Atherton  Belmont  Brisbane  Burlingame  Colma  Daly City  East Palo Alto  Foster City  Half Moon Bay

 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

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Minutes
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.