This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Hillsborough Menlo Park Millbrae Pacifica Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo San Mateo County South San Francisco Woodside
San Mateo County
Sub-Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process Technical Advisory Committee
Minutes from Thursday December 14, 2006 meeting
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
2 Minutes Minutes from Thursday Nov. 30, 2006 meeting were approved. 3 Selection of Chair and Vice-Chair Bob Beyer; City of San Mateo, was elected as Chair. Meg Monroe, City of Burlingame, was elected as Vice Chair until May 2007. 4 Planning meeting feedback • • • • • Suggestion begin with a base number, by January 2007, allocations to come later. Housing elements due June 2009 Draft allocation number due to ABAG - June 2007 Trading: May take place June 2007 - March 2008 Process suggestions 1. Develop a formula to find point of reference. 2. Wait to get a number default from ABAG. 3. Jurisdiction offer their own numbers as starting point.
Clarification: Trading • Swapping units (added to base allocation) for other resources: e.g. 100 units for $1 M e.g. 100 units for water. • • Total regional number will probably be 12,000 - 18,000 projected number’s based on growth. HCD numbers should come out in March
Our share will be based on growth and projections 2007 In RHNA 3, the number was 16,305 - We have used 9,338 units thus far - 18,000 - 7000 = 11,000 additional (est number) (remaining) units to plan for
RHNA 3 • San Mateo County built 52% of what was allocated, assuming a family of 3 - Very low - below $50,900 - Low - Moderate - Above Moderate Question: Should we use Bay Area numbers or SMCO numbers for income? • Former formula for calculating incomes 50% weight on Bay Area average 50% on what already exists ↓ Now simplified to only Bay Area average. Draft Methodology • • • Process has been “bottoms -up” thus far → jurisdictions come up with number’s ABAG has requested process for dealing with a shortfall in numbers Proposals a. Mark’s plans 1 b. Mark’s plan 2 - refer to Projections to make up difference Methodology Proposals • • Start with Projections 2007 Could remove percentages of affordability from draft? (Needs to be ABAG calculation of income breakdown completed by 12/31.) a. Base numbers on ABAG’s current methodology. b. Base numbers on ABAG’s former methodology. c. Base numbers on County number’s. • Suggestion: Use ABAG number’s for income levels
Other methodologies • Use Projections 2007
• • • • • •
Use ABAG formula with multiple factors Use real estate data Use projected growth per jurisdiction (doesn’t take job growth into account, could be taken into account in shortfall formula). For jurisdiction, can use what is already in general plan or housing element. Based on realistic estimate of how much to plan for or build versus projections? (For jurisdiction without housing element.) Establish starting numbers based on % of projected household growth.
APPROVED • Methodology – Based on the increase (from 2007-2014) in the number of households forecast for the jurisdiction in ABAG Projection 2007. • • • Draft Methodology to ABAG 12/31 then back to PAC.
Then updated version to ABAG. Next meeting: January 11, 2007.