr. Weissensee received his Occupancy Certificate for 79 Round Hill,
Mr. Weissensee planted a shrub in our same view (referred to above), and with the
Town's intervention and involvement, he agreed to remove it, as per the enclosed Scott Anderson
1019/2009 letter which states: "This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 7, 2009.
In response to that letter, Town staff spoke with Mr. Weissensee on October 8, 2009, and he verbally
agreed to remove the offending shrub. Should the shrub not be removed within five (5) working
days of this letter, please let me know. My phone number is 435-7392."
Please note the Town did not require us to use the Tiburon View Ordinance to have the
Town's intervention and involvement above.
We sent Mr. Weissensee a 6/6/11 letter requesting he remove the several new trees he planted
six weeks ago on 79 Round Hill Road, which now block our same view of the Belvedere Lagoon from
our Living Room, Dining Room, and Master Bedroom, created for us in Town Council Resolution No.
10-2005. As of this date, we have not received a reply from Mr. Weissensee to our 6/6/11 letter.
As detailed in the enclosed Scott Anderson 10/9/2009 letter, we again ask for the
Town's intervention and involvement, to help us get Mr. Weissensee to reply to our 6/6/11 letter,
and to not require us to use the Tiburon View Ordinance to give the developer another hearing to try to
nullify and overturn Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005 by planting new trees in the same location
as the previous trees he was required by the Town to trim and/or remove, and which now block our
same view of the Belvedere Lagoon created in Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005.
Sincerely yours,
Charles and Dale Sofnas
m of Tiburon, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard • Tiburon, CA 94920 • P. 415.435.7373 F. 415.435.2438 • www ci.tibUron.ca. us
Planning Division / 415.735.7393
March 16, 2010
Charles and Dale Sofnas
75 Round Hill Road
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Sofnas:
I am writing in response to your letter to Director of Community Development
Scott Anderson dated March 11, 2010. To answer your question, the "long-term
views" referred to in Town Council Resolution No. 10-2005 are more fully
described in Condition of Approval No. 15 of that resolution,. as follows:
15. The applicants shall trim and/or remove trees to create a window'
view for the property at 75 Round Hill Road in conformance with
the View Enhancement report prepared by Moritz Arboricultural
Consulting, dated March 2, 2005. The amount of tree trimming
and/or removal shall be determined by Planning Division Staff
after consultation with an arborist hired by the applicants. The
required tree trimming and/or removal shall be completed within
third da s of the issuance of a building (30) -permit for this project.
In accordance with this condition of approval, I visited the site with Ray Moritz of
Moritz Arboricultural Consulting. The area of tree trimming to comply with this
requirement was determined and is illustrated in the attached Exhibit A, with the
amount of tree trimming to be conducted shaded in orange on the upper
photograph. I have also shaded a copy of the photograph you submitted with
your letter (Exhibit B) to indicate that the tree trimming conducted meets or
exceeds the amount required under Condition of Approval No. 15 of Resolution
No. 10-2005.
To summarize, the owner of the property at 79 Round Hill Road has complied
with the requirement to trim and/or remove trees to create a window view for your
property. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (415)
435-7393.
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Watrous
Planning Manager
Tonvn of Tiburon - 1505 Tiburon $oulcvard - Tiburon, CA 94920 - P 415.435.7373 F 415.435.2438 - wwwdtiburon.ca.us
Community Development Department October 9, 2009
- v
,
Charles and Dale Sofnas
Y: ~•~i~a~ i .
Alice l~%d-
75 Round Hill Road
or
Tiburon, CA 94920
'
t
M1es~': ~er~er
'V.icc`1y' ~
RE. 79 Round Hill Road Shrub
PRk limos
Dear Mr. & Mrs. Sofnas:
Couacii~iierer
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 7, 2009. In
Tom Gra'"
response to that letter, Town staff spoke with Mr. Weissensee on October 8, 2009
C:o~~fCil~?ertit'icr
,
and he verbally agreed to remove the offending shrub.
. , ,
Should the shrub not be removed with five (5) working days of this letter, please let
Jf.~ • Fitz
counc11-coer
me know. My phone number is 435-7392.
;.t.
Very truly yours,
Marga40t A. Curran
ToW1Miager
Scott Anderson
Director of Community Development
r
O
cc: Carl Weissensee
..Y.
Dan Watrous
.
•
i(t I
j 1
i
L't. .
of
..f.-
s-,
Lp. -711
ri
ks
TOWN OF TIBURON
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
DIGEST
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 3, 2011
To: Mayor and Town Councilmembers
From: Town Clerk Crane Iacopi
Subject: Sea Otter Awareness Week, September 25 - October 1, 2011
Mayor Slavitz was recently contacted by members of the Defenders of Wildlife requesting
that the Town of Tiburon participate in Sea Otter Awareness Week, September 25 through
October 1, 2011.
In 2008, Assemblymember Abel Maldonado authored the Senate Concurrent Resolution
(SCR 118) whereby the State of California, from that date forward, officially declared the last
week of September as Sea Otter Awareness Week. Many coastal cities followed suit, along with
the counties of Los Angeles, Monterey, San Francisco, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, and San Luis Obispo.
Defenders of Wildlife representatives Judy Proud and Jim Curland, based in Moss
Landing, contacted the Mayor and requested that the Town of Tiburon also add its support to
this effort by adopting a proclamation.
Town staff has prepared the attached proclamation for the Mayor's signature.
Diane Crane facopi
Town Clerk
Attachment
Oti
O~
O~
v
'b
0
v
.fi
v
b
0
0
v
0
v
v
ro
v
0
v
v
0
v
U
0
v
v
0
v
O
V O O ~ v
o ~ ~ we
v
Q4 a
b~
v v o V U w
44 v
v ~ v v O 'b
14.4
O O O v
v o
v ,b v
v o ~
v ~o
w ~ w v~ W~ ~ v
b o
~ v
WW
2
W
h
O
W
h
1
v
Q
~O
v
ql,
..Q
v
0
v
c~
U
0
ti
N
ti^
v
O
V
O
N
v
v
.S
04
O
N
~ o
w ~
~ o
ti ~
P O I N
7/29/11
Ms. Peggy Curran
Tiburon Town Manager
1505 Tiburon Boulevard
Tiburon, CA 94920
Dear Ms. Curran:
DIGEST
elm
T MWOMEM' T I B U R O N
Fi
The Point Tiburon Bayside Homeowners Association would like to offer the following
observations in response to the recent letter by the Landmarks Society supporting a
public restroom "in the vicinity of the Railroad & Ferry Depot Museum." Naturally, our
members are concerned about the possible obstruction of their views by such a structure.
1. Is more restroom capacity really needed?
Landmarks states their concern in this way: "At the Museum on the weekends, we are
constantly being asked where the public restrooms are..." This suggests that the real
need may simply be for directional signage, not an added restroom. There is no such
signage at the Donahue building and very little at the ferry dock. By contrast, signage is
posted along Ark Row and visitors are advised to walk to the restrooms at the Ferry Dock
from there, a longer walk than from the Donahue building. Directional signage might be
a good remedy to try on the Shoreline side of the existing restrooms, including bolder
signage at the ferry dock.
Landmarks further states, "...with the America's Cup Sailing Race in 2012, the need for
a public restroom on Shoreline Park is critical." The race, which is in 2013, will last for
3 weeks. Serving short term needs is the proper function of portable restrooms, not
expensive permanent construction.
2. If more restroom capacity is needed, is this the right place?
Our observation has been that the bulk of the visitors, even the crowds on the 4t' of July,
cluster toward the ferry dock and not toward the Donahue building. It would seem to be
more beneficial to visitors and more economical for the Town to enhance the current
restrooms and then maintain just one location.
BAYSIDE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION Telephone
Mailing Address Email 415 435-2851
210 Paradise Drive. Tiburon, CA 94920 bays ideintiburon(&,,sbcglobal.net 415 435-8305 FAX
P O I N T
T
I B U R O N
3. If a restroom must be added at the Donahue Building will it impact views of
Bayside homeowners?
It seems possible and more cost efficient to locate added facilities, if needed, within the
Donahue building rather than build an external or free-standing structure which would
interfere with views of Bayside homeowners. They, like all Tiburon residents, are very
protective of the views which are central to the enjoyment and value of their homes, and
they can be expected to aggressively defend their views.
4. If the design of a restroom structure will impact Bayside views, will the Town be
guided by its agreement with the Bayside Association on the terms of use Hof
Shoreline Park and disallow the design?
The 1984 Subdivision Improvement Agreement between the Subdivider (now Pt. Tiburon
Bayside Association) and the Town states, regarding Shoreline Park, "...nor shall any
obstruction to the view corridors be permitted thereon, unless mutually agreed by the
(Association) and the Town." We hope the Town agrees that it will be both considerate
and essential to honor this Agreement.
Thank you for reviewing our input on this issue. We will be pleased to discuss it further
at your convenience.
Sincerely,
Cam'
Henry G. McWhinne~
y
President
Pt. Tiburon Bayside Condominium Association
TOWN OF TIBURON D i s ur
OFFICE OF DESIGN REVIEW
MONTHLY REPORT
JULY 2011
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPLICATIONS: NUMBER SUBMITTED
It
2010
■ NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES
0
1
■ MAJOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
0
0
■ MINOR ADDITIONS/ALTERATIONS
0
1
■ (not eligible for Staff Revieir)
■ SIGN PERMITS
0
4
■ TREE PERMITS
6
4
■ VARIANCE REQUESTS
0
2
■ FAR EXCEPTIONS REQUESTS
0
0
■ EXTENSION OF TIME
0
0
STAFF REVIEW APPLICATIONS:
Review of minor exterior alterations and additions of less than 500
square feet.
5
16
APPEALS OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD DECISIONS TO TOWN COUNCIL
REPORT PREPARED BY: Connie Cashman, Planning Secretary
DATE OF REPORT: August 1, 2011 Y
DIGEST
t.. o
0
p
N
LO
N
r
r
Y)
V
-
F-
CF)
00
(Y)
Clj
(o
r'
W
O
4
D
U
CV
O
J
'Q
ww
F-
cn
H
m
D
D
Q
W
C
r
O
r
et
N
O
(D
O
N
N
LU
W
Z
~
O
O
O
O
CO
O
O
LO
O
'
V
v♦
w
w
j
O
N
M
co
U")
O
00
N
a
Q
Q
N
N
co
(0
N
O)
O
co
L
L
.
.
M
a
Q
O
co
0
c-
O
co
CD
O
00
i
Q
i
~
W
- I
Q
r
O
M
N
O
N
T-
O
i
1
CN
m
w
O
N
O
I
M
M
O
N
Q
N
T-
O
O
M
r
O
O
-
N
1
CY) '
-
~
7
w
?a-
1-
w
Z
C)
~
Q
O
Q
J
Q
O
Z
(n
I
z
0
Cl)
~
W
w a.
w
I-
w
g
>
Q
F-
W
U
x
w
Q
LJL
w
W
LL
H
U)
N
w
a
Q
1
e
Q
O
,
NOTICE OF MEETING
CANCELLATION
THE REGULAR
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING SCHEDULED FOR
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 10, 2011
HAS BEEN CANCELLED.
THE NEXT MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
WILL BE THE REGULARLY
SCHEDULED MEETING ON
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 24, 2011
SCOTT ANDERSON, SECRETARY
THE CITY OF
NOVATO
CALIFORNIA
75 Rowland Way #200
Novato, CA 94945-3232
415/899-8900
FAX 415/899-8213
www.cityofnovato.org
Mayor
Madeline Kellner
Mayor Pro Tern
Denise Athas
Councilmembers
Carole Dillon-Knutson
Pat Eklund
Jeanne MacLeamy
City Manager
Michael S. Frank
DIGEST
July 19, 2011
President Mark Green
Association of Bay Area Governments
101 Eighth Street
Oakland, CA 94607
RE: 2007-2014 RHNA for the City of Novato
Dear President Green:
RECEIVED
JUL 21 201)
TOWN MANAGERS OFFICE
TOWN OF TIBURON
On behalf of the City Council of the City of Novato, this letter formally
requests that the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) re-
calculate the housing and jobs allocation within the Sphere of Influence
(SOI) for the City of Novato using a 50/50 split (cities/county) for the
2007-2014 RHNA.
Prior to the 1999-2006 planning cycle, the housing and jobs allocations
within the unincorporated SOls were assigned to the counties. In
analyzing the 1999-2006 RHNA process, the Housing Methodology
Committee (HMC) recommended to the ABAG Executive Board that
the SOI allocation be split evenly (50/50) between the cities and the
counties. ABAG staff concurred with this recommendation. However,
on May 18, 2000 the Board voted for a 75/25 split (cities/counties).
During discussion of the 2007-2014 RHNA allocation, the HMC
recommended the following SOI rules:
1. In Napa, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma Counties the
allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated
SOI will be assigned to the cities.
2. In Alameda, Contra Costa and Marin Counties, the allocation of
housing need generated by the unincorporated SOI will be
assigned to the county'.
The rationale put forth by Marin planning directors was that Marin
County was divided in the early 1970s into the City Centered Corridor
along Highway 101 and the rural west county. The County has 32
square miles of land area within the City Centered Corridor, compared
' Housing Methodology Committee meeting minutes from October 26, 2006 (page
12).
President Mark Green
July 19, 2011
Page 2
to San Rafael with 17 square miles and Novato with 27 square miles.
It was therefore the rationale of the planning directors of Marin's cities
and towns that the County has ample opportunities for increasing
residential development within the unincorporated City Centered
Corridor and that it is very unlikely that the existing SOI will be
annexed to their adjacent cities. This is especially true for the City of
Novato which has a voter initiated urban growth boundary which
substantially follows city limit lines.
The County disagreed with this position indicating a concern that
housing growth would be pushed into rural areas, that the County
purposefully allows lower densities than the cities to encourage more
`city centered' growth and that the adjacent cities have the ability to
control land use with their SOI due to LAFCO's Dual Annexation
Policy.
At the November 16, 2006 ABAG Executive Board meeting, the Marin
County representative, Susan Adams, put forth a motion that passed
(with 14 ayes and 6 nays) that would change the recommended
allocation of 100% to the County to a 75/25 City/County split.2 Several
Marin representatives including Paul Cohen (San Rafael), David
Wallace (Novato), Larry Chu (Larkspur), and Paul Kermoyan
(Sausalito) spoke in opposition to the motion, supporting instead a
50/50 split. In January 2007, the Marin County Council of Mayors and
Councilmembers (MCCMC) voted to support a 50/50 split of the
allocation in spheres of influence.
On January 18, 2007, the ABAG Executive Board adopted Resolution
No. 02-07 which included a 50/50 split for Marin with 17 ayes
(Albertson, Alegria, Brunner, Cortese, Daly, Esteves, Jacobs Gibson,
Liccardo, McHugh, Mirkarimi, Nadel, Quan, Regalia, Richardson,
Shoemaker, Uilkema, Williams); and, 11 nays (Adams, Atkin, Dillon-
Knutson, Furtado, Green, Haggerty, Kerns, Kondylis, Luce, Messina,
Techel). As stated in the minutes: `The motion, as amended,
passed. s3
Recently, it came to our attention that ABAG distributed the housing
and jobs allocation for 2007-2014 using the 75/25 split (cities/county)
for the SOI even though the ABAG Board Resolution dated January
18, 2007 called for a 50/50 split. The ABAG memorandum dated
August 9, 20074 transmitting the allocations reinforced that `The final
2 City of San Rafael City Council Agenda Report dated December 18, 2006 (page 2).
3 See attached ABAG Board Resolution No. 02-07
4 See attached ABAG memorandum dated August 9, 2007 distributing the RHNA allocation
President Mark Green
July 19, 2011
Page 3
allocation methodology, including the income allocation method, was
adopted by ABAG's Executive Board on January 18, 2007" wherein it
specifically states the SOI split for Marin County would be a 50/50 split.
To date, we have been unable to find any Board action approving a
75/25 split for Marin County, rather than the approved 50/50 split.
Novato Councilmember Pat Eklund who,serves on the ABAG SCS
Housing Methodology Committee recently requested copies of written
documentation for the 75/25 split for the SOI in Marin. Mr. Ezra
Rapport's response stated that:
'We have not found any written record regarding how the 50-50
split between cities and the county was amended to 75-25 city-
county. The official record that was sent to HCD and adopted by
them is 75-25. There are recollections by several parties' regarding
a negotiation involving Susan Adams where the original proposal
by Marin County was that the Marin SOI should be set as 100
percent within the cities. This proposal met resistance, and,
according to Paul Fassinger, there were side conversations and
then an announcement by Susan of an agreement that set the
policy at 75-25. This announcement was apparently not recorded
in the final written resolution but did make it into the final report
prepared by Paul. As a result, the official HCD record is 75-25."
We believe that the housing/jobs allocation for the SOI in Marin should
have been distributed according to the adopted and signed Resolution
No. 02-07 for the 2007 RHNA allocations. Major decisions of this
magnitude need to be done in an open and transparent manner where
all interested parties can provide comments. `Negotiations' or 'side
conversations' without a vote of the Executive Board does not allow for
a clear written record of the decision.
Therefore, we request ABAG recalculate the housing and jobs
allocations within the SOI for the City of Novato's 2007-2014 RHNA
using the 50/50 split pursuant to Resolution No. 02-07 so we can
proceed with completion of our Housing Element.
President Mark Green
July 19, 2011
Page 4
If you have any questions, please contact David Wallace, Director of
our Community Development Department at 415-899-8938.
Sincerely,
Madeline R. Kellner, Mayor
City of Novato
cc: Ezra Rapport, Executive Director ABAG
City Managers in Marin County
Marin County Administrator
Cathy Creswell, Acting Director HCD
Glen Campora, HCD
Anda Draghici, HCD
Attachments as stated
k1q ILf1'e,LF- A 7i
i Dl vpj H~ ~L F-PnN r bL~K1
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
EXECUTIVE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 02-07
RESOLUTION ADOPTING A METHODOLOGY FOR ALLOCATING THE
REGIONAL HOUSING NEED (2007 - 2014) AMONG LOCAL
JURISDICTIONS
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
(RHN); and
WHEREAS, under the Act, ABAG determines each city's and county's
share of the RHN 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 November 16, 2006, the Executive Board
authorized release of the Proposed RHNA Methodology for public review
and comment and conducted a public hearing on January 18, 2007 to
receive additional written and oral comments; and
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the comments received during the
comment period, devised alternative methodologies and presented
alternative methodologies to the HMC; and
WHEREAS, the County of Marin and the Marin County Council of
Mayors and Council Members have each submitted comments stating that
the county and the cities within the county have agreed to allocate the RHN
associated with each sphere of influence (SOI) within the county fifty
percent (50%) to the county and fifty percent (50%) to the city; and
-1-
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 02-07
WHEREAS, pursuant to the staff memorandum to the Executive
Board dated January 4, 2007, the staff recommends that the Executive
Board adopt Alternative 1: Reduced Transit as the "Weighted Factors"
portion of the Proposed RHNA Methodology and adopt Percent Adjustment
Toward Regonal Average (175%) as the "Regional Income Allocations"
portion of the. Proposed RHNA Methodology (Alternative RHNA
Methodology); and
WHEREAS, both the Proposed and Alternative RHNA Methodologies
significantly advance regional "Smart Growth" policies adopted by ABAG,
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD), the Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) and Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) (collectively, the Regional Agencies) including policies on
Jobs/Housing Balance and Match, Housing and Displacement, Social
Justice and Equity, Environmental, Natural Resources, Open Space and
Agricultural Preservation and Mobility, Livability and Transit, and
WHEREAS, compared to the prior RHNA cycle, both the Proposed
and Alternative RHNA Methodologies allocate a significantly higher
proportion of the RHN to the areas served by the region's transit
infrastructure and the existing urban core, including Oakland, San
Francisco and San Jose in order to advance these Smart Growth policies;
and
WHEREAS, policies adopted by the Regional Agencies on Local and
Regional Transporta tion Efrciencies, Infrastructure In vestments and Local
Government Fiscal Health, MTC's adopted Transportation Land-Use
Platform and the ABAG/MTC Focusing Our Vision effort call for directing
regional investments in public infrastructure, including transportation, and
other incentives to local efforts that promote and implement these regional
policies; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Propositions 1C and 84, the State of
California will be providing funds and incentives to support sustainable
communities, transit-oriented development and infill housing; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Proposition 1B the State of California will
be providing discretionary state transit assistance (STA) funds to MTC for
distribution pursuant to Public Utilities Code Sections 99310-99320; and
WHEREAS, MTC is beginning the process of updating the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) to be completed in February 2009; and
-2-
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 02-07
WHEREAS, the RHNA process requires local governments to amend
the Housing Elements of their General Plans by*June 2009 and to submit
them to HCD for certification but does not provide any of the necessary
support to ensure that the planned housing is built.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Executive Board
of the Association of Bay Area Governments hereby
A. Adopts the Proposed RHNA Methodology as the Final RHNA
Methodology with the following changes:
1. Replace the existing "Weighted Factors" in the Proposed
RHNA Methodology with Reduced Transit alternative as more
fully described in the January 4 staff memorandum;
2. Replace the existing "Regional Income Allocations" in the
Proposed RHNA Methodology with Percent Adjustment
Toward Regional Average (175%) as more fully described in the
January 4 staff memorandum;
3. Amend the initial phrase in the second sentence of "Spheres of
Influence" by deleting the over struck language and adding
the underlined language as follows: "Except for Marin County,
where a -75 50% city and 24 50% county distribution is
recommended,"
B. Adopts as a top priority for the current legislative session,
collaborative efforts with some or all of the Regional Agencies to
ensure that the State allocation of Proposition 1C and 84 funds and
incentives, recognize regional funding priorities for local jurisdictions
that accept additional housing, including a significant increased
allocation in the current RHNA cycle;
C. Requests the MTC to encourage, recognize and reward through its
update of the RTP and its distribution of Proposition 1B funds, the
local jurisdictions that support the Transportation Land-Use
Platform by accepting additional housing, including a significant
increased allocation in the current RHNA cycle; and
D. Directs staff to collaborate with local jurisdictions on a possible
extension of the deadline to certify local Housing Elements to
-3-
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 02-07
December 2009 in order to ensure that such Housing Elements
properly identifies all incentives and supportive governmental
programs, including the updated Regional Transportation Plan.
The foregoing is adopted by the Executive Board this 18th day of January,
2007.
David Cort se
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 18th day of January, 2007.
enry . Gardner
Secre ry-Treasurer
Approved as To Legal Form
Kennet
Legal Tinsel
-4-
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
August 9, 2007
San Francisco Bay Area
Mayors, City Managers,
County Executives/Administrators &
Board of Supervisor Chairs
0
ABAG
Re: Revised Technical Documentation for Regional Housing Needs Allocation Method
On July 24, 2007, the Regional Housing Needs Allocation was released to jurisdictions for review and
comment. Since then, it has come to our attention that the supporting Technical Document, sent out along
with the numerical allocations, did not accurately reflect the allocation portion of the method. The final
allocation methodology, including the income allocation method, was adopted by ABAG's Executive
Board on January 18, 2007.
The attached Technical Documentation has been revised to accurately reflect the final allocation method.
Please note, the released regional housing need allocations to your jurisdiction remains the same. Only the
Technical Document describing the final allocation was in error, for it had an earlier draft allocation
described. The numbers released in July have all been accurately calculated, using the final adopted
method, as described below.
Allocation Method
The RHNA methodology assigns each jurisdiction in the Bay Area its share of the region's total housing
need. The methodology includes an allocation tool that is a mathematical equation that consists of
weighted factors. There are also "rules" regarding allocation of units by income, how to handle units in
spheres of influence, voluntary transfers of units, and subregions. The methodology encompasses these
distinct components of the methodology. (See Attachment I for complete description).
The factors and weights (expressed in parenthesis) are:
• Household growth (45%)
• Existing employment (22.5%)
• Employment growth (22.5%)
• Household growth near existing transit (5%)
• Employment growth near existing transit (5%)
Household growth, existing employment, and employment growth are estimated in ABAG's regional
household and employment forecasts, Projections.
Income Allocation Method
HCD's determination of housing need is given to the region by income category. The income categories
are very low, low, moderate and above moderate. The percent of total units in each income category is
based on the regional average distribution of households across the various income categories.
2007 - 2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation
Page 2
The regional allocation of housing units is allocated to jurisdictions using the method adopted by
ABAG's Board at their January 18, 2007 meeting. The income allocation portion of the method requires
that each local jurisdiction plan for income-based housing relative to the regional average. The income
allocation method gives each jurisdiction 175 percent of the difference between their 2000 household
income distribution and the 2000 regional household income distribution.
The effect of this allocation method is that the income distribution in each jurisdiction moves closer
toward the regional distribution, as both a jurisdiction's existing conditions and future development is
taken into account. By addressing existing concentrations of low-income households, this allocation more
aggressively promote an equitable regional income distribution.
Please accept our apologies for the error in the Technical Documentation. You may contact me or Paul
Fassinger at 510-464-7928 with any questions regarding your jurisdiction's draft RHNA allocation.
Respectfully,
my L. ardner
Executive Director
Attachment 1
Plonning Housing in the San Francisco Bay Area
Regional Housing Needs 1~~ocation I~'~ethodolo T, 4"' Revision
s
Technical Documentation
November 2006
Revised August 3, 2007
0
ABAG
Introduction
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process, is a state mandate on planning for
housing in California. The state, regional and local governments each have a role to play. Local
governments have autonomy in planning for exactly how and where housing will be developed in
their individual communities. The amount of housing cities and counties must plan for, however,
is determined by state housing policy.
Periodically, the State of California requires that all jurisdictions in the state update the Housing
Element of their General Plans. Within these Housing Elements, the state mandates that local
governments plan for their share of the region's housing need, for people of all income
categories. In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, ABAG, as the region's Council of
Governments, and the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD),
determines the region's need for housing. This determination of need is primarily based on
estimated population growth. ABAG then allocates that need, for all income groups, amongst
jurisdictions. The jurisdictions then plan for that need in their local housing elements, which are
eventually state-certified by HCD.
This technical document details the process for developing the draft Regional Housing Needs
Allocation, describes the Regional Housing Needs Allocation methodology and rationale for each
component, and offers information on ABAG's Projections.
1. RHNA Schedule
II. RHNA State Goals & Regional Policy
III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors
IV. The Housing Methodology Committee
V. Final Allocation Methodology
VI. Regional Projections
San Francisco Bay Area _ Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 411' Revision
1. RIINA Schedule
On September 29, 2006, ABAG received approval of a two-year extension for completing the
RHNA process from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The
following milestones are consistent with that two-year extension:
• November 16, 2006: Adoption of draft allocation methodology by ABAG Executive
Board; start of a 60-day public comment period
• January 18, 2007: ABAG Executive Board adopts final methodology
• March 1, 2007: Determination of regional housing need
• July 31, 2007: Release of draft allocations
• June 30, 2008: Release of final allocations
• June 30, 2009: Housing element revisions due to HCD
II. RHNA State Goals & Regional Policy
There are four statutory objectives of RHNA. As shown below, these objectives include
increasing housing supply, affordability, and housing types; encouraging efficient
development and infill; promoting jobs-housing balance; and reducing concentrations of
poverty.
These objectives are consistent with the Bay Area's regional policies regarding growth.
Following the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project that was
completed in 2002, ABAG's Executive Board resolved to use these regional policies as the
basis for Projections. Since that decision, Projections assumes that, over time, local land use
policies will move the region closer toward regional policies.
The shift to policy-based Projections has important implications for growth and development
in the region. Projections now forecasts more growth in existing urbanized areas and near
transit, and less in agricultural areas. This is consistent with the RHNA objectives that call
for an increase in the supply of housing, jobs-housing balance, more infill development,
protection of the environment, and efficient development patterns. Since the Projections
forecast is the basis for the RHNA allocations, these same regional policies will influence
how housing units are distributed within the region.
RHNA Objectives
Regional Policies
(1) Increase the housing supply and the mix of
• Support existing communities
housing types, tenure, and affordability in all
Create compact, healthy communities with a
cities and counties within the region in an
diversity of housing, jobs, activities, and
equitable manner, which shall result in each
services to meet the daily needs of residents
jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for
low and very low income households.
• Increase housing affordability, supply and
(2) Promote infill development and socioeconomic
choices
the protection of environmental and
equity
• Increase transportation efficiency and choices
,
agricultural resources, and the encouragement
Protect and steward natural habitat, open space,
of efficient development patterns.
and agricultural land
(3) Promote an unproved intraregional relationship
• Improve social and economic equity
August 2007, Page 2
San Francisco Bay Area
between jobs and housing.
(4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to
an income category when a jurisdiction already
has a disproportionately high share of
households in that income category, as
compared to the countywide distribution of
households in that category from the most
recent decennial United States census.
Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, O-Revision
• Promote economic and fiscal health
• Conserve resources, promote sustainability, and
improve environmental quality
• Protect public health and safety
III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors
1. Statutory Factors
The RHNA statutes delineate specific factors that had to be considered for inclusion in
the allocation methodology, including:
• Water and sewer capacity
• Land suitable for urban development or conversion to residential use
• Protected open space - lands protected by state and federal government
• County policies to protect prime agricultural land
• Distribution of household growth
• Market demand for housing
• City-centered growth policies
• Loss of affordable units contained in assisted housing
• High housing cost burdens
• Housing needs of farm workers
• Impact of universities and colleges on housing needs in a community
With the advice of the HMC, ABAG staff considered how to incorporate the statutory
factors into the allocation methodology, how to allocate units by income, and how to address
issues such as spheres of influence, the relationship to subregions, and voluntary transfers of
housing units between jurisdictions. Their goal has been to develop an allocation
methodology that is consistent with the RHNA objectives and statutory requirements while
also reflecting local conditions and the regional goals for growth.
See Section IV. 1. Weighted Factors for a detailed description of how the factors are
included in the recommended methodology.
2. Survey of Factors
On September 15, 2006, ABAG sent a memorandum and survey form to each planning
director of every local jurisdiction in the region. The memorandum explained the use of
factors in the RHNA allocation methodology, described the status of the HMC's
deliberations, set forth the criteria for using a factor in the methodology, and solicited local
input on the statutory factors and suggestions for additional factors. ABAG received
responses from 42 local jurisdictions (A detailed summary of survey responses is available at
http://www.abag.ca.gov/planning/housingneeds or by contacting ABAG staff.)
August 2007, Page 3
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 411i Revision
The Governor signed AB 2572 into law on September 29, 2006. The legislation adds a
statutory factor: housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus
of the California State University or the University of California.
The HMC concluded that student populations need not be added as an explicit factor in the
allocation methodology. The reason is that the existence of universities and resulting student
populations are included in ABAG's household population estimates. (ABAG circulated an
explanation of the effects of this factor and a survey form for this factor during the review
period of the draft methodology.)
The 42 survey responses varied widely. Many commented on the HMC deliberations,
supporting or opposing specific measures under consideration, and offering alternative
methodological approaches. Others commented on the existing and near-term market
conditions for housing in their jurisdictions.
The comments that focused on how specific factors should be explicitly considered in the
methodology can be summarized as follows:
17111111116• /J Ya ♦ r 1\VU IL r
1. Jobs/Housing Relationship
(a) use employed residents to measure jobs/housing balance
3
(b) take into account home based businesses/employment
1
(c) use commute shed to assess jobs/housing balance
2
2. Constraints due to Sewer/water/Land Capacity
(a) respondents identified specific sewer/water constraints
2
3. Public Transit/Transportation Infrastructure
(a) respondents confirmed they were planning for TOD
5
4. Market Demand for Housing
0
5. City-Centered Development
(a) described local city-centered policies
6
(b) described specific policies, agreements, etc., on development in spheres of influence
(Sol)
7
(c) stated there were no written agreements on SOls
1
6. Loss of Assisted Housing Units
(a) identified at risk units at varying degrees of specificity
10
(b) do not use as a factor
1
7. High Housing Cost Burden
(a) use CHAS data
1
8. Housing Needs of Farmworkers
(a) identified local efforts for farmworker housing
4
9. Others
(a) use congestion levels
1
(b) reward past performance in meeting RHNA goals
1
(c) RHNA allocation should at least equal planned growth
1
August 2007, Page 4
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 411 ReNnsion
Several of the possible allocation factors proposed in the surveys were considered by the
HMC, but not explicitly incorporated in the draft methodology. These factors include those
related to:
• Jobs-housing balance: 1(a) - (c)
• Sewer/water constraints: 2
• City-centered development: 5(a) - (c)
• Loss of assisted housing units: 6
• High housing cost burdens: 7
Housing needs of farm workers: 8
• Traffic congestion: 9(a)
• Rewards for past RHNA performance: 9(b)
The HMC included the following suggested RHNA factors as explicit components of the
draft methodology but may not have used them in precisely the way suggested by the
respondents:
• Public transit/transportation infrastructure: 3
The HMC did not consider 9(c).
In each instance where a respondent described specific localized data in support of its
response to a survey question, e.g., 2, 6(a) and 8(a), the respondent did not identify sources
for comparable data for other jurisdictions. Therefore, staff could not conclude that the
proffered factor met the statutory requirement for comparability and availability.
Consequently, the proposed factor was not used.
IV. Rousing Methodology Committee
As the region's Council of Governments, ABAG is responsible for allocating the state-
determined regional housing need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The HMC was established
in May 2006 to assist staff in developing a recommended methodology for allocating the regional
need for adoption by the ABAG Executive Board. The HMC was comprised of local elected
officials, city and county staff, and stakeholder representatives from each county in the region. It
includes members from each county so that it adequately represents the entire region.
The members of the Housing Methodology Committee were:
Barbara Kondylis, Supervisor, District 1 (Solano), ABAG Executive Board
Scott Haggerty, Supervisor, District 1 (Alameda), ABAG Executive Board
Jerffery Levine, Housing Department, City of Oakland, Alameda
Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor, City of Pleasanton, Alameda
Dan Marks, Director of Planning & Development, City of Berkeley, Alameda
Julie Pierce, Council Member, City of Clayton, Contra Costa
Phillip Woods, Principal Planner, City of Concord, Contra Costa
Gwen Regalia, Council Member, City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa
Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, City of San Rafael, Marin
Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Dir., City of Sausalito, Marin
Stacy Lauman, Assistant Planner, County of Marin, Marin
Jean Hasser, Senior Planner, City of Napa, Napa
August 2007, Page 5
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 411, Revision
Diane Dillon, Supervisor, County of Napa, Napa
Howard Siegel, Community Partnership Mgr., County of Napa, Napa
Amit Ghosh, Assistant Planning Director, San Francisco, San Francisco
Doug Shoemaker, Mayor's Office of Housing, City of San Francisco, San Francisco
Amy Tharp, Director of Planning, City of San Francisco, San Francisco
Duane Bay, Housing Director, San Mateo County, San Mateo
Andrea Ouse, City Planner, Town of Colma, San Mateo
Mark Duino, Planner, San Mateo County, San Mateo
Laurel Prevetti Deputy Dir., Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, City of San Jose, Santa
Clara
Regina Brisco, Housing Planner, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara
Steve Piasecki, Planning Director, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara
Matt Walsh, Principal Planner, Solano County, Solano
Chuck Dimmick, Councilmember (Vacaville) Solano City/County Coord. Council, Solano
Eve Somjen, Assistant Director, City of Fairfield, Solano
Mike Moore, Community Development Dir., City of Petaluma, Sonoma
Jake MacKenzie, Council Member, City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma
Jennifer Barrett, Deputy Director - Planning, County of Sonoma, Sonoma
Geeta Rao, Policy Director, Nonprofit Housing of Northern California, Stakeholder
Kate O'Hara, Regional Issues Organizer, Greenbelt Alliance, Stakeholder
Margaret Gordon, Community Liaison, West Oakland Indicators Project, Stakeholder
Andrew Michael, Vice President, Bay Area Council, Stakeholder
Paul B. Campos, VP, Govt. Affairs & Gen. Counsel, Home Builders Association, Stakeholder
V. The Regional Needs Allocation Methodology
The RHNA methodology assigns each jurisdiction in the Bay Area its share of the region's total
housing need. The methodology includes an allocation tool that is a mathematical equation that
consists of weighted factors. There are also "rules" regarding allocation of units by income, how
to handle units in spheres of influence, voluntary transfers of units, and subregions. The
methodology encompasses these distinct components of the methodology.
In their recommendation, the HMC members considered local land use plans and policies,
regional growth policies and the state's housing polices, as expressed in the state mandated
RHNA objectives.
1. Weighted Factors
Factors in the allocation methodology are the mathematical variables that partly determine
how the regional housing need (RHN) is allocated to local jurisdictions. The factors reflect:
1) state mandated RHNA objectives; 2) RHNA statutory requirements; 3) local policy and 4)
regional policy.
In the methodology, each factor is given priority relative to the others. Priority is established
through "weighting" in the formula. For example, if one of the factors, e.g., household
growth, is determined to be more important than another factor, e.g., transit, the methodology
can give household growth a higher weight than transit in the formula. The methodology may
also equally weight the factors, therefore ensuring that all the factors are of equal priority.
The factors and weights (expressed in parenthesis) are:
August 2007, Page 6
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housuig Needs Allocation, 411' ke vgsion
' Household growth (45%)
• Existing employment (22.5%)
• Employment growth (22.5%)
• Household growth near existing transit (5%)
Employment growth near existing transit (5%)
Household growth, existing employment, and employment growth are estimated in ABAG's
regional household and employment forecasts, Projections.
A. Household Growth, 45 percent
Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing according to regionally projected household
growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). Household
growth should be weighted 45 percent in the allocation.
The use of housing as a RHNA factor represents consistency with local, regional, and state
policies regarding where housing growth will and should occur in the region. Where and how
much housing growth will occur in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting model, as
documented in Projections. Specifically, household growth is based on: 1) local land use
policies and plans; 2) demographic and economic trends, such as migration, birth and death
rates, housing prices, and travel costs; and 3) regional growth policies.
Household growth in ABAG's Projections is most influenced by local land use plans and
policies, including planned and protected agricultural lands, open space and parks, city-
centered growth policies, urban growth boundaries, and any physical or geological
constraints.
Regional policies incorporated into Projections since 2002, are assumed to go into effect by
2010, and therefore have some effect on regional housing growth estimates in the 2007-2014
RHNA period. Regional policies assume that there will be increased housing growth in
existing urbanized areas, near transit stations and along major public transportation corridors.
These regional policies are consistent with state housing policies to promote infill
development, environmental and agricultural protection and efficient development patterns.
The impacts of regional policy assumptions in Projections are: a) potential environmental and
agricultural resource protection by directing growth away from existing open and agricultural
lands; b) the encouragement of efficient development patterns through increased infill
development and higher densities in existing communities; and c) the potential for increased
transportation choices, e.g., walking and public transit, through more housing development
near transit and jobs.
The household estimates in Projections account for all people living in housing units,
including students. Thus, the portion of the student population that occupies part of a local
jurisdiction's housing stock is counted as such and as a source of future household formation.
The portion of the student population that occupies "group quarters," such as college
dormitories, are not included in household population counts. This is consistent with state
policy regarding RHNA that excludes "group quarters" from being counted as housing units.
Household growth is used as a factor, as opposed to existing units or total units, to ensure that
additional housing is not planned where there are existing concentrations of homes in the
region, but rather where growth is anticipated to occur. In this way household growth as a
August 2007, Page 7
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs allocation, 411, Revision
factor in the methodology ensures that the allocation is consistent with both local plans for
growth and with regional growth policies, as those areas that are planning for household
growth would receive a higher allocation than those areas not planning for growth.
B. Employment, 45 percent (Existing Employment, 22.5 Employment Growth,
22.5%)
Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing to accommodate existing employment (2007)
and regionally projected employment growth (2007-2014) within its boundaries during the
RHNA planning period.
This would ensure that the need allocation gives jurisdictions with both existing
concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a share of the regional housing need. This
would direct housing to existing job centers and to areas with anticipated employment
growth. These jobs allocation factors may be effective in addressing regional jobs-housing
imbalance. These factors would also facilitate access by proximity, for housing would be
directed to communities with jobs and planned jobs, which may reduce vehicle miles traveled
due to reduced inter- and intra-regional commuting.
As a factor, employment has the ability to assign regional housing needs to jurisdictions in a
way that provides a better balance between housing and employment. In the Bay Area, as in
many metropolitan areas, employment centers have historically not produced enough housing
to match job growth. Limited housing production near existing jobs and in areas with
continued employment growth has escalated Bay Area housing costs and has triggered
increased housing production in outlying Bay Area communities and in surrounding counties,
including San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito. This has led to longer commutes on
increasingly congested freeways, inefficient use of public transportation infrastructure and
land capacity, and negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment and overall
quality of life in the Bay Area.
In the allocation methodology, employment can be used in varying degrees of aggressiveness
to address regional jobs-housing imbalance. The HMC considered three options:
1) employment growth, 2) existing jobs (2007) and 3) total jobs in the RHNA period (existing
jobs in 2007 and growth from 2007 to 2014). Employment growth as a factor would assure
that jurisdictions that are planning for employment growth also plan for commensurate
housing. However, this would be ineffective in addressing historic regional jobs-housing
imbalances, and therefore it is the least aggressive option. Existing jobs as an allocation
factor would give relatively higher allocations to existing job centers and would therefore be
the most aggressive toward historic jobs-housing imbalances; however it does not take into
account future job growth. Total jobs as a factor would give relatively higher allocations to
both jurisdictions that are currently job centers and those with planned job growth. Therefore,
this is a moderately aggressive approach relative to the other two options.
The allocation method uses a balance between the least and most aggressive options by
separately weighting employment growth and existing employment. This would attempt to
address historic jobs-housing imbalances and would also seek to avert future imbalances.
While an aggressive approach, it is relatively less aggressive than the use of total jobs as a
factor. A total jobs factor would primarily direct growth to existing job centers, which would
receive the entire 45 percent weight for employment, as opposed to the 22.5 percent weight.
Existing Employment, 22.5 Percent
august 2007, Page 8
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 01 Revision
The location and amount of existing jobs in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting
model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, existing employment is based on:
1) existing regional and local job data, and 2) regional and local economic trends,
attractiveness of commercial/industrial locations, including labor force costs, housing prices,
travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar businesses.
The inclusion of existing employment as a RHNA factor ensures that regional housing need
is allocated in a manner consistent with regional policies and state RHNA objectives.
Planning for more housing in communities with existing jobs can address historic jobs-
housing imbalances. More housing in existing job centers may also encourage infill and
efficient development patterns through higher densities in existing communities. There is also
the potential for reduced inter- and intra-regional vehicle miles traveled and shorter
commutes, as more housing would be planned in proximity to existing jobs. More housing
near jobs may also encourage alternative modes of travel, including walking and public
transportation, as most existing jobs centers in the region are also transit rich. Planning for
housing near existing jobs also places less development pressure on outlying areas, especially
in rural areas with agricultural lands and protected open space.
Employment Growth, 22.5 Percent
The location and amount of employment growth in the region is projected by ABAG's
forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, employment growth is based
on: 1) local land use policies and plans; 2) economic trends, such as national and regional
industrial assumptions, attractiveness of commercial/industrial locations, including labor
force costs, housing prices, travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar
businesses; and 3) regional policy.
Inclusion of local land use policies and plans and economic trends in ABAG's employment
growth forecast ensures that the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent
with local policies, plans, and local capacity for job growth. Employment growth in
Projections considers all the land protection and growth policies, physical constraints, and the
employment-related factors identified by the state and the HMC for inclusion in the allocation
methodology, including existing jobs centers, home-based businesses, employed residents,
housing prices, household income and employment at private universities, and campuses of
the California State University and the University of California.
The inclusion of employment growth as a RHNA factor ensures that the regional housing
need is allocated to areas where job growth is forecasted to occur during the RHNA period.
These areas would have the responsibility of providing housing for the additional jobs that
are added to the region. These areas are typically served by the region's transit infrastructure.
Matching housing to jobs would still have the potential for reducing vehicle miles traveled
and encouraging alternative modes of travel. This employment factor would place housing in
existing communities, but would place less of the housing in the most urbanized cities in the
region.
As with household growth, inclusion of regional policies in ABAG's Projections ensures that
the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent with both state and regional
polices regarding growth, infill development, and efficient use of land. This is because
regional policies in Projections assume that relatively more job growth will occur in existing
urbanized communities and near transit, while less growth is projected in outlying
communities with no transit infrastructure, including those with agricultural areas and open
august 2007, Page 9
San Francisco Bay Area _ Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 411' Revision
space. In addition, regional assumptions would promote greater use of public transportation
through increased job development near transit.
C. Household Growth near Transit, 5 Percent; Employment Growth near Transit,
5 Percent
Each local jurisdiction with an existing transit station should plan for more housing near such
stations. As a factor, "household growth near transit" allocates 5 percent of the regional
housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted household growth near existing transit
stations. As a factor, "employment growth near transit" allocates 5 percent of the regional
housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted employment growth near existing
transit stations.
Transit is defined as areas with existing fixed-alignment public transit. The transit services
included are: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART),
Caltrain, San Francisco MUNI light rail, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
(VTA) light rail, and ferries.
Growth near transit is defined as household or employment growth within one=half mile of an
existing transit station, but eliminating any overlap between stations located within one mile
of each other.
Incorporating a transit factor directly into the methodology would, in effect, give extra weight
to this state and regional objective. This is because a transit-based policy is already
incorporated into ABAG's policy-based Projections. Current regional policy places
incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations.
Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing growth and employment as
factors would indirectly include "transit" as a policy issue in the allocation methodology.
Using transit as a direct factor in the methodology would give transit a greater degree of
policy weight. Those jurisdictions with existing transit stations, would receive a relatively
higher proportion of the housing needs allocation than those jurisdictions without existing
transit stations.
Transit is used as a direct factor, in part, due to the expectation that impacts of the policy
assumptions in Projections will not begin to take effect until 2010. Directing growth to areas
with public transit in the allocation methodology would ensure that this regional policy
influences development patterns during the 2007-2014 RHNA period.
Use of these transit factors would address the state RHNA objectives and regional goals of
encouraging the use of public transit and the efficient use of transportation infrastructure.
Directing housing need to areas near transit would also promote infill development, as
existing transit stations are primarily in existing urbanized areas in the region.
D. The Allocation Formula
The household growth, employment and transit factors are weighted together to create an
allocation formula. Each factor describes a jurisdiction's "share" of a regional total. For
example, if the region expects to grow by 100 households, and one city in the region is to
grow by 10 households in the same period, then that city's "share" of the region's growth is 10
percent.
August 2007, Page 10
San Francisco Bay Area
Draft Regional Housing Needs .-allocation, 411, Revision
A jurisdiction's share of the Regional Housing need is assigned according to its percentage
share of regional household growth, employment growth, existing employment, and
household and employment growth near transit:
(Household Growth x .45) + (Employment Growth x .225) + (Existing Employment x
.225) + (Household Growth near Transit x .05) + (Employment Growth near Transit x
.05)
Growth is during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). The transit factors refer to
growth that occurs within '/2 mile of existing fixed transit stations in the jurisdiction.
2. Regional Allocations of Housing Units based on Affordability
There are two primary goals of the RI-INA process: 1) increase the supply of housing and
2) ensure that local governments consider the housing needs of persons at all income levels.
The allocation method requires that each local jurisdiction plan for income-based housing
relative to the regional average. The income allocation scenarios give each jurisdiction 175
percent of the difference between their 2000 household income distribution and the 2000
regional household income distribution. The regional average distribution of household
incomes is as follows:
• Very Low, 23 Percent
Households with income up to 50 percent of the county's area median income (AMI)
• Low, 16 Percent
Households with income between 50 and 80 percent of the county's AMI
• Moderate, 19 Percent
Households with income between 80 and 120 percent of the county's AMI
• Above-Moderate, 42 Percent
Households with income above 120 percent of the county's AMI
The first step in the income allocation process is to determine the difference between the
regional proportion of households in an income category and the jurisdiction's proportion for
that category. This difference is then multiplied by 175 percent to determine an "adjustment
factor." Finally, this adjustment factor is added to the jurisdiction's initial proportion of
households in the income category, which results in the total share of the jurisdiction's
housing unit allocation that will be in that income category.
Using the 175 percent factor and the City of Oakland's very low income category as an
example, 36 percent of households in Oakland were in this category, while the regional total
was 23 percent.
City Jurisdiction
Proportion
Regional
Proportion Difference
Adjustment
Multiplier Factor
Total
Share
Oakland 36
23 -13
175% -23
13
The difference between 23 and 36 is -13. This is multiplied by 175 percent for a result of -
22.75 (rounded to 23). This is then added to the city's original distribution of 36 percent, for a
August 2007, Page 11
San Francisco Bay Area
Draft Regional Housing Needs ..-allocation, 411, Revision
total share of 13 percent. A similar calculation for Piedmont, which has a relatively low
proportion of households in the "very low" income category yields the following results:
City Jurisdiction Regional Adjustment Total
Proportion Proportion Difference Multiplier Factor Share
Piedmont 9 23 14 175% 24 33
As shown above, those jurisdictions that have a larger proportion of households in an income
category will receive a smaller allocation of housing units in that category. Conversely, those
jurisdictions that have a relatively low proportion of households in a category would receive a
higher allocation of housing units in that category.
The effect of this allocation scenario is that the income distribution in each jurisdiction is
made to more closely match the regional distribution by taking both a jurisdiction's existing
conditions and future development into account. By addressing existing concentrations of
low-income households, this allocation more aggressively promote an equitable regional
income distribution. The multiplier determines how aggressively the scenario functions; the
higher the multiplier, the more aggressive.
3. Spheres of Influence
Every city in the Bay Area has a "sphere of influence (SOI)". A city's SOI can be either
contiguous with or beyond the city's boundaries. It is the areas that the city is responsible for
planning, as it is the probable future boundary of the city, including areas that may eventually
be annexed by the city.. The SOI is designated by the county Local Area Formation
Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO influences how government responsibilities are divided
among jurisdictions and service districts within a county. If there is planned household or
employment growth within the unincorporated portion of an SOI during the RHNA period,
the allocation methodology must include a rule for allocating housing needs to the affected
city or county.
Therefore, the HMC recommends that each local jurisdiction with the land-use permitting
authority in a SOI should plan for the housing needed to accommodate housing growth,
existing employment and employment growth in such areas. A 100 percent allocation of the
housing need to the jurisdiction that has land use control over the area would ensure that the
jurisdiction that plans for accommodating the housing units also receives credit for any built
units during the RHNA period.
There are differences in whether a city or county has jurisdiction over land use and
development within unincorporated SOIs. In response to these variations, allocation method
includes the following SOI rules:
1. In Napa, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, the allocation of housing need
generated by the unincorporated SOI will be assigned to the cities.
2. In Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the
unincorporated SOI will be assigned to the county. '
' The County of San Mateo (formed a RHNA subregion) and the City and County of San Francisco (irrelevant) have
been omitted.
August 2007, Page 12
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs .-allocation, 411, Revision
3. In Marin County, 75 percent of the allocation of housing need generated by the
unincorporated SOI will be assigned to the city; the remaining 25 percent will be
assigned to the county.
Although these guidelines reflect the general approaches to SOIs in each county, adjustments
may be needed to better reflect local conditions. Requests for SOI allocation adjustments may
arise during the RHNA comment or revision period. Therefore, the methodology include the
following criteria for handling such requests:
1. Adjustments to SOI allocations shall be consistent with any pre-existing written
agreement between the city and county that allocates such units, or
2. In the absence of a written agreement, the requested adjustment would allocate the units
to the jurisdiction that has permitting authority over future development in the SOI.
4. Transfer of Units
After the initial allocation, each local jurisdiction may request that it be allowed to transfer
units with willing partner(s), in a way that maintains total need allocation amongst all transfer
parties, maintains income distribution of both retained and transferred units, and includes a
package of incentives to facilitate production of housing units. This transfer rule would allow
the transfer of allocated housing need between willing jurisdictions in conjunction with
financial and non-financial resources, while maintaining the integrity of the state's RHNA
objectives by preventing any jurisdiction from abdicating its responsibility to plan for
housing across all income categories. Transfers done in this manner may facilitate increased
housing production in the region.
Request for transfer of RHNA allocations between jurisdictions must meet the following
criteria:
1. Transfer requests must have at least two willing partners and the total number of units
within the group requesting the transfer cannot be reduced.
2. Transfers must include units at all income levels in the same proportion as initially
allocated.
3. All members of the transfer group must retain some allocation of very low and low
income units.
4. The proposed transfer must include a specifically defined package of incentives and/or
resources that will enable the jurisdiction(s) receiving an increased allocation to provide
more housing choices than would otherwise occur absent the transfer and the
accompanying incentives or resources.
5. If the transfer results in a greater concentration of very low or low income units in the
receiving jurisdiction, the effect must be offset by findings by the members of the transfer
group that address the RHNA objectives. For example, the findings might include (a)
there is such an urgent need for more housing choices in those income categories that the
opportunity to effect more housing choices in these categories offsets the impacts of
over-concentration, or (b) the package of incentives and/or resources are for mixed
income projects, or (c) the package of incentives and/or resources are for "transitional"
housing for very low or low income households being relocated for rehabilitation of
existing very low or low income units, or (d) the package of incentives and/or resources
August 2007, Page 13
San Francisco Bay Area
Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 411i Revision
are for additional units that avoid displacement or "gentrification" of existing
communities.
6. For the transfer of very low and low income units, there are restrictions that ensure the
long-term affordability of the transferred units.
7. Transfers must comply with all other statutory constraints and be consistent with the
RHNA objectives.
In addition to guaranteeing that transfers meet the RHNA statutory objectives, these criteria
promote regional policies to increase housing supply and provide more housing choices. The
criteria state that the transfer must include the resources necessary to improve housing
choices and, specifically, in a way that would not otherwise be possible without the transfer.
The long-term affordability restrictions on very low and low income transferred units ensure
that these units will contribute to a fundamental increase in affordable housing choices.
The criteria also emphasize development of affordable units and are therefore consistent with
the state RHNA objective that every jurisdiction does its "fair share" to provide affordable
housing. The requirement that jurisdictions must retain some very low and low income units
and the stipulation that transfers must maintain the same income distribution as is initially
allocated ensure that a jurisdiction cannot abdicate its responsibility to provide affordable
units. The criteria also ensure that the benefits created by the transfer outweigh any possible
negative effects of an over-concentration of lower income households.
5. Subregions
The County of San Mateo, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, has formed a
subregion, as allowed by state statute. The subregion has designated the City/County
Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and
implementing the subregional RHNA process.
As required by statute, ABAG has assigned a share of the regional need to the San Mateo
subregion "in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households" in Projections
2007. The subregion is responsible for completing its own RHNA process that is parallel to,
but separate from, the regional RHNA process. The subregion will create its own
methodology, issue draft allocations, handle the revision and appeal processes, and then issue
final allocations to members of the subregion.
Although the subregion is working independently of the regional RHNA process, ABAG is
ultimately responsible for ensuring that all of the region's housing need is allocated. Thus, if
the subregion fails at any point in its attempt to develop a final RHNA allocation for the
subregion, ABAG must complete the allocation process for the members of the subregion.
In the event that the San Mateo subregion fails to complete the RHNA process, the
methodology include the following guidelines for handling the allocation of units to
jurisdictions within the subregion:
1. If the members of the subregion adopts a "default allocation," ABAG will allocate using
the default allocation. A "default allocation" is the allocation which a member of the San
Mateo RHNA subregion receives if it "opts out" of the subregion.
August 2007, Page 14
San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs .lllocation, 411, -Re~rision
2. If the subregion fails before ABAG has made any allocation, ABAG combines the
subregional share with the rest of the regional need and allocates the total regional need
to the entire region using ABAG's RHNA methodology.
3. If the subregion fails after ABAG has made its initial allocation, ABAG separately
allocates the subregional share among only the members of the subregion. ABAG uses its
RHNA methodology to do so.
This approach minimizes the extent of any reallocations that could occur as a result of
subregional failure and preserves the integrity of the respective efforts of ABAG and C/CAG.
Keeping San Mateo separated once ABAG has completed its initial allocation also provides
the most certainty to all jurisdictions about what their allocation will be.
VI. Regional Projections
Every two years, ABAG produces a long-run regional forecast called Projections. The
Projections forecast provides specific information for population, households, employment and
other related variables. In Projections 2007, values are reported for year 2000, and then for each
five year increment to 2035.
Several related models are used to perform the forecast. The economic model balances demand
for the production of goods and services with the supply of productive capacity. The demographic
model uses birth rates, death rates and migration data to forecast future population using a
cohort-survival model. A great deal of data is required by the models, including information on
economic relationships and trends, population-related information like births, deaths and
migration, as well as land use and land use policy data.
Since Projections 2003, ABAG has assumed the "Network of Neighborhoods" land use pattern,
as developed through the Smart. Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project. This
pattern expects higher levels of housing production. It also assumes that an increasing proportion
of regional growth occurs near transit and in existing urban areas. In the Projections 2007
forecast, additional housing production and a shift in the pattern of development primarily occurs
in the later part of the forecast. Earlier in the forecast, population growth is generally consistent
with the California Department of Finance (DOF) forecast. The distribution of growth is
generally consistent with local general plans.
ABAG has continually collected information on local land use as part of its modeling efforts. The
forecast is produced for nearly 1400 census tracts in the region and shows the existing land use
and the capacity of each tract to support additional population or economic activities.
Because the forecast is based on local land use information, forecasted growth occurs in locations
that are consistent with local plans. However, even with 1400 census tracts, only so much detailed
information can be included. We may know that moderate growth can occur in an area without
specifically understanding that a portion of that area is a nature preserve. We may know that
growth should not occur in an area, but it may not be clear whether it is due to a physical
limitation, or a general plan policy.
August 2007, Page 15
A -
Attachment 2. Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation
July 2007
Very Low Mod Above
<50% Low <80% <120% Mod Total
ALAMEDA
482
329
392
843
2,046
ALBANY
64
43
52
117
276
BERKELEY
328
424
549
1,130
2,431
DUBLIN
1,092
661
653
924
3,330
EMERYVILLE
186
174
219
558
1,137
FREMONT
1,348
887
876
1,269
4,380
HAYWARD
768
483
569
1,573
3,393
LIVERMORE
1,038
660
683
1,013
3,394
NEWARK
257
160
155
291
863
OAKLAND
1,900
2,098
3,142
7,489
14,629
PIEDMONT
13
10
11
6
40
PLEASANTON
1,076
728
720
753
3,277
SAN LEANDRO
368
228
277
757
1,630
UNION CITY
561
391
380
612
1,944
UNINCORPORATED
536
340
400
891
2,167
ALAMEDA COUNTY
10,017
7,616
9,078
18,226
44,937
ANTIOCH
516
339
381
1,046
2,282
BRENTWOOD
717
435
480
1,073
2,705
CLAYTON
49
35
33
34
151
CONCORD
639
426
498
1,480
3,043
DANVILLE
196
130
146
111
583
EL CERRITO
93
59
80
199
431
HERCULES
143
74
73
163
453
LAFAYETTE
113
77
80
91
361
MARTINEZ
261
166
179
454
.1,060
MORAGA
73
47
52
62
234
OAKLEY
219
120
88
348
775
ORINDA
70
48
55
45
218
PINOLE
83
49
48
143
323
PITTSBURG
322
223
296
931
1,772
PLEASANT HILL
160
105
106
257
628
RICHMOND
391
339
540
1,556
2,826
SAN PABLO
22
38
60
178
298
SAN RAMON
1,174
715
740
834
3,463
WALNUT CREEK
456
302
374
826
1,958
UNINCORPORATED
815
598
687
1,408
3,508
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
6,512
4,325
4,996
11,239
27,072
BELVEDERE
7
6
6
6
25
CORTE MADERA
68
38
46
92
244
FAIRFAX
23
12
19
54
108
LARKSPUR
90
55
75
162
382
MILL VALLEY
74
54
68
96
292
NOVATO
275
171
221
574
1,241
ROSS
8
6
5
8
27
SAN ANSELMO
26
19
21
47
113
SAN RAFAEL
262
207
288
646
1,403
SAUSALITO
45
30
34
56
165
TIBURON
36
21
27
33.
117
unincorporated
183
137
169
284
773
MARIN COUNTY
1,097
756
979
2,058
4,890
AMERICAN CANYON
169
116
143
300
728
CALISTOGA
17
11
18
48
94
NAPA
466
295
381
882
2,024
ST HELENA
30
21
25
45
121
YOUNTVILLE
16
15
16
40
87
unincorporated
181
116
130
224
651
NAPA COUNTY
879
574
713
1,539
3,705
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
6,588
5,534
6,753
12,314
31,189
SAN MATEO COUNTY
3,588
2,581
3,038
6,531
15,738
CAMPBELL
199
122
158
413
892
CUPERTINO
341
229
243
357
1,170
GILROY
319
217
271
808
1,615
LOS ALTOS
98
66
79
74
317
LOS ALTOS HILLS
27
19
22
13
81
LOS GATOS
154
100
122
186
562
MILPITAS
689
421
441
936
2,487
MONTE SERENO
13
9
11
8
MORGAN HILL
317
249
246
500
41
1,312
MOUNTAIN VIEW
633
430
541
1,275
2,879
PALO ALTO
846
666
786
1,207
3,505
SAN JOSE
7,750
5,321
6,197
15,449
34,717
SANTA CLARA
1,293
914
1,002
2,664
5,873
SARATOGA
90
68
77
57
292
SUNNYVALE
1,073
708
776
1,869
4,426
unincorporated
35
27
34
69
165
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
13,877
9,566
11,006
25,885
60,334
BENICIA
147
99
108
178
532
DIXON
197
98
123
310
728
FAIRFIELD
873
562
675
1,686
3,796
RIO VISTA
213
176
207
623
1,219
SUISUN CITY
173
109
94
234
610
VACAVILLE
754
468
515
1,164
2,901
VALLEJO
655
468
568
1,409
3,100
unincorporated
26
16
18
39
99
SOLANO COUNTY
3,038
1,996
2,308
5,643
12,985
CLOVERDALE
71
61
81
204
417
COTATI
67
36
45
109
257
HEALDSBURG
71
48
55
157
331
PETALUMA
522
352
370
701
1,945
ROHNERT PARK
371
231
273
679
1,554
SANTA ROSA
1,520
996
1,122
2,896
6,534
SEBASTOPOL
32
28
29
87
176
SONOMA
73
55
69
156
353
WINDSOR
198
130
137
254
719
unincorporated
319
217
264
564
1,364
SONOMA COUNTY
3,244
2,154
2,445
5,807
13,650
REGION
48,840
35,102
41,316
89,242
214,500