HomeMy WebLinkAbout7.2 Reg Housing Needs Allocation
CITY CLERK
File # D~~[Q]-~~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: August 21,2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Adoption of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the
San Francisco Bay Area Region for the 2007-2014 Housing Element
Cycle
Report prepared by Marnie R. Nuccio, Senior Planner
1)
2)
3)
City Council Agenda Statement dated December 19, 2006,
without attachments.
City Council Agenda Statement dated January 16, 2007,
without attachments.
Letter addressed to ABAG dated January 17,2007 regarding
Alternative RHNA Allocation Methodology, Income
Allocation.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) memo to the
ABAG Executive Board dated June 29, 2007.
4)
RECOMMENDATION: ~ Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
At the December 19, 2006 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology for the 2007-2014 Housing Element Cycle (Attachment
1). The purpose of the report was to inform the City Council of the proposed methodology which the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in collaboration with the Housing Methodology
Committee, had derived for the upcoming Housing Element update cycle. The City Council received the
report and accepted the methodology proposed.
COPY TO:
ITEM NO. 7 2-
Page 1 of3
G:\General Plan\Housing Element\RHNA 2007-2014\08-21-07 CCSR RHNA Adoption.doc
On January 16, 2007, Staff returned to the City Council with an update on the RHNA methodology
(Attachment 2). Based on comments ABAG received from other jurisdictions regarding the methodology,
the methodology was modified from what Staff presented to the City Council on December 19,2006. The
modified methodology included an aggressive multiplier for the allocation of housing units by income
level in an attempt to alleviate existing concentrations of lower income housing. The City Council
directed Staff to prepare a comment letter to ABAG regarding the methodology for allocating housing
units by income level (Attachment 3).
At the January 18, 2007 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board meeting, the
Board adopted the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology for the 2007-2014 Housing
Element cycle. The adopted methodology differed slightly from the methodology that Staff presented to
the City Council on January 16, 2007 (see Table 1 below). The modified methodology that ABAG staff
presented to the Executive Board reduced the weighting of the transit factor and removed planned transit
from consideration. As a result, household growth, existing jobs and employment growth received a
greater weight in the allocation formula. Reducing the weight of the transit factors and increasing the
weight of household growth, existing employment and employment growth did not have a significant
effect on the estimated total allocation for Dublin.
Factor
Household Growth from 2007-2014
Existin Em 10 ent in 2007
Em 10 ent Growth from 2007-2014
Household Growth near transit from 2007-2014
Em 10 ent Growth near transit from 2007-2014
* ABAG proposed methodology reviewed by City Council.
Percenta e
45%
22.5%
22.5%
5%
5%
Percenta e
40%
20%
20%
10%
10%
On January 18, 2007, the ABAG Executive Board also adopted the regional income allocation based on
affordability. This methodology takes into consideration existing concentrations of lower income housing
when allocating affordable units. In short, jurisdictions which currently have a greater percentage of
lower income households are assigned a smaller percentage of affordable units and conversely
jurisdictions which have fewer lower income households are assigned a larger percentage of affordable
units (the method for determining a jurisdiction's existing percentage of lower income households is
derived from Census 2000 data). This methodology is an attempt to recognize existing concentrations of
affordable housing and spread new affordable units throughout the region.
Regional Housing Need Allocated to San Francisco Bay Area Region
ABAG staff worked collaboratively with the State of California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) to determine the regional housing need. On April 6, 2007, the State of California
issued, to ABAG, a regional housing need of 214,500-227,500 housing units for the San Francisco Bay
Area for the 2007-2014 cycle. ABAG accepted 214,500 housing units as the region's need and applied
the methodologies adopted by the Executive Board on January 18, 2007 to deteimine what each
jurisdiction's allocation would be (Attachment 4). The regional housing need allocation for Dublin is
slightly less than what was presented to the City Council on January 16, 2007 (see Table 2 below).
Page 2 of3
Table 2~ Re ional Housin Need Allocation for Dublin
REGION TOTAL 230,743* 230,743* 214,500
Dublin Total 5,436 3,440 3,330
Above Moderate 2,668 960 924
Moderate 1,441 669 653
Low 531 690 661
Very Low 796 1,121 1,092
* Total Regional Allocation from 1999-2006 was used for estimating the 2007-2014 Regional Allocation
ANALYSIS:
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) methodology was adopted on January 18, 2007. ABAG
is no longer accepting comments on the methodology; however, a 60 day public comment period has
begun, during which time ABAG is accepting comments on the draft allocation. Jurisdictions have until
September 18, 2007 to submit requests to ABAG for revisions to their allocations.
Regional Housing Need Allocation for Dublin
Based on the draft allocation issued by ABAG, Dublin's total allocation of housing units for the 2007-
2014 cycle would be 3,330, which is 110 less than what was estimated in January 2007. The allocation of
housing units based on affordability is also slightly less in every income category than what was estimated
in January (see Table 2 above). The number of very low income units dropped by 29 units, low income
units dropped by 29 units, moderate income units dropped by 16 units and above moderate income units
dropped by 36 units.
In order to obtain certification by the State of California for the City's Housing Element, the City will
need to plan for 3,330 units during the 2007-2014 cycle. Planning for these units requires that the City
remove constraints and adequately zone land to allow for the construction of the units. The State does not
require that the units be constructed; however, the City must demonstrate that land has been zoned
accordingly to allow for the construction of the units. Based on the amount of land available for
development, the City would be able to meet the obligation of planning for 3,330 units during the 2007-
2014 cycle.
During the last Housing Element cycle, the City of Dublin was successful in designating land to allow for
the construction ofthe City's allocation (5,436 units).
NEXT STEPS:
The 60 day public comment period on the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation closes on September
18, 2007. Following the close of the public comment period, ABAG will have 60 days to respond to
jurisdictions' requests for revisions to their allocations. Ifrevisions are made to the allocations, a 60 day
appeal period will follow during which time jurisdictions can appeal their RHNA. Should any revisions
affect Dublin's allocation, Staff will provide the City Council with an informational report describing the
revision. Arty appeals submitted by jurisdictions will be heard at a public hearing in early 2008 and final
allocations will be made prior to April 2008.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council receive the report.
Page 3 of3
\6bIZ
CITY CLERK
File # D~!C1-~u
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 19, 2006
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMENDATION: . 1)
/7,:;::."r-
&' /l~""
FINANCIAL STATEMENT:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
Informational Report on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) Methodology for the 2007-2014 Housing Element Cycle
Report prepared by Marnie R. Nuccio, Associate Planner
1)
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) memo to the
ABAG Executive Board dated October 26, 2006 regarding
Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) memo to the
Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) dated October 11,
2006 regarding Scenarios for Allocating Units by Income
2)
2)
Receive report and accept the 2007-2014 RHNA
methodology for the allocation of total housing units and
allocation of units by income level, OR
Direct Staff to forward comments to ABAG regarding the
methodology.
None.
State law requires that all governing bodies (Le. the City Council) adopt a comprehensive, long term
General Plan for the physical development of the City. The General Plan must include the 7 State
mandated elements; one of which is the Housing Element. The Housing Element establishes specific
goals, policies and objectives to meet the current and future housing needs of the City. The Housing
Element must be updated approximately every 5 years and submitted for review to the State Department
of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance with State law. The City completed the
most recent update to the Housing Element in June 2003 and received State certification in July 2003.
The next update to the Housing Element is due in June 2009.
COpy TO:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1 of7
G:\General Plan\Housing Element\RHNA 2007-2014\12-19-06 CCSR RHNA Methodology.doc
"
..
g...zt-D7 7~Gi-
ATTACHMENT 1
Ztfb \~
The updating of the Housing Element begins with the State issuing Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA) numbers to the local Council of Governments. The Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) is the Council of Governments for the 9 county San Francisco Bay Area region. In accordance
with State law, ABAG is required to determine the existing and projected housing need for the San
Francisco Bay Area and to develop a methodology by which to allocate the region's housing need to
individual counties and cities within the region. The State, in collaboration with ABAG, assigns the
RHNA numbers which must then be incorporated into each jurisdictions Housing Element update.
1999-2006 RHNA Period
Regional Housing Need
The methodology adopted by ABAG for allocating the regions total housing need during the 1999-2006
Housing Element cycle included two factors, 1) Household Growth and 2) Employment Growth. Both
factors were weighted equally at 50% (See Table 1 below).
Table 1. 1999-2006 RHNA Methodolo
Factor
Household Growth from 1999-2006
Em loyment Growth from 1999-2006
Total
Percent e
50%
50%
100%
The number of housing units allocated to each jurisdiction was based on the projected growth in
households and employment for the 1999-2006 RHNA period. Based on this methodology, the City of
Dublin was assigned a RHNA of 5,436 housing units.
State law requires that local jurisdictions remove constraints and adequately zone land to allow for the
construction of their RHNA. During the 1999-2006 RHNA period, the City of Dublin successfully zoned
land to allow for the construction of over 5,436 housing units. While local jurisdictions are not required
to actually construct their allocation of housing units, the City issued building permits for the construction
of 3,585 new housing units during the 1999-2006 RHNA period. Dublin's success in enabling the
construction of new housing units surpasses that of many jurisdictions within the Bay Area.
Affordabi1ity
In addition to adopting a methodology for allocating the regions total housing need to individual
jurisdictions, ABAG also adopts a methodology for the distribution of affordable housing units. When
allocating affordable housing units, the methodology attempts to ensure that all communities contribute
equally in providing affordable housing and responding to existing needs for affordable housing without
over concentrating lower income households within a particular community.
In an effort to move the Bay Area region towards a more. equitable distribution of affordable housing
units, the methodology adopted for the 1999-2006 RHNA period started with each jurisdictions existing
income distribution and then moved it 50% towards the regional average. Based on this methodology, the
City of Dublin received an allocation of 796 very low income units, 531 low income units, 1,441
moderate income units, and 2,668 above moderate income units (see Table 2 below).
Page 2 of7
Table 2. Ci of Dublin 1999-2006 RHNA
Income ~~~1 1999-2006 RHNA **
91J I~
Very Low Income
<50% AMI*
Low Income
>50% to <80% AMI*
Moderate Income
( >80% to <120% AMI*
Above Moderate Income
> 120% AMI*
Total 5436 3585
* AMI: Area Median Income. The Area Median Income for a family of four living in Alameda County in 2006 is $86,300.
**Local jurisdictions are required by State law to remove constraints and adequately zone land to allow for the construction of
their housing unit allocations.
***Pennitted is defined as the issuance of Building Pennits for the construction of a residential unit.
796
T otal"fsJ:ni
1999-
257 (32%)
531
239 (45%)
1,441
369 (26%)
2,668
2,720 (102%)
2007-2014 RHNA Period
In order to determine how to allocate the Bay Area's share of housing need for the 2007-2014 RHNA
period, ABAG assembled a Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) comprised of elected officials, city
and county members and stakeholder representatives to advise ABAG staff on a methodology for the
allocation. City Staff attended the HMC meetings which were held monthly from May to October 2006.
ABAG discussed with the HMC various methodologies and a variety of factors were considered
including, household growth; existing employment; employment growth; household growth near transit;
and, employment growth near transit. In all, the HMC reviewed 10 different methodologies.
The HMC was also asked to recommend a methodology for determining the Regional Income Allocations.
The Regional Income Allocations set forth the number of RHNA housing units which must be set aside
for very low, low, moderate and above moderate income levels.
Regional Housing Need
The HMC recommended that the following five RHNA factors be used in allocating the regional housing
need:
1) Household Growth;
2) Existing Employment;
3) Employment Growth;
4) Household Growth near Transit; and
5) Employment Growth near Transit (See Table 3 below).
Projections 2007 is used to determine what each jurisdictions household growth and employment growth
will be for the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Because Projections 2007 looks at data in 5 year increments (i.e.
2005,2010,2015, etc.) ABAG will look at growth between 2005 and 2010 and between 2010 and 2015
and average the growth on a yearly basis to estimate the 2007 and 2014 numbers. For example, Dublin's
number of households in 2005 was 13,440 and is projected to be 16,600 in 2010 for a total household
growth of 3,160 households. By dividing the household growth (3,160 households) by 5 (the number of
years between 2005 and 2010) you obtain an estimated yearly household growth rate of 632 households.
In order to estimate Dublin's 2007 household population you would add the total number of households in
2005 (13,440) plus 632 households for 2006 and another 632 households for 2007. The result is an
Page 3 of7
estimated 14,704 households for 2007. The same formula would be used to estimate hous~rJJ l~
population in 2014 as well as existing employment and employment growth.
Each factor is weighted based upon the relative importance of the factor. For example, the HMC felt that
household growth over the next 7 years (2007-2014) should receive the greatest weighting at 40% since
this factor directly affects the need for additional housing units. Existing Employment in 2007 is included
as a factor and weighted 20% in order to improve the existing jobs/housing balance within the region.
Employment Growth is also included as a factor and weighted 20% in order to maintain a jobs/housing
balance over the next 7 years. Lastly, the HMC felt that Household Growth and Employment Growth near
Transit were important factors to include but gave them a lower weighting of 10% each. To determine
Household Growth and Employment Growth near Transit, ABAG will focus on growth within a 12 mile
radius of existing or planned transit stations. Including growth near transit as a factor is intended to focus
future development near transit stations to help alleviate traffic congestion within the region.
Table 3. HMC Recommendation for the RHNA Methodolo
Factor
Household Growth from 2007-2014
Existin Em 10 ent in 2007
Em 10 ent Growth from 2007-2014
Household Growth near transit from 2007-2014
Em 10 ent Growth near transit from 2007-2014
Percenta e
40%
20%
20%
10%
10%
Once the State of California releases the regional housing needs number in March 2007, ABAG will apply
the methodology shown in Table 3 above to distribute the housing units among the individual counties
and cities within the region.
Affordability
ABAG presented the HMC with four different scenarios for allocating housing units by income level
(Attachment 2). However, the HMC did not recommend any of these scenarios because they felt that the
allocation of housing units by income level based on the regional income distribution was the best
solution (See Table 4 below). The regional income distribution is proposed to be based on household
income data from Census 2000 or data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that
specifies household incomes by household size.
Table 4. Recommended Re ional Income Allocation based on Affordabili
Income Level Area Median Income* AMI
V Low Income U to 50% AMI
Low Income 50%-80% AMI
Moderate Income 80%-120% AMI
Above Moderate Income Above 120% AMI
Total
*In 2006, the Area Median Income for a family of four living in Alameda County is $86,300.
Percenta e
23%
16%
19%
42%
100%
By assigning each community an equal share of the region's affordable housing units, the methodology
recognizes that the need for affordable housing is a problem that is shared by the region as a whole and it
is consistent with the idea that every jurisdiction must contribute its "fair share" to providing affordable
housing. The proposed methodology also promotes a more equitable income distribution by moving each
jurisdiction to the same standardized income distribution and is more likely to avoid the over
concentration of income groups within a particular jurisdiction.
Page 4 of7
ABA G Executive Board Meeting
l5Ub l ~
At the October 26, 2006 ABAG Executive Board Meeting, ABAG staff presented the HMC's
recommendation for the RHNA methodology and the Regional Income Allocation methodology (See
Tables 3 and 4 above). The Executive Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the release of the draft
methodology for public review and comment. The public review and comment period is November 16,
2006 to January 18, 2007. On January 18th, ABAG staff will return to the Executive Board with a
recommendation on the final methodology including responses to all comments received during the public
review and comment period.
ANALYSIS:
2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
Based on the recommended methodology (See Table 3 above), and if the total RHNA were the same as
last cycle, City Staff estimates that Dublin's total housing allocation would be reduced by approximately
39% from the previous 1999-2006 Housing Element cycle. Because the RHNA numbers for the 2007-
2014 period have not been released yet by the State of California, and in order to illustrate the proposed
methodology, ABAG has applied the draft methodology to the total 1999-2006 RHNA resulting in a
hypothetical allocation of 3,326 housing units (See Table 5 below).
Table 5. Comparison of RHNA for 1999-2006 and 2007-2014
RHNA Period
1999-2006
2007-2014
*Not the official RHNA number for 2007-2014.
Housinl! Units
5,436
3,326*
The primary reason for the anticipated reduction in RHNA is based on the new methodology which has
been designed to direct growth to the more urbanized areas of the region (i.e. San Francisco, Oakland, and
San Jose) and by including existing employment centers as a factor and not just employment growth. By
taking into consideration existing employment centers, jurisdictions which currently have a greater
imbalance between jobs and housing would be assigned a larger number of housing units in order to try
and correct the imbalance.
Since Dublin currently has a jobs/housing balance of approximately 1.39 jobs per housing unit and
planned future development that will provide both jobs and housing, Dublin is not anticipated to have a
tremendous imbalance.
2007-2014 Regional Income Allocation based on Affordability
One of the goals of the RHNA process is to ensure that local governments consider the housing needs of
persons at all income levels. In allocating affordable units to individual jurisdictions, the idea is that each
locality must contribute their fair share in planning for some of the region's need for very low and low
income units and at the same time avoiding or mitigating the over concentration of income groups in a
jurisdiction. To meet these goals, the proposed methodology for the 2007-2014 period would assign each
jurisdiction's need based on the regional average. In order to illustrate this, ABAG applied the proposed
methodology (See Table 3 above) to the 1999-2006 RHNA numbers (See Table 6 below).
Page 5 of7
Table 6. Com arison of RHNA b Income Cate 0
1999-2006 RHNA
iJJ
\~
2007-2014 RHNA
Income Level Dwellin Units % of total Dwellin Units
Ve Low Income 796 15% 765*
Low Income 531 9% 532*
Moderate Income 1,441 26% 632*
Above Moderate Income 2,668 50% 1,397*
Total 5,436 100% 3,326*
*These numbers are based on the 1999-2006 RHNA and are not the official RHNA numbers for 2007-2014.
% of total
23%
16%
19%
42%
100%
Again, it should be noted that the number of total housing units and corresponding breakdown of units by
income category are illustrative only. Until the State determines the overall housing need for the entire
Bay Area region, Staffwill not know what Dublin's allocation will be.
While Dublin's total allocation of housing units for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle is anticipated to be 39%
less than the previous RHNA, the percentage of very low and low income units is expected to be higher in
order to meet the region's need for housing units in these income categories. Though the percentage of
very low and low income units may be higher, the actual dwelling unit count in these categories is
expected to be relatively the same as the previous RHNA. Conversely, the percentage of moderate and
above moderate units is expected to be lower and the actual dwelling unit count significantly less than the
previous RHNA in these income categories.
NEXT STEPS:
Regional Housing Needs Allocation Timeline (See Table 7)
As mentioned previously in this report, the public review and comment period for the 2007-2014 RHNA
methodology will end on January 18,2007. Also, on January 18th ABAG staff will return to the ABAG
Executive Board to present the final methodology and all comments received during the public review and
comment period. It is expected that the State of California will release the draft RHNA numbers to
ABAG in March 2007 and ABAG anticipates issuing the draft RHNA numbers to individual jurisdiction's
by June 30, 2007. Following the release of the draft RHNA numbers there will be a revision period at
which time local jurisdictions will have an opportunity to review and request changes to their allocations.
At the close of the revision period, the final allocations will be assigned and an appeal period begins
(approximately from November 2007 to April 2008). It is expected that the final RHNA numbers will be
allocated by ABAG no later than June 30, 2008. The RHNA timeline is set forth in Table 7 below.
Table 7. RHNA Timeline
Date
November 16, 2006
November 16,2006 - Janu
Janu 18,2007
March 1, 2007
June 30, 2007
June 2007 - October 2007
November 2007 - A ri1 2008
June 30, 2008
June 30, 2009
ABAG Executive Board releases proposed methodology for
ublic review and comment
60-da Public Review and Comment Period on methodolo
ABAG Executive Board to ado t final methodo10
State of California determination of re iona1 housin
ABAG issues draft RHNA numbers
Revision Period
A ea1s Period
Final RHNA numbers issued b ABAG
Housin Element U date due to State of California
Page 60f7
CONCLUSION:
lOb 19
The allocation of RHNA marks the beginning of the next Housing Element update and the methodology,
which will be adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on January 18, 2007, will determine how the 2007-
2014 RHNA is distributed to local jurisdictions. ABAG is currently accepting comments on the
methodology for the allocation of total housing units and affordable housing units.
Staff recommends that the five proposed factors used for the methodology - household growth, existing
employment, employment growth, household growth near transit and employment growth near transit - be
accepted because the factors consider expected household and employment growth as well as existing
employment to ensure an adequate jobs/housing balance for the region. Staff also recommends that the
use of the regional income allocations to distribute affordable housing units to individual jurisdictions be
accepted because the methodology recognizes that the need for affordable housing is a problem that is
shared by the region as a whole and requires that all jurisdictions contribute to providing affordable
housing in order to reduce the over concentration of affordable units within a particular jurisdiction.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive report and accept the 2007-2014 RHNA
methodology for the allocation of total housing units and allocation of units by income level, OR 2) Direct
Staff to forward comments to ABAG regarding the methodology.
Page 7 of7
~ iJl.. l'3
C I T Y C L.E R K U
File # D~~QJ-[2:]~
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 16, 2007
SUBJECT:
ATTACHMENTS:
RECOMMEND10N:
~2)
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Background
Update on Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
Methodology for Income Allocations for the 2007-2014 Housing
Element Cycle
Report prepared by Marnie R. Nuccio, Associate Planner
1)
2)
3)
City Council Agenda Statement dated December 19,2006.
Association of Bay Area Governments Memo dated January
4,2007 regarding Alternative Income Allocation Method.
Draft letter to ABAG regarding the proposed alternative
income allocation methodology.
1)
Receive report and direct Staff to forward comments
(Attachment 3) to ABAG regarding the proposed Alternative
Income Allocation Methodology for the 2007-2014 Housing
Element cycle, OR
Accept the proposed Alternative Income Allocation
Methodology for the 2007-2014 Housing Element cycle.
On November 16, 200~, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Executive Board adopted a
Resolution authorizing the release of the proposed Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
methodology for public review and comment. The. comment period is still currently open and will close
on January 18, 2007. The ABAG Executive Board will also meet on January 18th to adopt the fInal
RHNA methodology.
At the December 19,2006 City Council meeting, Staff presented an informational report on the RHNA
methodology and the City Council accepted the proposed methodology. The methodology included the
allocation of the regional housing need as well as the allocatiot;l of housing units by income level (See
COPY TO:
------------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------------
Page 1 of 4
G:\General Plan\Housing Element\RHNA 2007-2014\0 }-16-O7 CCSR RBNA Method Alternatives.doc
ATTACHMENT 2
Attachment 1). The proposed methodologies for the 2007-2014 RHNA period were as fOIlO::! ~lg
Tables 1 and 2 below):
Committee Recommendation for the RHNA Methodolo
Household Growth from 2007-2014
Existin Em 10 ent in 2007
Em 10 ent Growth from 2007-2014
Household Growth near transit from 2007-2014
Em 10 ent Growth near transit from 2007-2014
40%
20%
20%
10%
10%
Table 2. Recommended Re .onal Income Allocation based on Affordabili
V Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Total
U to 50% AMI
50%-80% AMI
80%-120% AMI
Above 120% AMI
Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) Meeting of January 4, 1007
Since the opening of the public review and comment period, ABAG has received comments from various
jurisdictions regarding the proposed RHNA methodology.
Allocation of the Relrion's Total Housinl! Need
The most prevalent concern expressed by local jurisdictions regarding the proposed methodology for
allocating the region's total housing need was regarding the transit factor. The proposed methodology
includes two transit factors: household growth near transit and employment growth near transit. Both
factors are weighted at 10% (See Table 1 above). Local jurisdictions expressed concern regarding the use
of both existing and planned transit as factors in the methodology based on a belief that this would
unfairly burden those jurisdictions with either existing or planned transit and those cities with multiple
transit stations. In response to these comments, ABAG staff developed several new alternative
methodologies for consideration. The HMC reviewed these new alternatives at the January 4, 2007
meeting and by majority vote recommended that the proposed methodology remain unchanged (See Table
1 above).
Allocation of Housinl! Units by Income Level
Local jurisdictions also expressed concern to ABAG regarding the allocation of housing units by income
level. Some jurisdictions believe that by applying the "equal share" concept, the methodology does not do
enough to alleviate existing concentrations of lower income housing. Thesejurisdictions il)dicated that
they would be unfairly burdened with additional lower income housing further perpetuating regional,
social and economic inequities. In response to these comments, ABAG staff prepared several new
alternative methodologies for consideration (See Attachment 2). The HMC reviewed the new alternatives
and by majority vote recommended a new methodology that takes into consideration existing
concentrations of lower income housing.
ANALYSIS:
Since the HMC did not recommend to ABAG any modifications to the proposed methodology for the
allocation of total housing units, which the City Council reviewed at the December 19, 2006 meeting,
Page 2 of 4
ff . . b' 10,11.../3
Sta s analysis focuses only on the proposed changes to the methodology for allocatmg units y mcome. ()
level.
Allocation of Housing Units by Income Level
The previously proposed methodology for the allocation of housing units by income level applied an
"equal share" approach whereby all jurisdictions within the region would be required to provide the same
percentage of lower income housing based on the distribution of lower income households within the
region (See Table 2 above). By taking the "equal share" approach, every jurisdiction would contribute to
the region's need for lower income housing; however, this approach did not take into consideration
existing concentrations oflower income housing.
The propo~ed alternative methodology attempts to factor into the allocation existing concentrations of
10wer income housing. ' Census 2000 data for local household income distribution and regional household
income distribution would be used by ABAG to determine where existing concentrations of lower income
housing currently exist and where additional lower income housing is needed. A comparison of a
jurisdiction's existing household income distribution to the region's household income distribution would
determine whether the jurisdiction has more, or less, lower income households than the region as a whole.
If a jurisdiction has more lower income households (i.e. Oakland), then they would be assigned a smaller
percentage oflower income housing units for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle. If a jurisdiction has less lower
income households (i.e. Piedmont), they would be assigned a larger percentage of lower income housing
units for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle. For example, under the previously proposed methodology, Oakland
and Piedmont would both be required to set aside 23% of their housing unit allocation for very-low
income households. Under the currently proposed methodology, Oakland would be assigned 13% (to
correct for existing concentrations of lower income housing) whereas Piedmont would be assigned 33%
(to compensate for an existing lack of lower income housing). The actual number of lower income
housing units assigned to a jurisdiction would be a percentage of that jurisdiction's total housing unit
allocation.
The multiplier used by ABAG in calculating the proposed alternative methodology is 175%. This means
that each jurisdiction is allocated 175% of the difference between its 2000 household income distribution
and the 2000 regional household income distribution. Other multipliers of 100%, 125% or 150% could
also be used to address existing concentrations of low income housing. ABAG proposed a multiplier of
150% to the HMC; however, this was not supported by a majority.
Implications for Dublin
Under the previously proposed methodology, Dublin would have been required to provide the following:
Very Low Income
Low Income
Moderate Income
Above Moderate Income
Previous Proposed
Methodology
23%
16%
19%
42%
Currently Proposed
Methodology
33%
20%
19%
28%
Based on the proposed alternative methodology now recommended by the HMC, which utilizes a 175%
multiplier, Dublin's percentage of very low and low income units would increase by 10% and 4%
respectively, an increase of 343 very low income units and 121 10w income units (please note that the
number of units stated are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the actual
Page 3 of 4
allocation); the percentage of moderate income units would remain proportionately the same; and, abol11 \ ~
moderate income units would be reduced by 14% (See Table 3 below).
Total
Need
Dublin 3,440*
Percentage of
Total
"'The Total Need number reflects the 1999-2006 RHNA and is not the official RHNA number for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle.
Similarly, the numbers shown for very low, low, moderate and above moderate incomes are based on the 1999-2006 RHNA
and are used for illustrative purposes only; they do not reflect Dublin's actual allocation for the 2007-2014 RHNA.
569*
16%
661*
19%
1,432*
42%
690*
20%
The most significant impact of the newly proposed alternative methodology to Dublin would be providing
1,121 very low income units (343 additional units from the previously proposed methodology) within the
2007-2014 RHNA cycle. While Staff supports the methodology in concept, it may be unrealistic to expect
that such a large number of very low income units could be provided within a short 7 year time frame.
Additionally, the types of support services utilized most frequently by lower income households are
currently located within the more urban areas of the region and not in the Tri-Valley area.
Therefore, Staff recommends that the City Council forward a letter (Attachment 3) to ABAG requesting
consideration of the use of a different multiplier to achieve more realistic goals for 2007-2014 RHNA
cycle while continuing to take into consideration existing concentrations of lower income housing. As
shown in Attachment 2, ABAG has calculated an alternative methodology using a 150% multiplier which
would increase Dublin's percentage of very low and low income units by 6% and 3% respectively; an
increase of 235 very 10w income. units and 79 low income units (please note that the number of units
stated are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the actual allocation).
While this results in a slightly lower income allocation for very low and low income units, it is still
somewhat aggressive. Staffs recommendation is that ABAG consider using a less aggressive multiplier
of 100% or 125% thereby taking a more incremental approach to addressing existing concentrations of
lower income housing which is more realistic and more likely to be achievable. It would also give service
providers more of an opportunity to redirect resources to the outlying suburban areas of the region as the
service population grows.
NEXT STEPS:
Since the public review and comment period for the 2007-2014 RHNA methodology closes on January
18,2007, Staff has prepared a draft letter to ABAG for the City Council's consideration which expresses
concern over the proposed alternative methodology for the allocation of housing units by income level
(See Attachment 3).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive report and direct Staff to forward comments
(Attachment 3) to ABAG regarding the proposed Alternative Income Allocation Methodology for the
2007-2014 Housing Element cycle, OR 2) Accept the proposed Alternative Income Allocation
Methodology for the 2007-2014 Housing Element cycle.
Page 4 of 4
J?lfb l ~
Website: http://www.ci.dublin.ca.us
January 17, 2007
VIA F ACSIJv[ILE AND MAIL
(510) 464-7970
Association of Bay Area Governments
Attn: Paul Fassinger, Research Director
P.O. Box 2050
Oakland, CA 94604-2050
Subject: Alternative RHNA Allocation Methodology, Income Allocation
Dear Mr. Fassinger:
Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review and comment on the draft Regional
Housing Needs Allocation methodology which was authorized for release by the ABAG
Executive Board on November 16, 2006.
The City of Dublin supports the proposed methodology for the allocation of the region's housing
need which is based on 40% household growth, 20% existing employment, 20% employment
growth, 10% household growth near transit and 10% employment growth near transit. Dublin
also supports the methodology for,the alloc}ltion of housing units by income level which is based
on an "equal share"approach whereby every jurisdiction would provide 23% very low income
units, 16% low income units, 19% moderate income units and 42% above moderate income
units.
At the January 4,2007 Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) meeting, ABAG presented 3
alternative methodologies for the total income allocation and 3 alternative methodologies for the
allocation of housing units by income level in response to comments received by some local
jurisdictions. Dublin supports the recommendation by the HMC to adopt the originally proposed
methodology (noted above) and does not support ABAG's recommendation for a total allocation
methodology which reduces the weighting of transit.
The alternative methodology for the allocation of housing units by income level which was
recommended by the HMC and supported by ABAG uses a 175% multiplier to calculate the
allocation in an effort to address existing concentrations of lower income housing within the
region. While Dublin supports both ABAG and the HMC in their efforts to reduce existing
concentrations of lower income housing, we feel that the 175% multiplier is too aggressive for
the 7-year planning period. The City respectfully requests that ABAG staff and the Executive
Board consider a less aggressive multiplier of 100% or 125%. It is our belief that a less
Area Code (925) , City Manager 833-6650 ' City Council 833-,6650 ' Personnel 833-6605 . Economic Development 833-6650
Finance 833-6640' Public Works/Engineering 833-6630' Parks & Community Services 833-6645' Police 833-6670
Planning/Code Enforcement 833-661 0 . Building Inspection 833-6620 . Fire Prevention Bureau 833-6606
A'IT ACHMENT 3
l'3Ub'~
aggressive multiplier still works towards the goal of reducing existing concentrations of lower
income housing while producing income allocations that are more realistic and achievable for.
local jurisdictions.
In addition to concerns over the aggressiveness of the multiplier, the City is also concerned about
the lack of services available to serve lower income households in the Tri- Valley area. Again,
while Dublin supports the efforts to reduce existing concentrations oflower income housing, we
feel that approaching the issue incrementally will not only set more realistic goals for our
community and the entire Bay Area, but will also give the support service providers, needed by
lower income households, the opportunity to redirect resources to outlying areas as the service
population grows.
The City of Dublin has made great strides during the last RHNA cycle to remove constraints and.
zone for lower income housing. Over the last RNHA cycle, the City of Dublin has constructed
3,585 housing units offering a range of housing opportunities for all income levels and will
continue to work towards providing housing that is affordable to all income levels. We
recognize the need to address existing concentrations of lower income housing and believe that
taking smaller steps towards achieving this goal will yield better results than setting unrealistic
goals that will not be achievable.
Best Regards,
(1._ cudd~d;
ftet Lockhart
VMayor
CC: Richard Ambrose, Dublin City Manager
Henry Gardner, ABAG Executive Director, Association of Bay Area Governments, P.O.
Box 2050, Oakland, CA 94604 ;
Don Perata, State Senator 9th District, 1515 Clay Street, Suite 2202, Oakland, CA 94612
Mary Hayashi, State" Assembly 18th District, 22320 Foothill Blvd, #540, Hayward, CA
94541
Loni Hancock, State Assembly 14th District, 712 EI Cerrito Plaza, EI Cerrito, CA 94530
20f2
ASSOCIA TION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS
l~\tg
o
Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area
ABAG
MEMO
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
ABAG Executive Board
Paul Fassinger, ABAG Research Director
June 29, 2007
Release of Draft Regional Housing Need Allocation
and Start of Public Comment Period
Overview
The State Department of Housing and Community Development, HCD, has determined that the Bay Area
needs to plan for 214,500 - 227,500 housing units during the 2007 - 2014 planning period. HCD has also
determined how many of these units are needed across four income categories, very low, low, moderate
and above moderate. With this assignment of the regional need by the state, ABAG is responsible for
allocating the total regional need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. This is to be done using the
allocation method adopted by the Executive Board at their January 18,2007 meeting.
The purpose of this memo it to allocate to all the jurisdictions in the Bay Area (excluding the San Mateo
County Subregion) their housing needs, by income category, for the 2007 - 2014 period.
Total Regional Need
The regional housing need is divided into two parts-the existing need and the projected need. In
determining the total regional need for the 2007 - 2014 period existing need is based on state estimates of
total households in 2005, plus growth during 2006. Projected need is determined by household growth in
the region. Household growth is determined by the components of population growth: 1) births or natural
increase; 2) migration and 3) household formation rates. Using these factors, projected regional need of
212,500 housing units was determined. Adding in existing need, the total housing need for the region is
214,500 housing units.
In addition to the total need, 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. Using the lowest end of the range, the regional need assignment, by income
category is:
Income Cate20rv Percent Units
Very-Low 22.8% 48,840
Low 16.4% 35,102
Moderate 19.3% 41,3 16
Above Moderate 41.5% 89.242
Total 100% 214,500
ABAG staff recommends that the Executive Board adopt the minimum number of units, 214,500 housing
units, by income category, for the 2007 - 2014 planning period.
ATTACHMENT 4
2007 - 2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation
Page 2
\600 r ~
Regional Allocations to Jurisdictions
Staff originally provided an example allocation based on the total need (230,743 housing units) from the
last round of the RHNA cycle and the method adopted by the Board at its January 18, 2007 meeting. At
its May 17,2007 meeting, the board was presented with an allocation using the actual regional need
determined by HCD (214,500 housing units) and the adopted method. Consistent with this method the
staff made some adjustments to the calculations. These adjustments were necessary to correctly account
for recent jurisdiction boundary changes, the complete number of transit areas, overlapping station areas
and some changes to the estimates of jobs and housing in those areas.
Unfortunately the calculations were not complete at the time ofthe May meeting and the Executive Board
directed the staff to return to the July meeting with corrected calculations.
The attached table reflects those corrections. Since the overall regional allocation is lower than we
assumed in January, all jurisdictions with the exceptions of Fairfax and Campbell have lower allocations
than in the January example. For Fairfax a boundary change has been made. For Campbell transit factors
have been corrected. The percentage decreases from the January example vary due to the adjustments we
have described. Notably, the decrease to San Francisco was larger than average and the decrease to San
Jose was smaller.
Staff recommends that the Executive Board release the draft allocation of housing units to jurisdictions, as
depicted in Attachment 1.
Recommendations & Next Steps
Staff respectfully recommends that the Executive Board:
1) Accept the State Department of Housing and Community Development determination of the
regional housing need. Adopt the total regional need of214,500 housing units, by income
category.
2) Using the allocation method adopted at the January 18, 2007 Executive Board meeting, approve
the allocation of the regional housing need to jurisdictions outside the San Mateo County
Subregion.
3) Begin the 60 day public comment period. Jurisdictions will have until September 18,2007 to
request revisions to their allocations.
4) ABAG will have 60-days to respond to requests for revisions. After any revisions, local
governments will have an additional 60 days to appeal the Revised RHNA numbers. In early
2008, ABAG will hold a public hearing on appeals. Final RHNA allocations will be made prior to
April 2008. Prior to June 2008, final RHNA will need to be released by ABAG.
Conclusion
The draft allocation is the next step in implementing the methodology the Executive Board adopted in
January of this year. Throughout this process we have consulted with local jurisdictions and provided
information about the method and its likely results. We believe that the attached allocation fairly and
accurately implants that methodology.
I~Vb 1'6
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
PITTS BURG 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
\I~ t<g
SAN RAFAEL 262 207 288 646 1 ,403
SAUSALlTO 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
CALlSTOGA 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 GA TOS 154 100 122 186 562
MILPITAS 689 421 441 936 2,487
MONTE SERENO 13 9 11 8 41
MORGAN HILL 317 249 246 500 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
\~t t~
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