HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 156-88 RegHousNeeds RESOLUTION NO. 156-88
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
**************************
REVISING THE CITY OF DUBLIN'S SHARE OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments is the council of
governments (hereinafter "ABAG") under the Joint Exercise of Powers Act for the
San Francisco Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is required by Section 65584
of the Government Code, as added by Chapter 1143, Statutes of 1980 (hereinafter
"Section 65584"), to determine the existing and projected housing needs for its
region; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is further required to
determine each city's and county's share of the regional housing needs; and
WHEREAS, ABAG's staff has prepared and circulated, for public
review and comment, a draft "Housing Needs Determinations" report considering
the requirements of Section 65584; and
WHEREAS, the ABAG Executive Board found such report includes
consideration of all factors listed in Section 65584 in proposing the initial
determination of regional housing needs; and '
WHEREAS, the Housing Needs Determinations report was approved by
the ABAG Executive Board for the purpose of beginning the official review and
revision of the determinations contained therein; and
WHEREAS, ABAG's staff has worked with the City of Dublin staff to
ensure that the most complete and reliable information has been used in the
determination of housing needs for this jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City of Dublin desires to revise its share of the
regional housing need based on available data and accepted planning methodology
in accordance with the requirements of Section 65584;
NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT RESOLVED that, pursuant to Section 65584, the
City of Dublin revises its share of the regional housing need, as contained in
the. September 15, 1988, Housing Needs Determinations report published by ABAG;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that this revision is made effective December 13, 1988;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the revision, and the data and methodology used to
support such revision, is described in the attached report (Exhibit 1); and be
it further
RESOLVED, that the ABAG Executive Board is requested to fully
account for the regional housing need created by localities that are adding
substantially more jobs than housing for those new workers; and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ABAG Executive Board is requested to keep a
clear distinction between a) identification of regional housing needs, and b)
statements of regional housing goals, objectives, and policies; and be it
further
RESOLVED, that the ABAG Executive Board is requested to act on such
revision in accordance with the requirements of Section 65584; and be it
further
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution and the attached report be
transmitted to the Executive Director of the Association of Bay Area
Governments.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this '12th day of December, 1988.
AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Snyder, Vonheeder
& ~yor Moffatt
NOES: None
M
°2-
EXHIBIT 1
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION REVISING DUBLIN'S OF THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
The ABAG Housing Needs Determinations report of September 1988 should fully
account for the regional housing need created by localities that are adding
substantially more jobs than housing for those new workers.
"Table 5 Existing and Projected Housing Needs, Alameda County and Cities"
should be revised as follows:
Revised Revised
Alternative Total
Zoning Projected
Projected Need Need
Alameda 881 3,295
Albany -0- 86
Berkeley 2,284 3,172
Dublin -0- 3,391
Emeryville -0- 765
Fremont 992 8,647
Hayward -0- 8,734
Livermore 1,162 3,121
Newark 2,038 2,875
Oakland 4,272 11,010
Piedmont -0- 29
Pleasanton 2,388 4,741
San Leandro -0- 2,425
Union City -0- 1,956
SubTotal 14,020 54,247
Co. Remainder
County Total
-0- 2,890
14,020
57,137
-1-
Each locality's percentage share of the Alameda Countywide housing need by
income category should be based on the revised Total Projected Need as shown in
Figure 1:
FIGURE 1
PERCENTAGE SHARE OF COUNTYWIDE NEED BY INCOME CATEGORY
ALAMEDA COUNTY AND CITES; ABAG %/REVISED%
Existing Total
Housing Projected Very Above
Units Need Low Low Moderate Moderate
Alameda 6.04 5.70/5.77 5.86/5.90 6.42/6.50 5.67/5.77 5.30/5.38
Albany 1.52 0.17/0.15 0.19/0.17 0.19/0.17 0.17/0.15 0.15/0.14
Berkeley 9.52 4.05/5.55 5.00/6.81 4.31/5.91 3.66/5.03 3.56/4.89
Dublin 1.24 6.76/5.94 5.56/4.88 5.93/5.21 7.39/6.51 7.53/6.61
Emeryville 0.66 1.53/1.34 1.63/1.42 1.72/1.51 1.59/1.40 1.34/1.18
Fremont 11.88 16.26/15.13 14.72/13.61 15.26/14.22 16.21/15.15 17.67/16.46
Hayward 8.26 17.42/15.29 17.20/15.00 18.53/16.28 18.19/16.03 16.69/14.65
Livermore 4.06 5.06/5.46 4.59/4.92 4.75/5.13 5.05/5.47 5.50/5.94
Newark 2.47 3.70/5.03 3.04/4.12 3.24/4.42 3.86/5.27 4.22/5.73~
Oakland 31.40 17.70/19.27 21.85/23.64 18.83/20.53 16.81/18.37 15.12/16.47
Piedmont 0.79 0.06/0.05 0.05/0.04 0.05/0.04 0.05/0.04 0.07/0.06
Pleasanton 3.40 7.08/8.30 6.11/7.13 6.20/7.28 6.71/7.91 8.24/9.67
San Leandro 6.12 4.84/4.24 4.97/4.34 5.14/4.52 4.82/4.25 4.64/4.07
Union City 3.08 3.90/3.42 3.53/3.08 3.66/3.21 4.07/3.59 4.15/3.64
Unincorp 9.56 5.77/5.06 5.70/4.97 5.77/5.07 5.75/5.06 5.82/5.11
Countywide 100 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100 100/100
-2-
"Table 21 Projected Housing Need By Income Category, Alameda County and Cities"
should be revised as follows to reflect each locality's share of the countywide
housing need:
REVISED TABLE 21
Total
Projected Very Above
Need Low Low Moderate Moderate
Alameda 3295 824 593 692 1186
Albany 86 23 15 18 30
Berkeley 3172 952 539 603 1078
Dublin 3391 678 475 780 1458
Emeryville 765 199 138 168 260
Fremont 8647 1902 1297 1816 3632
Hayward 8734 2096 1485 1921 3232
Livermore 3121 687 468 655 1311
Newark 2875 575 403 632 1265
Oakland 11010 3303 1872 2202 3633
Piedmont 29 6 4 5 14
Pleasanton 4741 996 664 948 2133
San Leandro 2425 606 412 509 898
Union City 1956 430 293 430 803
Unincorp 2890 694 462 607 1127
Countywide 57137 13971 9120 11986 22060
If ABAG determines that different housing need numbers are justified for
Table 21, each locality's share should reflect the revised percentage shares
previously shown in Figure 1.
-3-