Loading...
Staff Report Attachments/w�G� A /rrr Arne A X TTl U 1V1 .•, iV1L1VJLUTk1A1NIJ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT To: Greg Larson, Town Manager From: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Subject: Update on Sustainable Communities (SB375) Date: November 30, 2011 BACKGROUND Senate Bill 375 requires that the Bay Area Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) contain a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that integrates land -use planning and transportation planning and funding. For the 25 -year period covered by the Plan, the SCS must identify appropriate areas within the nine - county Bay Area sufficient to house all of the region's _ population, including all economic segments of the population. This population growth would require approximately 902,000 new housing units. It must also attempt to coordinate the resulting land -use pattern with the transportation network so as to reduce per capita greenhouse -gas emissions from personal -use vehicles. By federal law, the RTP must be internally consistent; therefore, the $200+ billion dollars of transportation investments typically included in the RTP must align with and support the SCS land -use pattern. SB375 also requires that the updated eight -year RHNA prepared by ABAG is consistent with the SCS. The SCS, RTP, and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RINA) will be adopted simultaneously in 2013. ABAG and MTC are developing the implementation plan for the nine - county Bay Area, which is termed the OneBayArea. The Initial Vision Scenario, the first -cut proposal that identified the areas where the growth in the region's population might be housed, was released in March 2011. The Initial Vision Scenario is largely based on input from local jurisdictions from the information collected through December 2010. The Initial Vision Scenario encompasses an initial identification of locations called ' types," policies and strategies for long -term, sustainable development in the Bay Area. These place types are defined by their character, scale, density, and the expected housing units to be built over the long term. Local governments identified place types with potential for sustainable development, including Priority Development Areas (PDA), transit corridors, and employment areas, as well as infill opportunity areas that lack transit services but offer opportunities for increased walkability and reduced driving. As noted in the February 18, 2011, and April 18, 2011, memos to the Town Council on SB 375, Los Gatos elected to not identifv a PDA or place type. The PDA/place type locations will be where the majority of the RFNA will distribute new housing projections for the next RHNA Cycle (2014 to 2022). Consequently, based on the Town not identifying a PDA, the Initial ATTACPMEW 1 Page 2 Mavor and Town Council Subiect: Undate on Sustainahle Cnmmnnities (SRi75) November 30, 2011 Vision Scenario projected Los Gatos to grow by 721 household units between 2010 and 2035 for a 5.3% change over the 25 -year period. In September, MTC and ABAG released Scenarios 3, 4, and 5 for the OneBayArea plan. These three scenarios in addition to the Scenario 1, that was released with the Initial Vision Scenario in March, and the forthcoming Scenario 2 will be used to inform the development of the SCS Preferred Scenario. Scenario 1 is based on unconstrained growth, assumes very strong employment growth, and unprecedented funding to support housing affordability. Scenario 2, Core Concentration Unconstrained, will be developed to provide a more concentrated development pattern along transit corridors. These two scenarios are essential to identify the challenges and policies for an ideal sustainable development path. The report released in September for the land use patterns for scenarios 3, 4, and 5 is based on an assessment of economic growth, financial feasibility, and reasonable planning strategies. They providea- rartgeo-f-housing- and- e-mplayment- distr-ibut- ien- patternsacress- places and cities- that- support- equitable and sustainable development. The three scenarios are as follows: Core Concentration Growth Scenario: Concentrates housing and job growth at selected Priority Development Areas in the Inner Bay Area along the region's core transit network Focused Growth Scenario: Recognizes the potential of Priority Development Areas and Growth Opportunity Areas across the region with an emphasis on housing and job growth along major transit corridors. Outer BaVArea Growth Scenario: Addresses higher levels of growth in the Outer Bay Area and is closer to previous development trends than the other two scenarios. These three scenarios assume a strong economy supported by the appropriate affordable housing production. They also assume targeted local and regional strategies and additional funding to support sustainable and equitable growth. They are designed primarily around PDAs and Growth Opportunity Areas as places for growth identified by local jurisdictions. Beyond the PDAs, household growth is distributed based on employment, transit access, household formation, and housing production. Employment distribution is based upon the existing employment pattern, reversing the previous dispersal trends throughout the region. Since Los Gatos did not establish a PDA, this would be the basis for determining future household and employment growth for the Town. DISCUSSION As discussed in the Background Section, the initial vision scenario was largely influenced by input tirom local jurisdictions, including the agency's assessment of current development patterns. employment and household growth projections and general plan policies. The three new scenarios Page 3 Mayor and Town Council Subject: Update on Sustainable Communities (SR375) November 30, 2011 expand on that initial effort by including projections for subregional employment and household growth, household formation, commuting patterns, transit access, and social equity criteria. In this context, social equity seeks to increase access to opportunities and an improved quality of life for residents from all income categories in communities throughout the region. Each scenario will distribute growth in a way that ensures that each jurisdiction is planning to accommodate a minimum percent of its expected household growth. Based on these aforementioned factors, each of the three new scenarios projects an increase in housing growth for almost all communities in Santa Clara County due to their proximity to employment centers, transit service, ability to accommodate new housing, and social equity objectives. The revised housing and employment growth for Los Gatos for the 25 -year period covered by the Oncl3ayArea Plan (2010 to 2035) is 2,333 households or 19 percent change over the 25 years. The percent of change is the lowest in all of the 15 cities within the county and unincorporated Santa Clara County. These 25 years would also cover fourR.HNA periods, inclusive of the current (2007 to 2014) cycle, which would result in RHNA numbers fairly consistent with the current 562 units. If the Town has previously established PDA's for Los Gatos, these numbers would likely be significantly higher. Due to the size of the documents, staff has not attached any of the reports. However, should Council members want to read more information about this process, the following link is provided: http: / /oneb tyarea.org /plan_bay_ area/. Lastly, as noted, the SCS and the TRP tivill be integrated and, consequently, regional transportation funding allocations will largely be distributed to the PDAs and growth centers. While Town staff recognizes that this is a logical methodology for funding allocations for new transportation projects, staff believes that funding for maintenance projects should continue to be distributed based on the current methodologies that include factors such as miles of road and population. Attachment 1 contains a letter that staff sent to MTC and ABAG in August advocating to maintain the current funding allocation methodology for transportation maintenance finds. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter to ABAG and MTC dated August 31, 2011 NADEWTEMS Of NTERES %Sustainability\ ?011- 11 -30. 101-Memo. Update SCS.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank TowN of Los GATos OFFICE OF THE TOWN MANAGER CmC Cwrtx (408) 354 -6832 1-10R MAN STEM FAX: (408) 399 -5786 P.O. Box 949 LOS CA+TOS, CA 95031 August 31, 2011 Mr. Mark Green, President Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604 -2050 Mr. Steve Heminger, Executive Director Metropolitan Transportation Commission 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607 RE: Town of Los Gatos Comments on the Proposed OneBay -Area Transportation Grant Program Methodology Dear Messrs Green and Heminger: opportunity to provide comments on the proposed d is The Town of Los Gatos appreciates the oppo tribution formula for the STP /CMAQ Cycle 2 Transportation Funding. Town staff has been participating in the review of the proposed grant funding allocation as well as the entire OneBay -Area Sustainable Communities Strategy program through various Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) working groups and the Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials. The Town recognizes the formidable undertaking that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) are engaged in with developing a program for the entire Bay Area that meets the needs of all communities. Los Gatos generally supports the initial regional efforts to meet the requirements of SB375. The Town also supports a number of the recommendations regarding the new framework for distribution of STP and CMAQ Cycle 2 funds in the Bay Area. Specifically, the Town is supportive of a framework that integrates transportation funding with land use and housing policies, and maintaining the local CMA, Valley Transportation Agency, as the agency responsible for managing the selection of projects and distribution of local funding. Los Gatos agrees with the MTC and ABAG staff that the proposed distribution fonnula to the counties be based on the three components of 50 percent population, 15 percent regional housing needs, and 25 percent actual housing production. However, Los Gatos has significant concern with two elements of time proposed distribution, including the funding split of 70 percent restricted to PDAs and only 30 pe cent to anywhere else, and the performance and accountability requirements. While the Town recognizes that transportation funds for new or capacity - enhancing infrastructure should be allocated to those areas anticipating new residential growth, the funding distribution should also consider existing infrastructure maintenance needs. Los Gatos is primarily a built -out community that is landlocked by topographical and political boundaries. INCORPORATED AuGUsr 10, 1887 Attachment I of Attachment I r Pase 2 GreerlHen linger Ccrsequently, the anticipated REI A and hoes:;.; _ . be:ow t _ of other more populated or growth areas within the county. Hev: -z,cr, : a= ex_ =_ling road maintenance and improvement needs that have been augmented through t -e existing programs such as: HSIP, STIP, SR2S, TLC, and TDA. These funds are neece�' oily maintain and improve the existing infrastructure, but also support the maintenance requu - _a from regional traffic that regularly uses the local roads as bypasses to the two regional transporta ".ion routes, Highway 85 and Highway 17, which bisect the Town. During congestion tires, such as the morning and evening commutes, or when accidents occur on the freeways, significant regional traffic is funneled through the Town on local roads. The proposed funding allocation does not account for these maintenance needs and would limit the Town's ability to mitigate regional traffic by competing for a very small pool of unrestricted funds. The Town advocates apportioning some funding specifically for maintenance projects and utilizing the existing formula that is based on per capita and lane miles. In regards to the performance and accountability requirements, the Town is very concerned with the proposed criteria, which include the requirement for an approved Housing Element and meeting two of the four criteria listed under "Supportive Local Transportation and Land -Use Policies." The Town presently has an HCD- approved 2007 -2014 Housing Element, and, consequently, meets this requirement. However, the Town, and, based on recent discussions at the VTA working group meetings, most of the Santa Clara County jurisdictions cannot meet two of the four Supportive Local Transportation and Land -Use Policies, The Town is beginning the process of developing a complete streets program and updating its bicycle and pedestrian plan, but will not be updating the General Plan Circulation Element pursuant to AB 1358 for at least seven years. As a small, suburban community, it is unlikely that the Town would need or consider adopting parking/pricing policies at this time. Moreover, the Community Risk Reduction Program is a new concept that the Town has not considered developing as a local program in the near future. Finally, the Town would meet the requirement for policies that prevent the displacement of low income housing from new development through its recently adopted Housing Element goals. As an alternative, the Town recommends that in addition to requiring an HCD- approved or court- validated Housing Element, requiring only one of the Supportive Local Transportation and Land -Use Policies be met for eligibility purposes. In summary, the Town of Los Gatos is generally supportive of MTC and ABAG's recommendations on the sCs and allocation of transportation funds. However, the Town suggests and recommends additional consideration of maintenance - related funding programs and less rigorous eligibility criteria for transportation funds. Thank you for your consideration of these comments and suggestions. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Community Development Director Wendie Rooney at (408) 399 -5768, Parks and Public Works Director Todd Capurso at (408) 399 -5770, or me at (408) 354 -6832. Sincerely, Greg Larson Town Manager cc. Wendie Rooney, DireetorofCommmnityDeve:opment Todd Capurso, Director of Parks and Public Works N "WIGWlkdutiuWG[kFiie5`2Ot t Let'.ersRdana_e L. [� CD yec.transporution.aug.3L'Cl Ldoc ATTACKMENT 2 T11 is Page Intentionally Left Blank ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS Representing City and County Gorernmenls of the San Franclaco Bay Area ABAG April 18, 2012 Greg Larson Town Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas PDA Designation within Los Gatos Mr. Larson: The Cities and County of Santa Clara in partnership with the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) have shown leadership within the Bay Area by developing and supporting VTA's Community Design and Transportation Program, and its organizing framework of Cores, Corridors and Station Areas. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) seek direction from the Town of Los Gatos on the designation of VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas within the Town as a Priority Development Area (PDA). Verification is important to ensure that all Priority Development Area designations are supported by the local community in which they are located. In 2006 the regional FOCUS program was established by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). FOCUS established Priority Development Areas (PDAs) as a key part of the Bay Area's regional planning framework Priority Development Areas have been non vnated by local governments and in the case of a few major corridor planning efforts by county congestion management agencies. There are two types of PDAs: Potential and Planned. The primary difference between these is in terms of the level of planning effort involved. In Santa Clara County, VTA submitted a Priority Development Area application for the landmark, countywide Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas program and utilized city resolutions of support for VTA's related Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Program for the submittal Recognizing the value of this seminal work ABAG/i ITC and VTA are proposing, with the respective jurisdiction's concurrence, to continue recognizing VTA's Cores, Corridors and Station Areas as Potential PDAs. The VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Area framework was originally adopted by the VTA Board in 2002 and each of the 15 Cities and the County passed Council Resolutions in support of this framework and of the accompanying Manual of Best Practices. Town support for the PDA designation would reinforce the Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas as locations that are key to focused growth. Today there are nearly 200 Priority Development Areas across the Bay Area The PDA framework is being incorporated into three concurrent efforts — the development of the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), the creation of the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program, and the Bort MetroCanter 101 Eighth Sheet ATTACHMENT ? ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS 1 R epresenlung City and C ounty Governments Of the ien rranc,sco Bay Area aH4G 2014 -2022 Regional Housing Need Allocation methodology (RHNA). While PDA designation is not expected to significantly alter the housing distribution for a jurisdiction overall, it does affect OBAG funding qualification The PDA designation's inclusion in the SCS. OBAG. and RHNA has prompted us to return to local city counciis to verify local authorization for the inclusion of any and all PDAs at the regional level. ABAG and VTA are requesting that jurisdictions provide direction to ABAG by May 31.2012 to continue inclusion of the Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas in their respective jurisdiction as Potential or Planned Priority Development Areas. This can either be in the form of a Council action authorizing the PDA designation (template resolution is attached) or a letter from the Town Manager stating Town support for the PDA designation, expressed through participation in the CDT Program and prior council action supporting that program. Please note that this action is only for areas (bat have not already been nominated as Priority Development Areas by resolution directly from the town A m ap of the area described is also attached. lr you have questions, please contact Justin Fried at 510.464.7947 or iusti (7 abag.Ca.goy, or John Sighamony. at 408.321.5767 or lohn.sisdmmonv( vta.ory Sincerely, Chris Augenstein, VTA Deputy Director, Planning Ken Kirkey. ABAG Director. Planning and Research cc: Werdie Rooney. Kevin Rohani Attachments: Map of VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas PDA, template resolution si alin9ACCress x2050 akfantl. CaEforma9460S.V00 (5'0}464-7900 Fax X510, 464.7970 mfo�aca9 W 90v Location' Joseph P Sor. Ma.UcCenter 401 Eli Street Oakiantl Cairlomia 94607 <756 \ ; �� L e � I� Fu.Y'h i • ;�_ • If I t' - - a!]�` / - rt T to V� 1;1'R l " .tires y ' Fi -+• ` . Y a y. i 9 .. � r } siY 3 �. 1 • ..tip +_ v " :A� 1. � 1 •�" 91 P k 's�aa�vs .,.• � '_ ,.�.�+: ., � °* i ♦ • A r Mop Legend Neighborhood Features 1 12 City of County Administration L, N•12 Schaal -` Child Care Faultily '�. Fl[. station © Nos Pllal ty ° Public Transportation n - POW. ea. s.W1. v Santa Clore YTA •oaf eleyele Network off street path • • on- street striped lone Potential Priority DewlePmnl Area �-Qh Inslde PGA kel Oabide PDA Protected *POP Space burl 1+O[lagll E/eay YDD OOIYmgY+. W-o 0 v,uy W Da j(ab laWb iK M111prin nlYM � • seg isoa Sc.I. r a so X Igo toe wo a w pD loo t 1 S •t. A AM— �• s � it e •i - 1 iii t' 1 a development and conservatlon strctagy (or t�hle�; -Son Francisco Bay n,rDa y A r I Map Legend Neighborhood Features .m File Station Q Grocery Store or Supermarkel public TransporioNOn xl - le Mlnuu Ou. s.r.rre Santa aldto VTA 8icyale Network o(( street path ` Potential Pslotily beeelapment Area O "-.q- Inslde PDA s ir-0.1.1d. PDA Protected open Space srra r. axlemar aayoo ow «rcw.+- F`- s.l.. A9k0 01YIVV 1C® � 3:J1. mow Y q w• '� G Sample resolution prepared for local governments supporting Priority Development Area Designation of VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas under the FOCUS program Whereas, the Association of Bay Area Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in coordination with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (collectively, the "regional agencies') are undertaking a regional planning initiative called FOCUS; and Whereas, FOCUS program goals support a future regional development pattern that is compact and connected; and Whereas, the regional agencies seek local government partners to create a specific and shared concept of where growth can be accommodated (priority development area) and what areas need protection (priority conservation area) in the region; and Whereas, a priority development area must meet all of the following criteria: (a) within an existing community, (b) near existing or planned fixed transit (or served by comparable bus service) and (c) is planned, or is planning, for more housing, and Whereas, local governments in the nine county San Francisco Bay Area are eligible to apply for designation of an area within their community as a priority development area; and Whereas, the regional agencies arc committed to securing incentives and providing technical assistance to designated priority development areas so that positive change can be achieved in communities working to advance focused growth; and Whereas, the [City/Town Council /Board of Supervisors] of , adopted Resolution No. endorsing Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority's Community Design and Transportation Program and its manual of best practices for integrating transportation and land use; and Whereas, the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority submitted an application to designate the countywide Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas as a priority development area. Now therefore be it resolved, the [City/Town Council /Board of Supervisors] of authorizes the designation of Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas within the City/Town /County as a priority de•: elepment area. 04/18/12 This Page Intentionally Left Blank New Surface Transportation Authorization Act: Cycle 2 OneBayArea Grant Program Funding Overview MTC receives federal funding for local programming through the State from federal surface transportation legislation currently known as SAFETEA (the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act). This includes Surface Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) and Transportation Enhancement Program (TE) funds. Every two to three years MTC develops policies about how the region will use this funding for projects and programs. Anticipating the reauthorization of the federal program, on September 30, 2009, MTC approved funding commitments to address a new authorization act (Cycle 1). Howevey the successor to SAFETEA has not yet been enacted, and SAFETEA has been extended through continuing resolutions. Cycle 1 covers the first three years of SAFETEA extensions through FY 2011 -12. Consistent with Cycle 1, MTC will program multiple years of finding in Cycle 2 (FY2012 -13, FY 2013 -14, FY 2014 -2015, and FY 2015 -2016) pending the enactment of a new federal authorization. MTC may program funds "forward" based on reasonable estimates of revenues. Roughly $795 million is available for the Cycle 2 OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) program. Of this amount, $475 million will fund the continuation and enhancement of programs implemened at the regional level and $320 million will be directed to the counties for local project selection. OneBayArea Cycle 2 Funding Commitments Overview (Millions $, rounded) Program Categories Regional Program Total Regional Planning S7 Regional Operations $95 Freeway Performance Initiative $96 Pavement Technical Assistance Program $7 Priority Development Area Planning Program $40 Climate Initiatives $20 Safe Routes To School $20 Transit Capital Rehabilitation $150 Transit Performance Initiative $30 Priority Conservation Areas Pilot $10 County Program One Bay Area Grant $320 OneBayArea Grant Program: A New Funding Approach For Cycle 2, the OneBayArea Grant (OBAG) Program is a new funding approach that better integrates the region's federal transportation program with California's climate law (Senate Bill 375, Steinberg, 2008) and the Sustainable Communities Strategy. Funding distribution to the counties will consider progress toward achieving local land -use and housing policies by: • Rewarding jurisdictions that accept housing allocations through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) process and produce housing using transportation dollars as incentives. Supporting the Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Bay Area by promoting transportation investments in priority Development Areas (PDAs) and by initiating a pilot program that will support open space preservation in Priority Conservation Areas (pCA). Providing a higher proportion Of funding to local agencies and additional investment flexibility by eliminating required program investment targets. The OBAG program allows flexibility to invest in transportation categories such as Transportation for Livable Communities, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, local streets and roads preservation, and planning activities, while also providing specific funding opportunities for Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Priority Conservation Areas. 4TTACHAi+I_NT 4 OBAG Distribution Formula Housing Production ** OBAG County Population (low- income housing units) 50 Ye 12.5% Fund Distribution (MliJons$,rounded) Housing Total - Production ** County - Funds (total housing units) Alameda $63 12.5% Contra Costa $44 Marin $10 "s Napa $6 - .- - - `� RIINA* San Francisco $38 .; (low- income � � "y, housing units) San Mateo $26 12.t"Jofo Santa Clara $ST Soiano Sl8 Sonoma $23 RHNA* (total housing units) The OneBayArea Grant distribution formula is based on the following factors: population, past housing production and future housing commitments. This includes weighting to acknowledge jurisdiction efforts to produce low- income housing.The county Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) are responsible forlocal project solicitation, evaluation, and selection. * RHNA 2014-2022 ** Housing Production Report 1999 -2006, ABAG OBAG Policies Priority Development Area Focus Priority Development Areas (PDAs) are infill development opportunity areas within existing communities identified by local jurisdictions. They are generally areas of at least 100 acres where there is local commitment to developing more housing along with amenities and services to meet the day -today needs of residents in a bicycle and pedestrian- friendly environment served by transit. PDA Investment Minimums The CMAs in larger counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Santa Clara) shad direct at least 70% of their OBAG investments to the PDAs. For North Bay counties (Merin, Napa,Sofano, and Sonoma) the threshold is 50 %.Aproject lying outside the limits of a PDA may count towards the minimum provided.that it directly cormects to or provides proximate access to a PDA. Refer to http://geocon=orLs.com/ maps/1419T9, which provides a CIS overlay of the PDAs in the Bay Area. The counties will be expected to have an open decision process to justify projects that geographically fall outside of a PDA but are considered directly connected to or providing proximate access to a PDA. PDA Investment and Growth Strategy By May 1, 2013, CMAs shall prepare and adopt a PDA Investment and Growth Strategy to guide transportation investments that are supportive of PDA inill development. Affordable Housing Production and Preservation As part of the PDA Investment and Growth Strategy, CMAs will need to consider strategies for the production of affordable housing. By May 2013, CMAs will have analyzed housing production progress and completed an inventory of existing and planned housing units by income category� Li PDAs and affordable housing / continued on next page - Priority Development Area Focus continued from previous page Policies currently enacted for those respective jurisdictions. By May 2014, CMAs will work with PDA based jurisdictions to identify which, ff any, policies/ ordinances are recommended to promote and preserve affordable housing in PDAs. Based on this information and recommendations in the PDA Growth Strategy, MTC will link the release of future cycle funding (after FY 2015 -16) to the implementation Of affordable housing policies around which local officials reach consensus. Additionally, the regional PDA Planning Program will assist jurisdictions to develop and implement PDA investment plans. Eligible OBAG Projects Each county CMA may Program OBAG funds to Projects that meet the eligibility requirements of any one of the following si transportation improvement categories: • Local Streets and Roads Preservation - • Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements • Transportation for Livable Communities • Safe Routes to School • Priority Conservation Areas • CIVIA Planning Activities Additional Information For additional information about Cycle 2 investments, policies and the OneBayArea Grant Program, go to http: / /Vrww.mtC.ca.gov /funding/ onebayarea/ or contact Craig Goldblatt at cgoldblatt @nrtc.ca.gov or 510.817.5837. OneBayArea N 0 a i w U �i l9 Performance and Accountability Jurisdictions receiving OBAG funds need to comply with the following: Complete Streets Policy Resolution Aside from meeting MTC's complete streets policy, a jurisdiction will need to adopt a complete streets resolution by January 31, 2013. A jurisdiction can also meet this requirement through a general plan that complies with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008. RHNA Compliant General Plan A jurisdiction is required to have its general plan housing element adopted and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for 2007 -14 RHNA prior to January 31, 2013. It a jurisdiction submitted its housing element to the state but the state's comment letter identifies deficiencies that the local jurisdiction must address in order to receive HCD certification, then the local jurisdiction may submit a request to the joint MTC Planning /ABAG Administrative Committee for a time extension to address the deficiencies and resubmit its revised draft housing element to HCD for re- consideration and certification. Note that jurisdictions will be required to have general plans with approved housing elements and that comply with the Complete Streets Act of 2008 by October 31, 2014 to be eligible for the OBAG cycle subsequent to FY 2015 -16. Report to the Commission After OBAG programming is completed at the county level, MTC staff will present a report to the Commission in late 2013 on the performance and Project selection outcomes of the CRAG Program- The CMAs will also present their PDA Investment and Growth Strategies to the joint MTC Planning/ ABAG Administrative Planning Committee. This Page Intentionally Left Blank DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION Updated on May 10, 2012 -For ABAG Exe ulive Board Reviz:v Note: This draft 2014 -2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs- Housing Connection Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding. 4T TACHMENT 5 Draft 2014 -2022 RHNA 2007- I 1999 - Low P,loderate Above 2014 2006 51 -80% 81 -120, Moderate Total RHNA RHNA •--• -_ - _. - Total I Total San Mateo County Atherton 36 26 28 Belmont 110 58 1S 105 83 166 Brisbane 20 66 133 366 399 317 Burlingame 261 11 137 13 28 72 401 426 Colma 19 151 427 975 6 565 Daly City 369 174 34 69 65 74 East Palo Alto 219 9 743 1,505 1,207 1,391 Foster City 144 48 81 88 277 466 630 1,282 Half Moon Bay 65 139 429 486 690 Hillsborough 49 31 32 74 185 276 458 Menlo Park 28 34 18 129 86 81 Millbrae 178 128 127 236 701 993 982 Pacifica 114 4 94 107 299 678 452 3 Portola Valley 2 14 68 169 413 275 666 Redwood City 646 14 16 64 74 82 San Bruno 405 490 1,243 2,784 1,856 2,544 San Carlos 166 142 188 S58 1,193 973 378 San Mateo 770 89 94 180 529 599 368 South San Francisco 511 420 498 1.237 2,925 3,051 2,43 Woodside 22 240 311 965 2,027 1,635 1,331 San Mateo County Unincorporated 85 13 15 12 62 41 41 4,135 54 2,267 63 2,675 104 'o,9C6 306 1,506 1,680 15,934 15,738 16,305 Santa Clara County Campbell 224 121 142 420 Cupertino 261 275 906 892 Gilroy 20o 157 215 391 1 ,358 1,170 2,720 Los Altos 162 505 1,081 1,615 3,746 Los Altos Hills 45 29 107 108 476 317 261 Lets Gatos 189 31 18 122 81 83 Milpitas 920 107 331 1190 _ 616 562 402 Monte Sereno 23 497 513 1,255 3,186 2,487 4,348 Morgan Hill 235 13 14 62 41 76 Mountain View 712 139 168 324 865 1,312 2,484 Palo Alto 659 425 480 1,136 2,754 2,599 3,423 San Jose 8,881 420 5,356 457 657 2,192 2,860 1,397 Santa Clara 902 6,337 16,532 37,106 34,721 26,114 Saratoga 143 608 91 663 1,640 3,812 5,873 6,339 Sunnyvale 1,540 871 10 2 102 438 292 539 Santa Clara County Unincorporated 15 870 2,293 5,574 1.426 3,836 15,284 9 9,200 11 10,513 24 25,610 58 60,607 11090 1,446 60,338 57,991 Note: This draft 2014 -2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the Jobs- Housing Connection Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding. 4T TACHMENT 5 DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION Updated on May 10, 2012 - For ABAG Executive Board Review Solano County � t - ... Graf, 2014 -2022 RHNA 2007- 1999- Above - 2014 2006 Very Low Low Moderate Moderate Total RHNA RNNA -- - 9 - ip7 . - 51 - Fc.% Si - 12c ^S - Total Benicia 106 61 65 112 Dixon 56 24 35 82 Fairfield 982 511 579 1,524 Rio Vista 19 13 17 55 Suisun City 119 47 51 152 Vacaville 315 148 178 442 Vallejo 318 197 219 626 Solaro County Unincorporated 18 30 12 25 1,934 1,011 1,156 3,D17 Sonoma County - tloveraalz -- Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Windsor Sonoma County Unincorporated 40 25 17 58 37 27 27 65 224 121 120 275 231 136 142 444 1,191 679 836 2,155 28 17 23 53 30 22 30 55 139 79 75 163 263 143 169 380 2,230 1,282 1,476 3,744 REGION 46,680 28,940 33,420 78,950 345 197 3,596 104 370 1,1082 1,359 66 7,118 140 156 740 953 4,860 121 137 455 955 8,733 532 728 3,796 1,219 610 2,901 3,100 99 12,985 - 4T7 257 331 1,945 1,554 6,534 176 353 719 1,364 13,650 413 1,464 3,812 1,391 1,004 4,636 3,242 2,719 18,681 567 573 1,144 2,124 7,654 274 684 2,071 6,799 22,313 230,743 187,990 1 214,500 Note: This draft 2014 -2022 RHNA by income category for each jurisdiction is based on the lobs- Housing Connection Strategy, May 11, 2012. Totals may not add up due to rounding. L r O p r l�RCIIAµV . March 28, 2012 CUPERTINO Ken Kirkey ABAG Planning Director 101 Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 RE: Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RH NA) Methodology Dear Mr. Kirkey: R� of SAg ..� r qC /FONN� The cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Town of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga have developed a successful partnership over the years due to the many similarities between our Jurisdictions. We are predominately built -out residential communities with fewer jobs and access to public transit than other cities within Santa Clara County. As a result, our residents have limited transportation choices and rely heavily on personal vehicles to commute to work. In addition, there are no planned transit extensions within our jurisdictions apart from the possible future 1.5 mile extension of VTA's Light Rail to Route 85 and Winchester Boulevard. Any modest increase in household growth, over what is already accounted for in our general plans, would increase carbon dioxide emissions through additional vehicle miles traveled. One of the primary components of Senate Bill 375 is to link transportation and land -use planning through the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) to reduce the region's carbon dioxide emissions from cars and light duty trucks. The primary strategy of the SCS is to build better access to mass transit and create housing proximity to jobs and services. This strategy would provide commuters more transportation choices and reduce vehicle miles they need to travel. In 2008, the Association of Bay Area Governments was the first coalition of governments in the State to connect the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) to the type of focused- growth that is central to the SCS. However, the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) appears to be working against the progress ABAG has made by continuing to recommend a significant minimum housing distribution. This methodology gives more weight to a "fair share" distribution rather than sustainability factors that are more consistent with the objectives of SB 375. A7 N1F_ 1T 6 We believe that the minimum fair share distribution threshold, currently proposed at 40% of household formation, should be eliminated. Our issue is not with the allocation of affordable units but with the minimum distribution of total housing growth. We believe it is important for all communities to include housing for a mix of income levels. The table below, using recent information from the HMC, illustrates the impact of the fair share distribution over the sustainability factors. Campbell 846 833- 1 .1- Cupertino 1,361 1,340 :_- 1,170 Los Gatos 477 613s 562 Monte Sereno 48 80 41 261— - - - -- . - 584- Source. HMC Draft RHNAAIlocation 3112112 Cities within the region that have larger Priority Development Areas, which have access to current or future transit facilities, and are near major employment centers are being given priority in the distribution of grant funds over smaller built -out residential communities. These additional funds should help offset the infrastructure and service requirements of more housing and population where it is most needed. As Mayors representing the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Town of Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga we request the ABAG Executive Board approve the RHNA Methodology with sustainability factors consistent with SB 375 but without a minimum housing tbreshold. Sincerely, Mark Santoro Michael Kotoviski Steve Rice MaM City of Cupertino Mayor, City of Campbell Mayor, Town of Los Gatos Susan Garner Chuck Page Mayor, City of Monte Sereno Mayor, City G TOWN OF LOS GATOS 2020 GENERAL PLAN VASONA LIGHT RAIL ELEMENT —• — a_..—..—..— ..— ..— .-- ..— ..— ..— ..— ..— ...... % % L —e � ��� —r Town Boundary I �'•� Sphere of Influence 1 R\ Water Body I G {a -- Highway Creek i i i i i Ct \ #7 A i� t �.•q V 0 soo iDMW Fen L.. - -•! SartcTO+m of Ws Gabs 2010. 6 O Vasona Light Rail Area Boundary FIGURE VLR.I VASONA LIGHT RAIL AREA ATTAcKMENT 7 Sub Areas Vasona junction Oka Road North Forty East Los Gatos Boulevard FIGURE VLR.I VASONA LIGHT RAIL AREA ATTAcKMENT 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank