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
Thursday, February 8, 2007

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

Minutes
2 Minutes

Minutes from January 11, 2007 meeting were approved.

3 ABAG Report (verbal)

4 Example Methodology Implementation Calculation

• Hillsborough expressed a concern for the need of a chair for the Policy Advisory Committee.

Jurisdictions responses to the number that they would be comfortable with:

• Atherton – lowest achievable number

• Redwood city – ABAG number
• S. San Francsico -
• Foster City – ABAG methodology okay as well as the presented methodology
• Daly City – Concerned that they are already too dense
• San Bruno – projections based on available sites, Projections 2007 is too large to accommodate,
ABAG alternative 3 seems reasonable
• Woodside – Thought purpose was to trade, etc. Feel as if we are recreating the wheel. Perhaps
we should use ABAG number to start with.
• Portola Valley – Analyzed holding capacity, much land is already encumbered by MROSD. 100
additional units appears to be holding capacity. Planning Commission had updated the General
Plan but residents came with a referendum to shoot it down.
• East Palo Alto – Concern on projected household and job growth. Density will be an issue.
Community seems to want low density on available land.
• Menlo Park – Both methodologies were okay as both gave a lower number. The ABAG transit
factor may increase the number too much. The ABAG formula 3 is okay.
• Hillsborough – ABAG 3 will work. Would like to focus on implementation.
• San Carlos – Would like to look at ABAG number too. In 2001 the Housing Element called for
368 units. Now with the proposed methodologies they would have around 850 units. Similar
communities do not seem to be receiving a similar number of units.
• Burlingame – Households and projected jobs seem okay.
• Brisbane – Recognize the importance of vehicle miles traveled. Recognize that there are
different constraints for housing and land use. Recognize that if a community is providing jobs
the effect from vehicle miles traveled. Question the premise of Projections 2007 and the transit
component, especially so close to the bay with environmental effects. Have capacity to put jobs
 on brownfields.
• Millbrae – Agree with Atherton
• Belmont – Okay with two proposed methodologies from the packet. Also have a concern with
available land like Portola Valley. Seventy percent of the land uses are single family in nature.
• Half Moon Bay – Between 2000-2005 created 190 new units, 64 were affordable. They are
geographically isolated within the coastal zone and must go through the Coastal Commission
and therefore cannot easily rezone. Residents are in tune with a no growth policy. There are
basically a few infill units that occur. Measure D limits growth to 1%. They do not honestly
think they can make the numbers, regardless of ABAG 2 or proposed.
• Colma – They like the ABAG formula. Would like to see what transit light would come up
with. Transit light = ABAG 2
• San Mateo County – If we use the ABAG formula, why go with a subregion? We may still be
able to trade.

5 Miscellaneous Feedback

Bring back – Clarify the trade issue with certified or non-certified Housing Element.

Advantages:

• 3% lower number
• Trading
• Flexibility / local control
• There also could be some financial savings in the preparation of Housing Elements.

Projections 2007 will be the base. We will come to a conclusion then negotiate.