The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8.1 Reg Hous Needs CITY CLERK File # 0420-50 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 21, 2000 SUBJECT: Regional Housing Needs Determination 1999-2006 Report Prepared by Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner~rdf__~ ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATIO~k/~}] Draft letter to ABAG Alameda County Regional Housing Needs Table for All Bay Area Jurisdictions Regional Housing Need Methodology for Dublin Income Percentage Distribution Tri-Valley Council Letter Receive staff report Authorize the Mayor to sign the ABAG letter and the Tri- Valley Council letter. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Staff and consultant costs associated with completing the City's Housing Element update has been determined as part of Fiscal Year 2000-2001 budget. BACKGROUND: The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has officially submitted the Regional Housing Needs Distribution (RHND) responsibilities for each Bay Area jurisdiction. This RHND process is a State mandate devised to address the need for and planning of housing for all economic segments of every community throughout the State of California. State law requires that the distribution of regional housing needs "... seek to reduce the concentration of lower income households in cities or counties which already have disproportionately high proportions of low income households." The California State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) first determined the Bay Area's regional housing need, and this determination was then finalized through negotiations with ABAG. The RHND process began January 1, 1999 and will end June 30, 2006 (a seven and a half year planning period). Attachment 2 is a table which shows the housing need responsibility that ABAG has identified for Dublin and other jurisdictions in Alameda County and throughout the Bay Area. As required by law, this table further delineates each jurisdiction's housing need responsibility by income category. COPIES TO: In-House Distribution ITEM NO. g:\housing\housing element\cc staffreport re regional housing need The ABAG Executive Board's official release of the Regional Housing Needs numbers initiated a 90-day review period, which began on December 1, 1999. On January 31, 2000, the RHND numbers were released a second time with new processing timelines. As a result of several regional meetings and feedback from jurisdictions, the ABAG Executive Board decided to restart the 90-day review and revision period. The City has the opportunity to evaluate its identified need and the distribution of this need across all income categories. All comments are due to ABAG no later than April 30, 2000. ABAG will then initiate a 60-day review period, beginning May 1, 2000 and ending June 30, 2000, to evaluate and respond to all comments received from the City and other Bay Area jurisdictions and to respond to jurisdictions requesting a revision of their RHND allocation. ABAG staff will bring final housing needs numbers to the ABAG Executive Board for their adoption at their July 20, 2000 meeting. After adoption of the numbers, a 60 to 90-day appeal process will be available to jurisdictions. The appeal process allows for jurisdictions to appeal the adopted ABAG numbers in writing, within 30 days of the final determination by the Executive Board on July 20, 2000. This written appeal would initiate a public hearing. Once all appeals have been heard and decided, the entire packet to RHND numbers will be returned to the Executive Board for approval. Once the Executive Board approves the final RHND numbers, jurisdictions must begin the process of revising their housing elements. Under State Housing Element law, cities and counties are mandated to develop a housing strategy aimed at meeting their housing need. All housing elements are due to the State HCD for certification, by June 30 of 2001. ANALYSIS: CiW's RHND Allocation The City's total RHND allocation is 4,891 housing units. The City will need to provide 4,891 housing units from January 1, 1999 through June 30, 2006, within the following income categories: 720 units - Very Low 495 units - Low 1,285 units - Moderate 2,391 units - Above Moderate (50% of the annual Median Income* for Alameda County) (80% of the annual Median Income* for Alameda County) (120% of the annual Median Income* for Alameda County) (over 120% of the annual Median Income* for Alameda County) 4,891 units - TOTAL * the annual Median Income for Alameda County was $65,700 in February of 1999. Dublin's RHND allocation figure is fairly high because it was based on the following factors: Original State HCD housing goal numbers were high because California is experiencing a severe housing supply shortage with an increase in population. By the year 2005, the population in the Bay Area is expected to grow by 450,000. There is a large difference between the ABAG's Projections forecast of the likely number of households and a local area's share of the regional and State housing goal as identified by law. · Dublin's number reflects past growth trends and future growth potential. · Dublin does not currently have a very high population of low income households. The State aims to reduce the concentration of lower income households in a particular jurisdiction by 2 distributing "shares" of regional housing needs. Dublin needs to provide more affordable housing units to accommodate the City's share of lower income households. The State HCD first determines regional numbers, or "goal numbers" that are not meant to match, and they often exceed, anticipated growth in local jurisdiction housing units. The State HCD then sets a goal vacancy rate and then a housing unit need to meet that vacancy rate, which is derived by assessing potential growth rates (i.e., population, jobs, and households) and loss of housing due to demolition. The numbers derived by the State HCD are then provided to ABAG in the form of a regional housing goals number, which is then broken down into income categories. ABAG is then mandated to distribute the numbers to Bay Area jurisdictions by income categories. ABAG is ultimately responsible for allocating the RHND goal number to cities and counties throughout the Bay Area. When ABAG received the State HCD housing goals number, ABAG noted that the number was too high. The State HCD's RHND for the Bay Area was 310,761 housing units. ABAG's projections model housing unit numbers (based on Projections 2000) was 185,823 housing units. ABAG negotiated with the State HCD to lower the RHND numbers. The final State HCD's RHND for the Bay Area after negotiations, was 230,743. ABAG staff and the Housing Methodology Committee (comprised of city and county representatives) produced a methodology based on Projections 2000. The methodology takes into account growth in terms of both households and jobs. This growth is weighted 90% households and 10% jobs to determine a regional allocation factor to be applied to the regional goal number received from HCD. The methodology is also used to distribute a share of housing to each jurisdiction by income category. This portion of the methodology distributes the share of each j urisdiction's need by moving each jurisdiction's income percentages (percentage of households within very low, low, moderate and above moderate income categories) 50% towards the regional average (see Dublin's methodology calculation, Attachment 3 and the income percentages for each Alameda County city, Attachment 4). Compliance with State Mandate The City's RHND number of 4,891 housing units is very high and constructing these many units over a 7 1/2 year period may be difficult to achieve, especially the construction of 1,215 units for very low and low income households. According to the City's land use projections and housing units finaled in 1999, the City may be able to meet the above moderate and most of the moderate income category of units within the housing element planning period, January 1, 1999 through June 30, 2006 (i.e., 3,535 units in Eastern Dublin and 1,012 units in the rest of Dublin, for a total of 4,547 units). These residential projects have a low density, medium density, or high density land use designation. However, much of this will depend on economic conditions over the next 6 1/2 year The most difficult task will be meeting the 1,215 below market rate units. The City will have met 57 of the 720 very low income category of units during the housing element planning period. However, the City would need to provide an additional 663 housing units for this income category. The City may be able to meet a portion of this requirement with the transit center developments proposed for the East and West Dublin BART stations. Planning staff is in the process of completing the Affordable Housing Implementation Program. The Program's recommended affordable housing policies and programs will have taken into consideration the amount of affordable housing units that the City is required to provide as part of its regional housing needs requirement. Draft Response Letter to ABAG Attachment 1 is the draft response letter to ABAG. The City is requesting that ABAG lower Dublin's RHND numbers based on local land use data and development policies, and existing and future growth patterns for Dublin. The letter also includes a discussion regarding the requirement to provide affordable housing as an "unfunded" State mandate. The letter states that the State should consider providing financial incentives for meeting affordable housing goals. Furthermore, the letter includes a discussion of how environmental constraints, such as the siting of the Red-legged frog, may impede future housing development in Dublin. Other Jurisdictional Comments The Tri-Valley Affordable Housing Committee will be meeting April 14, 2000 to prepare a letter that will be signed by all Committee members. The letter will include responses to ABAG's RHND allocation that are common to all member jurisdictions. In addition, the Tri-Valley Council has drafted a letter (see Attachment 5) that states the RHND numbers are excessive and arbitrary and that the methodology used (with heavy weight on housing and little weight on jobs) promotes suburban sprawl. Staff generally concurs with this letter. The Tri-Valley Council has requested that the letter be signed by the cities of Dublin, San Ramon, Pleasanton and Livermore, and the counties of Alameda and Contra Costa. CONCLUSION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive the staff report and authorize the Mayor to sign the ABAG letter and the Tri-Valley Council letter. 4 March 22, 2000 Eugene Leong, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604 RE: Regional Housing Needs Determination Dear Mr. Leong: In compliance with the 90-day review process for the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), the City of Dublin hereby requests that Dublin's allocation of RHND housing goal numbers be reduced to more accurately reflect existing and future growth patterns for the City of Dublin. The State Department of Housing and Community Development Department (State HCD) and ABAG have allocated very unrealistic housing unit numbers that go beyond what the City projects to reasonably occur from now through June 30, 2006. HISTORIC AND PROJECTED HOUSING UNIT NUMBERS During the last seven years (1993 - 1999), the City has produced a minimal amount of housing units, especially within the very low and low income categories. The following table provides an average annual housing unit production figure for each income category and ABAG's annual RHND target figures. INCOME CATEGORY AVERAGE ANNUAL HOUSING UNIT PRODUCTION 1993 - 1999 ABAG' S ANNUAL TARGET FIGURE Very Low 4 --- 103 Low 0 --- 71 Moderate 91 --- 184 Above Moderate 91 --- 342 TOTAL 186 --- 700 This table indicates the large difference between what Dublin has produced historically and what ABAG has targeted annually, based on the RHND numbers for Dublin. The most productive housing unit year was in 1999 where the City finaled 606 residential building permits (333 units in the above moderate income range; 243 in the moderate income range; and 30 units in the very low income range). The City prepared the following development projections through Fiscal Year 2004/2005 based on the Dublin General Plan and other local land use policies. These development projections have been incorporated into ABAG Projections 2000. Although these projections are only through June 30, 2005, the same approximate yearly projections would most likely continue through June 30, 2006 based on the amount of units left to be built throughout Dublin in compliance with the City's General Plan. DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN PROJECTIONS - FY 2000/2001 THROUGH FY 2004/2005 Fiscal Year 2000 - 2001 Fiscal Year 2001 - 2002 Fiscal Year 2002 - 2003 Fiscal Year 2003 - 2004 Fiscal Year 2004 - 2005 666 dwelling units 808 dwelling units 744 dwelling units 916 dwelling units 807 dwelling units AVERAGE ANNUAL DWELLING UNIT PROJECTIONS: 788 dwelling units Due to current development trends and a very productive housing market in 1999/2000, these projections are very optimistic compared to historical housing trends since 1993. As a result, the City requests that the RHND numbers be revised to reflect a halfway point between the historic annual housing production figure and ABAG's annual RHND target figure. The City requests an RHND figure of 3,652 housing units with the following income category distribution, based on the same RHND 1999 income percentages for Dublin: DUBLIN-PREFERRED RHND ALLOCATION Income Category Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate TOTAL: Construction Need 537 369 960 1,786 3,652 The City sees this as a fair compromise that incorporates Dublin's General Plan objectives and land use policies while still achieving State and regional housing goals for providing housing for all economic segments of the community. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The City's ability to construct additional housing units may be further constrained dUe to stringent State Fish and Game and Federal Fish and Wildlife Service policies and regulations governing threatened and endangered plant and animal species. There may be threatened and/or endangered species in the undeveloped areas of Dublin, which may impede future housing development. REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS AN "UNFUNDED" STATE MANDATE The most challenging part of meeting the City's RHND numbers will be meeting the housing goals for very low and low income households. The City will need to provide 720 housing units for very low income households and 495 housing units for low income households, for a total of 1,215 units. High property values 'within the City make it very difficult, or almost impossible to provide below market-rate units. For example, the raw land cost for 1 acre of residentially-zoned land is about $1 million dollars. Additional costs are attributable to building the infrastructure necessary for supporting the development, i.e., roadway extensions/widenings; freeway interchanges; water and sewer extensions; etc. This high development cost is then reflected in the housing unit costs. Housing developers would need very large subsidies in order to construct affordable units. The City will do its best to construct the 1,215 below-market rate units and the City's affordable housing policies and implementation programs will help achieve this goal. However, State financial incentives should also be given to jurisdictions for meeting these goals. A barrier to fulfilling the needs of very low and low income households is the lack of financial resources available to pay for it. If the State is requiring local jurisdictions to satisfy the housing needs for these economic sectors of the community, efforts must be made at the State level to establish easily accessible financial resources that will cover the costs of the subsidy needed to construct this type of housing. This policy change would particularly benefit jurisdictions with very high land costs that need to provide below market-rate housing. In conclusion, the City requests that the RHND numbers be reduced to more accurately reflect local land use and development policies and existing and future growth patterns for the City of Dublin and all relevant Bay Area jurisdictions. Dublin recognizes the strong need to provide below market-rate housing, however, the construction of 1,215 affordable housing units over the next 6 1/2 years will be very difficult to achieve. The City requests that the State HCD establish easily accessible financial resources for all jurisdictions, especially jurisdictions with very high land costs, which will cover the cost of subsidies needed to construct housing units for very low and low income households. If you have any questions regarding the above information, please feel free to contact me or Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner, of the Planning Department at (925) 833-6610. Very truly yours, Guy S. Houston Mayor c~ Councilmembers Alex Amoroso, ABAG Joseph A. Calabrigo, Town Manager, Danville Gerald Peeler, City Manager, Livermore Deborah Acosta, City Manager, Pleasanton Herb Moniz, City Manager, San Ramon Adolph Martinelli, Director, Community Development Agency, Alameda County Dennis Barry, Director, Community Development Dept., Contra Costa County Rich Ambrose, City Manager Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director Carol Cirelli, Senior Planner g:\housing~housing element~BAG letter 2 ABAG Regional Housing Allocation Page 1 of 2 Second Official Release 02101/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. ALAMEDA County: i RHND Above Average Jurmidictio~ Very Low Low Moderate Allocation Moderate Yearly Need ALAMEDA 1,559 321 196 437 605 208 ALBANY 132 31 16 36 49 18 BERKELEY 721 201 88 175 257 96 DUBLIN 4,891 720 495 1,285 2,391 652 EMERYVILLE 677 156 85 195 241 90 FREMONT 6,612 1,067 649 1,774 3,122 882 HAYVVAR D 1,861 411 232 544 674 248 LIVERMORE 3,889 669 381 1,059 1,780 519 NEWARK 989 163 91 272 463 132 OAKLAND 4,677 1,356 602 1,175 1,544 624 PIEDMONT 29 4 2 6 17 4 PLEASANTON 4,537 656 424 1,101 2,356 605 SAN LEANDRO 1,023 230 129 293 371 136 UNION CITY 2,626 457 263 747 1,159 350 ALAMEDA UNINCORPORATED 11,763 3,962 1,739 3,064 2,998 1,568 ALAMEDA COUNTY TOTAL 45.988 !0.404 5,392 12,153 18.027 6.131 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. RHND Home http ://www. abag.ca, gov/cgi-birdrhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regional Housing Allocation Page 1 of 2 Second Official Release 02101/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. co.nty: RHND Veo' Low ~,o~_ra:.~ Moderate Yearly .J uFisid~cdon Alloc'~'~ion Low ~ d"~ *~ Above Average Need ANTIOCH 5,698 1,180 670 1,465 2,383 760 BRENTWOOD 6,100 1,362 734 1,421 2,583 813 CLAYTON 768 95 60 143 470 102 CONCORD 1,608 315 195 417 681 214 DANVILLE 1,409 179 116 271 843 188 EL CERRITO 222 45 28 57 92 30 HERCULES 1,059 135 87 259 578 141 LAFAYETTE 243 38 22 52 131 32 MARTIN EZ 982 182 105 248 447 131 MORAGA 246 36 21 52 137 33 OAKLEY 874 152 93 230 399 117 ORINDA 323 46 27 62 188 43 PINOLE 327 55 41 83 148 44 PITTSBU RG 2,634 561 319 724 1,030 351 PLEASANT HILL 572 104 65 139 264 76 RICHMOND 1,599 415 198 408 578 213 SAN PABLO 266 79 38 66 83 35 SAN RAMON 4,254 576 371 932 2,375 567 WALNUT CREEK 1,256 220 152 315 569 167 CONTRA COSTA 10,083 2,048 1,226 2,577 4,232 1,344 UNINCORPORATED CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ~ -~3 .'~0.v- 7.323 4,568 9.92t 18 21t 5,403 TOTAL ' ' ' http://www, abag.ca, gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regional He,using Allocation Page 1 of 2 Second Official Release 02/01/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. MARiN ~' County: I RHHD Very Low Low Moc~u,a[= Amov. Average JurisidictJon Allocation ~" '~' '`~ Moderate Yearly Need BELVEDERE 18 3 I 3 11 2 CORTE MADERA 99 16 10 25 / 48 13 FAIRFAX 79 15 9 23 32 11 LARKSPUR 103 19 10 29 45 14 MILL VALLEY 202 36 20 49 97 27 NOVATO 2,252 417 219 635 981 300 ROSS 19 3 2 4. 10 3 SAN ANSELMO 192 42 18 49 83 . 26 SAN RAFAEL 1,951 416 200 520 815 260 SAUSALITO 177 31 15 43 88 24 TIBURON 150 24 14 29 83 20 MARIN UNINCORPORATED 1,321 216 126 241 738 176 MARIN COUNTY TOTAL 6.563 i,235 644 ~.-~50 3,031 $75 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. RHND Home Copyright ~1996-2000 ABAG. All rights reserved. By Kearey Smith, Regional Planner http://www.abag.ca, gov/cgi-birdrhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regional Housing Allocation Page 1 of 1 Second Official Release 02/01/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. NApA County: i ~ ~ P,'H~*,.iD Very Low Lo~x~ ~,4~us~a~e Moderate Yearly Need .... ~ .... Above .Average JuFisid~ction A~location - AMERICAN CANYON 1,306 228 183 346 549 174 CALISTOGA 192 49 35 45 63 26 NAPA 2,959 619 449 748 1,143 395 ST HELENA 130 28 19 33 50 17 YOUN~ILLE 79 19 14 18 28 tl NAPA UNINCORPORATED 1,772 365 251 416 740 236 ~APA COUNTY TOTAL 6,43S t,308 951 t,596 2,573 858 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. RHND Home Copyright ~1996-2000 ABAG. All rights reserved. By Kearey Smith, Regional Planner http://www.abag.ca, gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regional Housing Allocation Page 1 .of 1 Second Official Release 02/01/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation .by county. "SAN FRANCISCO ~ County: I , ~ Above Average RFIND Very Low Moderate Moderate ' Jurisidict[on All3car)on Low 'Yearly Need SAN FRANCISCO 14,396 3,714 1,552 3,953 5,177 1,919 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY TOTAL 14.396 3,714 '~.552 ~ '~ 5.177 19t9 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. RHND Home Copyright (Dt996-2000 ABAG. All rights reserved. By Kearey Smith, Regional Planner http ://~www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regio. nal Ho.using Allocation Page 1 of 2 Second Official Release 02/0112000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. County: pAN MATEO ........... ~ ~ ATH ERTO N 113 15 7 18 73 BELMONT 271 49 26 68 . 128 BRISBANE ~6 87 36 90 133 BURLINGAME 282 55 29 78 120 COLMA ~ 10 5 12 17 DALY CI~ 978 199 101 273 405 ~ST PALO ALTO 1,005 281 120 271 333 FOSTER CI~ 659 92 53 157 357 HALF MOON BAY 758 142 72 170 374 HILLSBOROUGH 137 18 9 23 87 MENLO PARK ~2 102 52 134 254 MILLBRAE 450 88 44 117 201 PACIFICA 999 181 93 269 456 PORTO~ VALLEY 137 21 8 21 87 REDWOOD CI~ 1,889 397 197 486 809 SAN BRUNO 213 41 23 61 88 SAN CARLOS 129 23 12 31 63 SAN MATEO 1,947 384 198 533 832 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 1,477 308 151 396 622 WOODSIDE 65 9 4 12 40 SAN MATEO UNINCORPORATED 2,018 304 182 541 991 15 36 46 6 130 134 101 72 60 133 252 28 ~7 260 197 9 269 .~23 I http://www.abag.ca, gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regional Hox~sing Allocation Page 1 of 2 Second Official Release 02/01/2000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. SANTA cLARA County: I /F J u risid i ction R H N D Allocation CAMPBELL 1,068 CUPERTINO 4,212 GILROY 3,677 LOS ALTOS 300 LOS ALTOS HILLS 70 LOS GATOS 206 MILPITAS 2,745 MONTE SERENO 124 MORGAN HILL 2,991 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2,941 PALO ALTO 1,001 SAN JOSE 24,950 SANTA CLARA 4,228 SARATOGA 590 SUNNYVALE 3,713 SANTA CLARA UNINCORPORATED 1,240 SANTA CLARA COUNTY TOTAL 54;055 Ave~acje Very Above Yearly Low Low Moderate Moderate Need 228 110 291 439 142 640 320 984 2,268 562 891 340 1,004 1,442 490 44 24 64 168 40 8 4 13 45 9 37 19 49 101 27 442 231 718 1,354 366 17 8 22 77 17 549 285 734 1,423 399 602 294 845 1,200 392 191 86 243 481 133 5,113 2,345 6,716 10,776 3,327 866 408 1,182 1,772 564 82 42 117 349 79 715 362 1,032 1,604 495 278 140 555 267 165 10.703 5,018 t4,569 23,766 7,207 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. RHND Home http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_allocation.pl 03/13~2000 ABAG Regional Housing Allocation Page 1 of 1 Second Official Release 02/0112000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. SOLANO ~'~ ' county: I RHND Very LOW Low Moderate Above Average Jurisidicdon , ~ ~. A ~o,.a,lon .' i'.4oderate Yearly Need BENIClA 181 31 22 39 89 24 DIXON 1,359 249 225 349 536 181 FAIRFIELD 3,287 658 505 831 1,293 438 RIO VISTA 2,175 559 305 530 781 290 SUISUN CITY 921 176 116 233 396 123 VACAVlLLE 4,339 807 604 1,088 1,840 579 VALLE JO 2,950 629. 442 703 1,176 393 SOLANO UNINCORPORATED 7,434 1,371 1,019 2,093 2,951 991 SOLANO COUNTY TOTAL 22,645 4.480 3.238 5,866 9,062 3.019 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. RHND Home Copyright ~1996-2000 ABAG. All rights reserved. By Kearey Smith, Regional Planner http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-birdrhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regional Hcmsing Allocation Page 1 of 1 Second Official Release 0210112000 Use the selection box below to see each jurisdictions RHND Allocation by county. SONOMA ~ county: t RHND Above Average Jurisidicdon Very Low Low Moderate Allocation Moderate Yearly Need CLOVERDALE 413 93 52 124 144 55 COTATI 483 96 55 140 192 64 HEALDSBURG 593 116 83 176 218 79 PETALUMA 597 108 67 162 260 80 ROHNERT PARK 878 166 115 245 352 117 SANTA ROSA 5,465 1,101 712 1,502 2,150 729 SEBASTOPOL 157 33 20 43 61 21 SONOMA 578 124 78 157 219 77 WINDSOR 3,471 722' 401 930 1,418 463 SONOMA UNINCORPORATED 13,041 2,522 2,186 2,969 5,364 1,739 SONOMA COUNTY TOTAL 25,676 5,081 3,769 6,448 t0,378 3,423 Notes: RHND Allocation based upon ABAG Projections 2000 Jurisdiction Boundaries. Independent rounding may affect totals. RHND Home Copyright ~1996-2000 ABAG. All rights reserved. By Kearey Smith, Regional Planner http://www.abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_allocation.pl 03/13/2000 ABAG Regi;onal H~)using Distribution MOdel Page 1 of 2 ABAG Regional Housing Distribution Model Second Official Release 02/01/2000 Jurisdiction: ]"D'0"i~i~i"fl Share of Households Households HOusehold Household 2006 1999 Growth Growth 11,920 - 8,133 = 3,787 2.14% Jobs 2006 Jobs 1999 Job Growth Share of Job Growth 32,050 - 23,706 = 8,344 1.97% Share of Job Growth Share of 1 HCD Weight Household Minus Regional Factor Growth Weight Need Factor ( 1.97% X 0.1 + 2.14% X 0.9 ) X 230743 Construction Needed = 4,891 Income Distribution 50% Towards the Regional Average Income 1990 Income 1990 Regional 1999 Income Construction Income Category Percentage Percentage Percentage Need Very Low 8.80% 20.7% 14.70% 720 Low 8.70% 11.6% 10.10% 495 Moderate 26.60% 26.3% 26.30% 1,285 Above 55.90% 41.3% 48.90% 2,391 Moderate Methodolo~ Home Att m $ http://www, abag.ca.gov/cgi-bin/rhnd_meth.pl 03/13/2000 Jurisdiction ALAMEDA ALBANY BERKELEY DUBLIN EMERYVILLE FREMONT HAYWARD LIVERMORE NEWARK OAKLAND Regional Allocation of HCD Units ..... ' .... I~559 20.7% 11.6% 26.3% 41.3% Above Average Yearly Very Low Low Moderate Moderate Need 1 ~2 ~1 16 ~7 49 18 2~.2°/o 12. ~°/o 27.7% ~6.8% :. '.; ';:- ~ q~.: .:;~;~.-~:'-".202:'.~. ".'.:-;::~. ;?:": :;:.88:'~r~::~?.~:~;?-~-.176 ,..?: ~: . . -.: ?:~, :':~:'. : ~,~:. /.,: - ' ...28.0%~t~:.~.~.:-',.12.2%?~?-~' ,24.4% 4,891 72~ 496 1,295 2,~77 652 14.8% 10.1% 26.5% 48.6% 6,612 1,071 652 1,786 3,104 882 16.2% 9.90/0 27.0% 46.9% ................ -,::-.-,,:~ .~:~ ::.~. ~.-,-,:' ~...: '-.~, ~-. ~-,..-,.~.:. ,~ :~:~; ..,,..,' ~,~, ......... ........ 669 ..' ;'-, ,...:.~, z~?.:''.. '-tF::~.:? :-~t.r. I'RA1 '~ ' ':-': ~ '~ t;~?~?.412: '..~,~:-':;' .:' '~, ,233 c::~ ;:. ?:~;~ 5~77. ' .~ :,:..- :...~ .... .:..~: :.~. 3~888 671 382 1,067 1,769 ~18 17,3% 9.8% 27.4% '~ ,~ non ',",... ~:.." :'":t~':,:'?.,~A~-":: ." :.:..-,%'92 . ' .......... ..,~ ..274.. :' ~ ".':. '[': 460 . .? ::~ ...... ':. ,:. : :,.' ~l~'S%~ ~ .,,. '9.3~'~: .:,..27,7~ ~,677 1,359 603 1,184 1,531 624 29.1% 12.9% 25.3% 32.7% Jurisdiction PIEDMONT PLEASANTON SAN LEANDRO UNION CiTY UnincorpOrated Total Incorporated Alameda County Total 20.7% 11.6% 26.3% 4.1.3% Regional Allocation ofVery Low Low Moderate Above Average Yearly HCD Units Moderate Need ~:~:::~... ~; ~; .'~: .::~ ..::...: .: ~,:..,~.: ,~:,: ~:~.'.,?..::~E~!1.3i7%: ii~:~.ii!~!:i~i::.i :: 8~2%i~i,i!i!i!ili!!i20,;0%',~ ~.;: ~,S~7 659 ~26 1,110 2,~ 605 14. S% 9.4% 24. S°/o S1.6% ~ ................. ., a -~.~.,~, 8 8~o ...... · ~6.0% .................. 17.5% 10.0% 28.6% 4~. 8°/o 3 ~,225 6,~6~ 3,665 9,165 1 ~,932 ~,563 ~5,988 10,~32 5,~08 12,251 17,897 6,1~2 ~ENT BYf ToWN OF DANVILLE ADM. OFFIOEB; g25 838 054B; FEB-25-O0 i8:40; PAGE 2/3 DRAFT February 25, 2000 Eugene Leong, E×eeutive Director Association of Bay Area Governments P.O. Box 2050 Oakland, CA 94604 Dear Mr. Leong: The TH Valley Council includes representatives of the Cities of Dublin, Live. rmore, ?teasanton, and San Ramon, the Town of Danville, and Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Though each community within the Tri Valley holds its own unique future visiorb all are working c~lleaztiv~ly as a sub r~gion to baIanc, e the desire to maintain an outstanding quality of life for our resid,.~ats with the need to continue the areas' economic growth and vitality. At the Tri Valley Council meeting of February 10, 2000, the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination was discussed. Ail representatives expressed strong opposition to both the methodology met and the conclusions a-rived at by ABAG in preparing these housing needs figures. The total number of housing nnits identified by the state as part'of the Housing N~ds Determination for the region is excessive. These figures arbitrarily attempt to allogatc units based upon historical growth patterns, with little thought to tarrying capacities or cities' desLres for their future. The 230,743 increase over a seven-year period is too high, exceeding even the ABAG projection of 185,823 by 44,920. It is from this unrealistieally high number that all equally unrealistic allocations follow. We recognize that while ABAG itself may not be able to change this number, Bay Area cities and counties should work to show that a lower number is far more reaIisti~, accurate mad achievable. The alloeafion methodology developed by ABAG to apportion growth to counties is also a major eoxaeern. The methodology is flawed because it does not link the development of new housing unit~ to areas that are creating the homing demand. In particular, the "weight ~ENT BY: TOWN OF'DANVILLE ADD. OFFICES; 025 828 0548; Eul~ene Leong, Executive Director Assodation of Bay Area Governments February 25, 2O00 Page 2 FEB-25-O0 i6:4i; PAGE factor" given to share of job growth is only 0.1. An avia, suoh a~ the Silicon Valley in Sm-am Clara County, which lags created 250,000 new .jobs since 1992, whil, providing for only 40,000 additional homes is treated the same as the Tri Valley region. This methodology would appear to violato ABAG prinoiples by contributing to suburban ~prawl. We would ~trongly urge ABAG to re-consider the current methodology to both reduce the housing allocation figures, consistent with the cities' future vision, and increasing the weighting factor for job growth in determining housing needs. TOWN OF DANVILLE Millie Oreenberg Mayor CITY OF DUBLIN Guy S. Homston Mayor CITY OF L1ArER/VIOP. E CITY P~A.NTON Cathie Brown Ben C. Tarver Mayor Mayor CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALAMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPEKVI$OKS Donna Gerber Supervisor, District Scott Haggerty Vice President, Supervisor, District 1