Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.3 GP Housing Element Revision (2) AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 11, 1990 SUBJECT: Public Hearing - General Plan Housing Element Revision REPORT PREPARED BY: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner-p�i Robert Schubert, Contract Planner EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Revised Housing Element Exhibit B: Resolution Adopting Negative Declaration Exhibit C: Resolution Adopting the Revised Housing Element Attachment 1: Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-022 Attachment 2: Planning Commission Resolution No. 90-023 Attachment 3: Negative Declaration Attachment 4: Letter from State Department of Housing and Community Development dated April 30, 1990 Attachment 5: Article from March 20, 1990, San Francisco Chronicle Attachment 6: Letter from Bay Area Council dated May 31, 1990. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open Public Hearing 2) Receive Staff Report and public testimony 3) Question Staff and the Public 4) Close Public Hearing and deliberate 5) Adopt resolution adopting Negative Declaration 6) Adopt resolution approving the Revised Housing Element. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The programs proposed in the Revised Housing Element will require Staff time that will need to be considered in future budgets. If any of the specific programs result in costs other than Staff time, those specific programs will require separate City Council approval. DESCRIPTION: Section 65588 of the Government Code requires that all cities and counties within the regional jurisdiction of the Association of Bay Area Governments revise their housing elements by July 1, 1990. The housing element is "an identification and analysis of existing :«d projected needs and ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ COPIES TO: Agenda File General File ITEM N0. 6. Project Planner -1- a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing which shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. " The Revised Housing Element must analyze the current needs for housing for all income groups and special groups identified. The demand and supply of housing in Dublin must be compared with any shortages of housing for income groups. Where unmet needs have been identified, the Revised Housing Element must propose programs which will address those unmet needs during the five year life of the Housing Element (1990-95) . Pursuant to Government Code Section 65351 and 65583(c) (6) duly noticed community meetings were held on March 5 and 6, 1990, to explain the statutory requirements for the Housing Element revision and to solicit citizen input on the housing problems and issues facing the City. Questionnaires were filled out by all in attendance. The input received at the public meetings was considered in the preparation of the Revised Housing Element. The Revised Housing Element was prepared and sent to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review. In adopting the Revised Housing Element, State law requires that the City Council consider the comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development (Government Code Section 65585) . Comments from the Department of Housing and Community Development have been received (refer to the attached letter from the Department of Housing and Community Development dated April 30, 1990, Attachment 2) and have been incorporated into the Revised Housing Element. The analysis of the demand for, and supply of, housing in Dublin has revealed unmet housing needs for the following income groups (1990 - 1995) : Regional Projected Housing Projected Units Needs Unmet to be built (ABAG) Needs Very low -0- 678 -678 Low -0- 475 -475 Moderate 457 499 - 42 Above Moderate 1,448 819 +629 1,905 2,471 -566 As shown above, very low and low income dwelling units are not projected to be constructed. Moderate income dwelling units to be constructed will come close to meeting the projected demand. These unmet needs will result in a shortfall of 1,195 dwelling units in the very low, low and moderate income groups. The total number of dwelling units for the income groups will be approximately 566 below the identified need. Therefore, the programs in the updated (1990) Housing Element emphasize the achievement of housing affordable to very low and low income households. In addition, there are new State requirements regarding: 1) subsidized units at risk of conversion to non-low-income housing; and 2) emergency shelter. New programs are proposed to address both of these requirements (refer to Programs I.F. , II.D. and II.E. ) . - 2 - The State Housing Element Guidelines are advisory in order to assist the City in preparing the Revised Housing Element (Government Code Section 65585) . The City is not required to expend revenues for the construction of housing, housing subsidies, or land acquisition (Government Code Section 65589) . However, the City has a responsibility to use its vested powers to "make provisions for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community" (Government Code Section 65580(d)) . In addition, a recent newspaper article has indicated that certain groups are considering filing lawsuits against communities that have not produced any low-income housing (refer to the attached newspaper article, Attachment,5) . The programs summarized below are proposed in order to address Dublin' s unmet housing needs (for more details refer to Housing Element Section 6.3, Goals, Quantified Objectives, Policies and Programs) . The proposed programs have been successfully implemented in other Northern California communities. I. STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADOPTION OF NEW REGULATIONS A. Adopt an Ordinance allowing density bonuses in excess of those called for by State law (e.g. , a 30% bonus for 20% of the units set aside for lower income/senior citizen households) . Currently, State law requires cities to grant a 25% density bonus if 20% of the units are set aside for lower income households, if 10% of the units are set aside for very low income households or if 50% of the units are set aside for senior citizens. In addition, the density bonus incentive must be combined with at least one other incentive (fee waiver, local subsidies, etc. ) . The purpose of the program would be to enhance the feasibility of constructing housing for very low and low income households by allowing a density bonus above that which is normally permitted on the site in exchange for the provision of some below market rate housing units. In effect, a density bonus allows a City to create greater land value in a project which can then be used to subsidize affordable housing. Another benefit is that bonus units incorporate lower income households into substantially market rate housing projects. Despite the presence of the State law, successful density bonus programs have depended on local modification which provided more incentives. In combination with other land use concessions, a density bonus can provide a valuable tool for affordable housing. The City would follow through with a monitoring program to assure that all units are inhabited by eligible occupants. Northern California cities which have implemented similar programs include Santa Rosa, Napa and San Rafael. Implementation of the program would require the adoption of a density bonus ordinance. The Revised Housing Element states that the ordinance would be adopted in 1991. B. Adopt an inclusionary Zoning Ordinance requiring a minimum percentage (e.g. , 10%) of low and moderate income housing in new developments with 20 or more units. The ordinance would provide for alternatives (such as in-lieu fees) for developments that 3 - cannot satisfy the inclusionary requirement due to an unusually high cost of construction for a particular site. Any in-lieu fees collected under the program would go into an exclusive fund to be spent directly on creating new affordable housing opportunities in Dublin. Such in-lieu fees are ususally required to be spent within a limited time frame. Inclusionary zoning could be applied to both rental and ownership units and single and multiple family projects. Criteria would be established regarding the pricing of the units and screening the applicants for the low cost units. Cities which have implemented inclusionary requirements include Livermore, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto and Yountville. Implementation of the program would require the adoption of an inclusionary housing ordinance. The Revised Housing Element states that the ordinance would be adopted in 1991. C. Review development standards to determine whether changes should be made to reduce development cost. Site planning and building innovations can cut the cost of housing construction. Changes in site design which result in higher densities or reduce parking requirements can significantly reduce construction costs. Caution must be taken to avoid increasing liability. City Staff would contact the Joint Venture for Affordable Housing (JVAH) which provides technical assistance to Cities interested in modifying development standards to encourage the construction of affordable housing. The City Staff would then review the codes for unnecessary or costly requiements which contribute to construction costs, including permit fees and/or excessive parking requirements. Numerous cities have successfully used this program. Any necessary changes to City ordinances would be adopted in 1992. D. Encourage the use of air rights over parking lots and sites with low intensity land uses to build housing. In order to increase opportunities for development, some communities are using air rights over parking lots, roadways, other public sites and even private development. Sites with low intensity land uses may offer the opportunity to build housing above existing uses. Air rights projects have no land costs, and because land is the major cost of development, air rights projects can be significantly less expensive. However, additional design and construction costs may reduce some of the cost savings. City Staff would initiate a study to determine the feasibility of using air rights downtown (as encouraged by the Downtown Specific Plan) and/or above public parking lots. The study would be completed in 1992. Cities which have implemented similar programs include the Cities of San Mateo, Palo Alto, and San Francisco. E. Encourage higher density residential development near the proposed Dublin BART station. In addition to increasing housing affordability, higher densities near BART could help reduce traffic congestion. 4 - City Staff would initiate a study to determine the feasibility of increasing densities near the proposed BART station. The study would be completed in 1992. Any rezonings would be accomplished in 1993. F. Adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a conditional use. To ensure that the regulatory process does not discourage the development of, or conversion to, or use of an emergency shelter for homeless persons, the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to allow emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Implementation of this program would require an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance. The Revised Housing Element states that the ordinance would be adopted in 1992. II. STRATEGIES REQUIRING OTHER CITY ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION A. Provide priority processing for senior housing projects and development providing 10% or more units affordable to very low, low and moderate income households. Recognizing that administrative delay adds to development cost, some cities (e.g. , Sunnyvale, San Rafael and San Francisco) have provided for priority processing for certain residential projects. Developers estimate that every month required for processing adds at least 1% to 2% to the overall project cost. City Staff would review senior housing projects and developments with low income units in advance of other planning applications. In addition, applicants for these projects would be provided with an opportunity to meet informally with City Staff to present proposals and get early feedback before submitting formal applications. Implementation of the program would require the completion of a study by the Planning Department. The study would be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in 1992. B. Reduce application fees for senior housing projects and developments providing 10% or more below market rate units. High fees levied on new residential development can result in higher cost homes. To entice the development of lower cost housing, Fremont has initiated a fee waiver program. Implementation of the program would require the completion of a study by the Planning Department which would be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council in 1992. C. Encourage shared living arrangements. Shared living occurs when people live together for social contact, mutual support and assistance and/or to reduce housing expenses. City Staff would work with the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) and/or the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development - 5 - to establish a county-wide shared housing referral and placement program, primarily for low income residents. Outreach could be conducted through the senior center, libraries, City Hall and the media. The program would be implemented in 1992. D. Work with the owner of The Springs Apartments and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to encourage the parties to negotiate a renewal of the Section 8 program; if necessary, work with a non-profit entity to consider the aquisition of the project and maintain the rent subsidies. Government Code Section 65583(a) (8) enacted in 1989 requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of existing housing developments that are eligible to change to non low income housing uses during the next ten years. The program would be implemented in 1990. E. Fund existing emergency shelter progams in the Tri-Valley area to house citizens in need of emergency shelter. Ninety-two people who were either residents of Dublin or transients, spent a total of 756 bed nights in Tri-Valley emergency shelters in 1989. The services cost those shelters and the citizens of Alameda County $24,100.00. The Housing Element contains programs to support the shelters by; 1) Consider reviewing all Federal and State funding sources and applying for necessary funding. 2) Providing financial assistance to the existing motel voucher system, administered by the Good Samaritan Committee. 3) Providing funding and/or personnel support to encourage churches in Dublin to provide winter relief to homeless persons in the form of food and shelter. III. STRATEGIES REQUIRING ON-GOING CITY EFFORT USING EXISTING PROGRAMS A. Annex and rezone additional land for residential use. The intent of this program is to support efforts to annex East and West Dublin into the City and adopt General Plan Amendments, Rezoning, Specific Plans and Site Development Reviews for future development in these areas. The annexations may be completed around 1992 and the Specific Plans and Site Development Reviews may be completed around 1993. B. Treat one bedroom and studio units as equivalent to 75% of a housing unit when computing allowable density, provided that the maximum number of units permitted on a site shall not be increased by more than 25%. The Planning Department Staff has informed developers of large projects that this policy is available. However, developers of projects such as the Villages and Amador Lakes decided not to request increased densities because the land use regulations allow the number of units proposed. 6 - City Staff would continue to inform developers that this policy is available. Combined with other proposed incentives (e.g. , density bonuses) , the program may be more effective during the next five year planning period. C. Encourage residential development in the Downtown Intensification area. This policy was included in the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan which was adopted by the City in 1987. To date there have been no proposals submitted for residential development in the downtown area. The program is augmented in the Revised Housing Element by providing additional development incentives (e.g. , reduced site design standards, priority processing and fee reductions) . In addition, City Staff will contact residential developers to encourage joint venture projects with commercial developers. The program would be implemented in 1992. D. Support semi-public institutions in efforts to add affordable housing to their sites. The City has not received any proposals from private organizations for affordable housing projects. The City should actively work with developers to make them aware of affordable housing projects which have been implemented in other Bay Area cities. This program is also augmented in the Revised Housing Element by providing additional development incentives. In addition, City Staff will contact owners of semi-public property to inform them of this policy. The program would be implemented in 1992. E. Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects ' (i.e. , projects with more than 10 units) to be rented for a specified period of time. The majority of recent residential projects have been rented during the initial occupancy phase. F. Encourage development of second units in existing single family homes. Given decreasing household size and the increasing cost of housing, second units added to or converted from single-family homes may be a way to use this housing resource to provide needed new housing at minimal financial and environmental costs. However, during the past five years, there have been only four requests for second units (all four requests were approved) . The City should consider reviewing the requirements for approval of second units; publicize and promote the program; and consider implementing a program to give City recognition to good designs for second units. The Planning Department would review the requirements in 1991. The program would be implemented in 1992. G. Cooperate with non-profit housing provider to develop below market rate units. During the planning period (1985 - 1990) , the City did not receive any proposals for housing projects by non-profit groups. The City should actively work with non-profit housing providers such as Eden Housing and BRIDGE to make them aware of development opportunities in Dublin. - 7 - City Staff will contact Eden Housing and other non-profit housing providers to make them aware of development opportunities in Dublin. In addition, the City should consider providing development sites within East Dublin for this program. H. Encourage development of additional units on Dublin Housing Authority land in Dublin. The Arroyo Vista site includes approximately six acres of undeveloped land on two parcels suitable for additional development. One parcel (approximately four acres) is being considered for a senior housing project or a low income project for families. The other parcel contains approximately two acres. I. Monitor availability of rental housing. If deemed necessary, consider enactment of a condominium conversion ordinance. Only one condominium conversion project has been approved by the City. The developer did not follow through with implementation of the project. Consequently, the City does not have a program for ongoing monitoring of rental vacancy rates (i.e. , there is no need for continuous monitoring due to the low interest in condominium conversion) . However, after an application for a condominium conversion is received by the City, the city-wide rental vacancy rate is evaluated as part of the review process. J. Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial assistance for the purpose of including below market rate units in proposed projects; and assist developers in obtaining information on available programs. The Planning Department Staff has monitored available public financial assistance programs for below market rate units. To reduce the burden on developers created by this requirement, the City will prepare a packet of information on available programs, including a list of agency contact persons responsible for program implementation. This information will be given to developers as early as possible in the project approval process. The information will be developed in 1992. K. Promote equal housing opportunities for all Dublin residents and others seeking housing in Dublin. The City participates in the Alameda County Small City Block Grant Program which provides assistance to the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) . ECHO provides services to victims of housing discrimination. In addition, Operation Sentinel, a fair housing program of the Urban Coalition established in 1971, provides fair housing services, landlord-tenant counseling, and rental remediation. It also seeks to educate both the real estate industry and community citizens as well as investigate and/or refer housing complaints. L. Promote energy conservation. During the five-year planning period, the percentage of multi-family units in the City has increased from 9% to 29%. Multi-family units are energy efficient due to minimal exterior walls. In addition, developers of large residential projects have been required to demonstrate that solar orientation has been considered. 8 - M. Support Alameda County Minor Home Repair and Housing Rehabilitation Programs. A portion of the City' s CDBG funds are currently being used to support two housing rehabilitation programs administered by the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development. In 1990, a total of $3,559 from a total budget of $12,100 was expended in Dublin for the minor home repair program and $38,180 was expended from the housing rehabilitation program. The City should continue to use City CDBG funds to support the rehabilitation programs. N. Participate in the Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certificate (MCC) Program. Through the use of a MCC, eligible first-time home buyers increase their eligibility to qualify for a mortgage loan and reduce their effective mortgage interest rate by approximately 2% points. MCC recipients may take 20% of their annual mortgage interest payments as a dollar for dollar tax credit against their Federal income taxes. The home buyer adjusts Federal income tax withholdings, increasing income available to pay the mortgage. Under the program, the City currently has two reservations issued worth $230,900 and seven MCC' s remaining worth $769,100. The City should continue participation in the program. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On May 21, 1990, by a 5-0 vote, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Negative Declaration and a Resolution recommending City Council adoption of the Revised Housing Element. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the City Council adopt the resolution adopting the Negative Declaration and adopt the resolution approving the Revised Housing Element. 9 - CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN SECTION 6 . 0 : HOUSING ELEMENT DRAFT: MAY 1990 PREPARED BY THE CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 6 .0 HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6 . 1 ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY 6 . 1 . 1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND HOUSING NEEDS 1 6 . 1 . 2 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS 10 6 . 1 . 3 INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 22 6 . 1 . 4 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 27 6 . 1 . 5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS 31 6 . 1 . 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS 34 6 . 1 . 7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION 39 6 . 2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO CHANGE TO NON LOW-INCOME HOUSING USES 40 6 . 3 GOALS, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS 42 6 . 4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS 61 6 . 5 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS 62 6 . 6 EVALUATION OF 1985 HOUSING ELEMENT 63 APPENDIX A - REFERENCES APPENDIX B - POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT TABLES APPENDIX C - SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MAP APPENDIX D - RECENT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT MAP 6 . 0 HOUSING ELEMENT Section 65583 of the State Government Code requires that the Housing Element consist of an- identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals , policies , quantified objectives , and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement and development of housing. It must identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing and mobile homes . Finally, it must make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community. 6 . 1 ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY [ 65583 (a) ] The needs analysis consists of an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints relevant to meeting those needs , including the following: 1 ) population and employment trends and housing needs ; 2 ) household characteristics ; 3 ) inventory of land suitable for residential development; 4 ) governmental constraints ; 5 ) non-governmental constraints ; 6 ) special housing needs ; and 7 ) opportunities for energy conservation. 6 . 1 . 1 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND HOUSING NEEDS [ 65583 (a) ( 1) ] This section consists of an analysis of population and employment trends , documentation of projections and a quantification of Dublin' s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels . This analysis includes the entire area within the extended planning area of the City of Dublin. The existing and projected needs include Dublin' s share of the regional housing need. Except where noted otherwise, the information contained in this section was obtained from Projections ' 90 and Housing Needs Determinations by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG, 1989 ) . Where information is available, Dublin statistics and projections are compared to regional statistics and projections . POPULATION TRENDS Existing Population and Short Term Projections ( 1990 - 1995 ) The current population of Dublin is estimated to be approximately 25, 500 persons (ABAG, 1989 ) . Between 1980 and 1990 , Dublin' s population increased by 10 , 201 persons , or a 67% increase (an annual increase of 1 , 020 persons ) . The population of Alameda County increased by 166 , 621 persons , or a 15% increase . ABAG' s population estimates and projections are summarized below. 1 1980 1990 1995 Dublin 15 , 299 25 , 500 29 , 500 Livermore-Amador Valley * 100 , 230 144 , 600 160, 300 Alameda County 1 , 105 , 379 1, 272 , 000 1 , 330, 800 * The Livermore-Amador Valley, or East County, includes the cities of Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton. Long 'Perm Projections ( 1990 - 2005 ) The cumulative historical and projected population growth in Alameda County and the City of Dublin is shown below (ABAG, 1989 ) . Alameda County Dublin 1980 1 , 105 , 379 15, 299 1985 1 , 191 , 450 17 , 600 1990 1 , 272 , 000 25 , 500 1995 1 , 330 , 800 29 , 500 2000 1 , 387 , 900 37 , 100 2005 1 , 444 , 600 46 , 200 Dublin is expected to continue to have the greatest subregional percentage change in Alameda County with a projected 81% increase in population between 1990 and 2005 ( or 20, 700 additional residents , an annual increase of 1 , 380 persons ) . This would bring the total population in Dublin to 46 , 200 by the year 2005 . During the period 1990-2005 , the Livermore-Amador Valley area (East County) will experience the greatest increase in population within Alameda County. Between 1990 and 2005 , ABAG estimates that East County will add about 65 , 000 new residents , or a 45% increase in population. The projected change for Alameda County between 1990 and 2005 is 172 , 600 persons , or a 14% increase compared to a 15% increase for the Bay Area . Aqe and Ethnic Characteristics Dublin ' s population is relatively homogeneous in terms of age and ethnic characteristics . The short span of time during which most of the City ' s housing was constructed, and the low original housing prices resulted in a predominance of young families in the 1960 ' s and then a slowing of growth and overall aging of the population. In 1980 , 92 . 4% of the population was white, the remainder were Black, Japanese, Chinese, Native American and persons of Spanish origin (U. S . Census Bureau, 1980 ) . Below is a summary of the age characteristics of Dublin' s population. 2 Current Percent Estimated 1980 Population* persons under 18 38 . 9 9 , 919 persons 18 - 61 57 . 8 14 , 739 persons 62 and over 3 . 2 800 *The population estimates were derived by applying the percentages from the 1980 Census to the current estimated population of Dublin. EMPLOYMENT TRENDS Dublin Existing Employment There are currently about 12 , 210 jobs in Dublin. Between 1985 and 1990 , the number of jobs increased by 2 , 600 , a 27% increase . This includes 870 additional retail jobs ( 21% increase) , 860 additional manufacturing and wholesale jobs ( 63% increase) , 770 service jobs ( 47% increase) and 100 additional other types of jobs ( 4% increase) . ABAG estimates that 12 , 000 Dublin residents are currently in the labor force (ABAG, 1989 ) . This represents approximately 77% of the Dublin residents over age 16 . The majority of persons are employed in retail jobs , followed by persons in service jobs , manufacturing and wholesale jobs and agricultural and mining jobs . Between 1985 and 1990 , the number of employed residents in Dublin increased by 4 , 000, a 50% increase . Employment Projections Between 1990 and 1995 , Dublin is projected to have 2 , 000 additional employed residents , a 17% increase . Dublin is projected to have 3 , 000 new jobs during this period, or a 25% increase . This represents an existing ratio of jobs to employed residents of 1 . 0 and a projected ( 1995 ) ratio of 1 . 1 . The greater the ratio deviates from 1 . 0 , the greater the jobs/employed residents imbalance ( i . e . , a ratio of 1 . 0 represents a numerical balance between the total number of jobs and the total number of employed residents ) . The historical and projected cumulative job growth and additional employed residents in Dublin is shown below (ABAG, 1989 ) . Employed Jobs/Employed Jobs Residents Residents Ratio 1980 8 , 168 6 , 497 1 . 26 1985 9 , 640 8, 000 1 . 20 1990 12 , 210 12 , 000 1 . 02 1995 15 , 210 14 , 000 1 . 09 2000 17 , 880 17 , 500 1 . 02 2005 20, 560 21, 700 . 95 3 r The cumulative total historical and projected number of new jobs by type in Dublin is as follows (ABAG, 1989 ) : 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Agricultural and Mining 52 40 10 10 10 10 Mfg & Wholesale 1196 1370 2230 2850 3430 3820 Retail 3173 4230 5100 5730 6920 7890 Service 1567 1640 2410 4000 4670 4910 Other Jobs 2180 2360 2460 2620 2850 3930 Total 8 , 168 9 , 640 12 , 210 15 , 210 17 , 880 20560 Alameda County Existing Employment Alameda County has reversed the trend of job loss that occurred in the 1970 ' s . The County had a large portion of its employment base in heavy industries that were either declining or not growing . Since 1980 the industry mix has shifted increasingly toward office and service-related industry, with a long-term potential for high technology jobs . In 1990 , there are approximately 608 , 480 jobs and 647 , 500 employed residents in Alameda County (ABAG) . During the period 1985 to 1990 , the number of employed residents in Alameda County increased by 68 , 100 ( 12% increase) . The number of jobs increased by 58 , 600 ( 11% increase) . The largest increase in jobs for Alameda County was in the service sector ( 23 , 430 new jobs , or a 14% increase) , followed by manufacturing and wholesale ( 15 , 590 new jobs , or a 14% increase) , retail ( 12 , 710 new jobs , or a 13% increase) and all other types of jobs ( 7 , 580, or a 5% increase) . Alameda County led the Bay Area in its increase in manufacturing and wholesale jobs . Employment Projections The projected increase in jobs within Alameda County between 1990 and 1995 is 11% which is the same projected change for the Bay Area as a whole (ABAG, 1989 ) . The cumulative historical and projected job growth and additional employed residents in the County are shown below. Employed Jobs/Employed Jobs Residents Residents Ratio 1980 511 , 133 522 , 069 . 98 1985 549 , 850 579 , 400 . 95 1990 608 , 480 647 ,500 . 94 1995 675 , 410 707 , 000 . 95 2000 740 , 600 752 , 400 . 98 2005 783 , 350 778 , 900 1 . 00 4 For the period 1990 to 2005 , Alameda County is projected to have 131 , 400 additional employed residents , or a 20% increase . Alameda County is also projected to have 174 , 900 new jobs , or a 29% increase . This represents a 1 . 3 ratio of new jobs to additional employed residents . For the Bay Area, the ratio of new jobs to additional employed residents is 1 . 5 . In recent years , commercial and industrial development has increased dramatically in the Tri-Valley area, largely due to the relocation of businesses from San Francisco seeking relief from land scarcity, high lease rates , high housing costs and strict planning controls . ABAG projects a continuation of this trend. Below are the estimated existing and projected numbers of jobs and employed residents in the Livermore-Amador Valley (ABAG) . 1990 1995 Employed Employed Jobs Residents Ratio Jobs Residents Ratio Dublin 12 , 210 12 , 000 1 . 02 15 , 210 14 , 000 1 . 09 Livermore 27 , 860 31, 200 . 89 33, 540 35, 300 . 95 Pleasanton 29 , 180 32 , 100 . 91 36 , 620 36 , 400 1 . 01 However, despite the current and projected ( 1990 - 1995 ) relative balance between jobs and employed residents in Dublin and the remainder of the Livermore-Amador Valley, one of the transportation corridors with the most serious imbalance of jobs to employed residents in the San Francisco Bay Area is the I-680 Corridor (Dublin, Alamo-Blackhawk, Clayton, Concord, Danville, Livermore, Pleasant Hill , Pleasanton, San Ramon, Walnut Creek and the remainder of Alameda County) . For the period 1990 - 2005 the projected labor supply deficit for the I-680 Corridor is 27 , 840 ( i . e . , 76 , 600 new employed residents compared to 104 , 440 new jobs ) . Livermore is expected to add approximately 25, 000 new jobs , or a 91% increase over 1990 employment . Pleasanton will increase its 1990 employment base by about 21 , 000 jobs , or about a 71% increase by 2005 . During the same period, San Ramon is expected to add about 16 , 700 new jobs between 1990 and 2005 . Tables 1 - 6 in Appendix A contain the following information for the City of Dublin, the Tri-Valley (Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton in the Livermore-Amador Valley and San Ramon and Danville in the San Ramon Valley) , Alameda County and the San Francisco Bay Region ( Source: WPM Planning Team, 1990, based upon ABAG data) : Table 1 - ABAG' s Population, Household, Employment & Income Projections Table 2 - Average Annual Changes in ABAG' s Projections Table 3 - Projections : Percentage of Larger Geographic Area Table 4 - Projections : Per Household & Employment Ratios 5 Table 5 - Average Annual Changes in Per Household & Employment Ratios Table 6 - Projections : Per Household & Employment Ratios - Percentage of Larger Area No annexations , significant changes in land uses or other factors have occurred in Dublin which would affect the ABAG population and employment trend estimates and projections . HOUSING NEEDS To assist localities in evaluating their regional housing share, the State requires area wide planning agencies to prepare regional housing needs assessment numbers . Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 1 ) requires a quantification of the locality' s existing and projected housing needs for all income levels . The existing and projected needs must include the locality' s share ,of the regional housing need. Government Code Section 65584 defines regional housing need as "a locality' s share of the regional housing needs includes that share of the housing needs of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by the jurisdiction' s plan. " ABAG has estimated existing affordable housing needs as of 1988 for communities in the San Francisco Bay Area and the projected housing needs in 1990 and 1995 (ABAG, 1989 ) . Existing Need ( including regional need) is the difference between the number of units actually built and the number that "should have been available calculated from the optimal vacancy rate . " Thus , if the available housing stock were increased by the existing need, the market would have been nearer to a balance between housing supply and demand. A balanced housing market depresses inflationary pressures that reduce housing affordability. ABAG estimated the existing ( 1988) housing demand for Dublin to be zero units . This means that, in general, there was a relative balance between Dublin ' s housing supply and demand in 1988 (ABAG 1989 ) . Projected Need ( including regional need) is the total number of units needed to accommodate anticipated growth in the city and provide a desirable vacancy rate . The "projected need" figure is the number of additional units that would ideally be developed in the City by 1995 , based on the household projections developed by ABAG. Government Code Section 65584 requires that the distribution of regional housing need by ABAG take into account the market demand for housing, employment opportunities , availability of suitable sites and public facilities , communing patterns , needs of farm workers , the type and tenure of housing in the jurisdiction and the loss of units in assisted housing developments (ABAG 1989 ) In 1983 ABAG' s determination of Dublin' s "projected need" was 1 , 956 housing units . During the five year planning period for the 1985 Housing Element (January 1985 - January 1990 ) a total of 2 , 645 housing units were constructed in Dublin. Thus , the projected need was exceeded by 689 dwelling units . 6 ABAG' s housing needs determinations are for the seven year period from 1988 through 1995 . Since the planning period for the Housing Element is from 1990 through 1995 , it was necessary to adjust ABAG' s housing needs determinations to consider the housing units that were constructed in 1988 and 1989 . ABAG projected the housing need for 1988 - 1990 in Dublin to be 1 , 479 units . The projected need for the period 1990 - 1995 is 1 , 912 units which results in a total projected housing need of 3 , 391 units for the period 1988 - 1995 . The adjusted housing needs determinations are as follows : ABAG' s Projected Need 1988 - 1995 3 , 391 units Total Units Constructed in 1988 and 1989 920 units* Projected Need 1990 - 1995 2 , 471 units *Refer to page 8 for a breakdown of the units produced by income category Projected Need by Income Category is not a continuation of current patterns but rather a figure that includes a redistribution of households by income category throughout the region. The objective is to "avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high proportions of lower income households" (Government Code Section 65584 ) . To generate the figures , ABAG averaged existing city percentages in each income category with the existing county and regional percentages . Definition of Income Categories for Dublin. Four income categories ( "very low, " "low, " "moderate" and "above moderate" ) were used by ABAG in allocating projected housing needs . These terms are defined in State law ( Section 6932 of Title 25 of the California Administrative Code) , and establish the categories used in determining eligibility of housing consumers to a variety of housing programs , as well as availability of public funds and assistance to housing providers . State law bases the definitions on a household of four, and does not relate income definitions to different household sizes . In February, 1990 , the estimated median income for a family of four in Alameda County was $44 , 100 (State Department of Housing and Community Development, 1990 ) . This estimate is used to determine eligibility for various state and federal housing programs . A current median income estimate was not available for the City of Dublin. Current ( February, 1990 ) income categories for Alameda County are defined as follows : Very low income - $22 , 050 and below Less than 50% of the County mean income Low income - $22 , 051 - $35 , 280 Between 51% and 80% of the County mean income 7 Moderate income - $35 , 281 - $52 , 920 Between 81% and 120% of the County mean income Above moderate income - $52 , 921 and above Above 120% of the County mean income ABAG presents "projected need by income category" as both an absolute number of units and a percentage of units in each income grouping . Below are the current desired distribution of households by income category for Dublin ( from ABAG' s 1989 report, Housing Needs Determinations ) compared to Dublin ' s actual household income distribution in the 1980 Census and the current distribution of households by income category (ABAG' s 1989 Housing Needs Determinations ) . Number of Units 1980* 1989** Needed for 1990 - 1995 Very Low 9% 20% 678 Low 11% 14% 475 Moderate 26% 23% 499 Above Moderate 54% 43% 819 Total Projected Need 2 , 471 * Household income by percent distribution, 1980 Census ** Current distribution of households by income category (ABAG, 1989 ) The number of units included in the above table is based upon the following : Adjusted ABAG Units Produced Needs ( 1988-1995 ) * ( 1988-1989 ) ** ( 1990-1995 ) Very Low 678 0 678 Low 475 0 475 Moderate 780 281 499 Above Moderate 1 , 458 639 819 Total 3, 391 920 2 , 471 * Housing Needs Determinations , ABAG, January 1989 . ** Final inspections issued by Dublin in 1988 and 1989 (refer to Housing Costs in Section 6 . 1 . 2 , Household Characteristics , for breakdown of sales prices and rents for units which received final inspections from the Dublin Building Department in 1988 and 1989 ) . 8 ABAG' s regional redistribution of household needs by income category would result in more than double the percentage of very low income households in Dublin with relatively slight changes in the percentages of low and moderate income households . Planned and projected units will produce a more diverse mix of housing types than has previously been available in Dublin, which means greater opportunity for production of affordable units . However, it is unlikely that 34% of the units produced in Dublin over the next five years could be made affordable to low and very low income households . This percentage seems particularly unrealistic in light of the extremely limited availability of public subsidies for housing, which would be necessary for production of affordable units at such a large scale . 9 6 . 1 . 2 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS [ 65583 (a) ( 2) ] Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 2 ) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics , including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS Between 1985 and 1990 , the number of total households in Alameda County increased by 39 , 860 ( 9% increase) . During the same period, the number of households in Dublin increased by 2 , 062 , a 43% increase (ABAG, 1989 ) . The projected increase in households within the County between 1990 - 1995 is 27 , 910 households , or a 5 . 7% increase . . The cumulative historical and projected household population growth and persons per household in Alameda County is shown below (ABAG, 1989 ) . Household Persons per Total Population Household Households 1980 1 , 077 , 339 2 . 53 426 , 093 1985 1, 156 , 150 2 . 56 451 , 750 1990 1 , 232 , 900 2 . 51 491, 610 1995 1 , 290 , 200 2 . 48 519 , 520 2000 1 , 344 , 200 2 . 46 547 , 320 2005 1 , 397 , 100 2 . 44 527 , 420 The current number of households in Dublin is 6 , 862 , including 5 , 215 in owner occupied units and 1 , 647 rental units (Dublin Planning Department, 1990) . The projected increase in households within Dublin between 1990 - 1995 is 1, 600 , or a 23% increase . The cumulative historical and projected household population growth and pers per household in Dublin is shown below (ABAG, 1989 ) . Household Persons per Total Population Household Households 1980 13 , 772 3 . 40 4 , 039 1985 16 , 000 3 . 34 4 , 800 1990 22 , 800 3 . 21 6 , 862 1995 26 , 800 3 . 16 8 , 470 2000 34 , 300 3 . 14 10 , 940 2005 43, 400 3 . 10 13, 990 * , Planning Department estimate ( 1990) based upon number of existing housing units and vacancy rate . ABAG' s Projections ' 90 report assumes a 1 . 25% decrease in the average household size between 1990-1995 in the San Francisco Bay Area. Over the 15-year period from 1990-2005 , regional household 10 size is expected to decline from an estimated average of 2 . 54 persons per household in 1990 to 2 . 46 persons in 2005 . This represents a 3 . 1% decline in household size . In the 1990 ' s it is estimated that Dublin will continue to attract the larger size households which have characterized its historical growth. INCOME In 1990 , ABAG estimates that the mean (average) household income in Dublin was $49 , 100 in constant 1988 dollars . The historical and projected mean household income for Alameda County and Dublin is as follows (the projected increase for the Dublin is 2% between 1990 and 1995 ) : Alameda County Dublin 1980 $35 , 609 $44 , 942 1985 37 , 800 46 , 600 1990 40 , 100 * 49 , 100 1995 43 , 000 50 , 100 2000 45 , 100 52 , 600 2005 46 , 900 55 , 200 * In February, 1990 , the California Department of Housing and Community Development estimated that the median income for a family four in Alameda County was $44 , 100 . Median income is used for state and federal housing programs . HOUSING COSTS Owner Occupied In 1989 , the average cost of a home (both resale and new) in Dublin was . $225 , 855 , compared to $272 , 016 for the San Francisco Bay Area . The recent trend has been rapidly upward in the price of housing in Dublin and the remainder of the Tri-Valley area . Below are the historical average sales prices in Dublin ( Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors , 1990 ) : 1983 $109 , 568 1984 $122 , 849 1985 $134 , 657 1986 $144 , 841 1987 $153, 409 1988 $173 , 566 1989 $225 , 855 During the past two years , building permits were issued for 949 units in Dublin, including 211 single family units and 738 multi- family units . The sales prices of these new homes varied from $120, 000 for a two bedroom townhouse in a 174 unit development to $425, 000 for a single family home on a view lot . Below is a summary of the sales prices and rents for the new homes in Dublin which received final inspections during the past two years : 11 Price/Rent Range Year Number of Units Multi Family: $695 - 1 , 135 (rental ) 1989 186 $120 , 000 ( average) 1988 118 $130 , 000 - $149 , 000 1988 92 ** $150 , 000 - $179 , 000 1988 172 $171 , 000 - $199 , 000 1989 78 $179 , 000 - $200 , 000 1989 63 Total 709 Single Family: $210 , 000 - $255 , 000 1988 78 $230 , 000 - $360 , 000 1988 & 1989 120 $325 , 000 - $425 , 000 1988 13 Total 211 * Includes 156 units with rents below $992/month. ** Includes 7 units which sold for less than $136 , 500 . The average price per square foot in 1990 for new single family homes is just under $190 (West Dublin Study) . Multi-family unit; cost about $150 per square foot . However, despite the historical increases in housing costs in Dublin, sales prices have dropped slightly during recent weeks . Average prices in Dublin, Livermore and Pleasanton fell by 7 . 2% to 23% in February 1990 compared to the previous month ( Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors ) . The decrease in prices is believed to be due to a heavy current supply of housing. In July 1989 , there were 1 , 734 homes for sale in Southern Alameda County. In February 1990 , there were 1, 918 homes for sale, a 10 . 6% increase . Rental Housing Although owner occupied housing unit costs far exceed ability to pay for most families , many rental units are still within the ability of moderate income household ' s ability to pay. The 1980 Census indicated that the median contract rent in Dublin was $353 . Currently, one bedroom apartment units in older buildings rent for $500 to $550/month ( Southern Alameda County Apartment Owners Association, 1990) . Two and three bedroom apartment units in older building rent for $600 to $700 . Two and three bedroom apartment units in new buildings rent for about $700 to $1 , 100 per month. Single family houses rent for about $900 to $1, 200 (three bedrooms , two baths with a double car garage) . DETERMINATION OF LOW AND MODERATE INCOME UNIT PRICES Determination of a unit price affordable to low and moderate income households is important because the State requires cities to give developers density bonuses if 20% of the units in a project are 12 affordable to lower income or loo very low income households or 500 senior households . The units must be affordable for 30 years . The City must also provide one or more other incentives . The maximum price of a housing unit affordable to a low income household in Alameda County is $97 , 500 and the maximum price of a unit affordable to a moderate income household is $136 , 500 (based upon the following method for determining housing cost affordable by a low income household) . a . Low income definition ( 80% of Alameda County' s median income) _ $35 , 280 b. $35 , 280 X . 9 = $31, 752 income to be used in determining price . In order to establish a practical range of incomes able to afford a specific price for a unit, it must be affordable to those having 900 of the calculated income . C . $31 , 752/ 12 = $661, maximum monthly mortgage payment 4 25% of gross income (property taxes , utilities and insurance not included) d. $661 payment at 10 . 25% fixed rate, 30 year term and 10% down payment = $97 , 500 mortgage ( Schriber, 1990) . The maximum monthly rent for an affordable rental unit (moderate income household) in Alameda County is $992 . Below are affordable rents for the income categories . Monthly Rent Very Low Income $0 - $413 Low Income $414 - $661 Moderate Income $661 - $992 Above Moderate $992 and above LEVEL OF PAYMENT COMPARED TO ABILITY TO PAY According to State law, a lower-income household that pays more that 250 of its income for housing is living in unaffordable housing and is "overpaying" for housing (the federal threshold to measure overpaying is 30% ) . For the purpose of determining housing affordability, the City of Dublin uses 25% to measure overpaying . Clearly, higher income households are more able to spend a greater portion of income on housing without sacrificing basic needs than are low income households . However, households that are technically "overpaying" are not necessarily in immediate need of affordable units . There is no evidence to suggest that all , or even a majority, of overpaying households in Dublin would relocate if additional affordable housing units were available in the City. Determining exactly how many renter and owner households overpay for housing must await the completion of the 1990 Census . However, ABAG has calculated the proportion of households in 1980 who paid 13 more than 25% of their income for housing. Tnese ratios were then applied to the current counts of the number of households . Below are ABAG' s estimated total numbers and proportions of low income households overpaying for housing in Dublin (ABAG, 1989 ) . Percentage Total of Dublin ' s Number Population low income households (HH) owning 420 1 . 6% low income HH renting 361 1 . 4% low income HH overpaying (owners ) 266 1 . 0% low income HH overpaying (renters ) 266 1 . 0% There is a slightly greater proportion of lower income renter households overpaying for housing than lower-income owners as shown below (ABAG) . Proportion of low income owners overpaying 63% Proportion of low income renters overpaying 74% HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS Dublin' s housing stock has become more diversified since the 1985 Housing Element was adopted. At that time, the City' s housing stock was characterized by single family detached homes with relatively homogeneous prices and sizes . However, with the completion of recent residential projects, the overall nature of the housing stock has begun to change . OVERCROWDING Overcrowded housing is an indication of an unmet need for housing from families unable to afford adequately sized accommodation. An overcrowded housing unit is defined by the Census Bureau as one in which there are more than 1 . 01 persons per room. The 1980 Census reported 109 overcrowded units in Dublin, 2 . 6% of the City' s housing units . Applying this same percentage to the current estimate of 7 , 073 existing ( 1990) housing units , results in an estimated 184 existing overcrowded units . Applying the percentages of renters to owners in Dublin ' s population, results in an estimated 44 overcrowded rental units and 140 overcrowded owner occupied units . While overcrowding has been declining state wide since the 1960 ' s, the 7 . 4% overcrowding in California reported in 1980 represents a substantially higher incidence of overcrowding state wide than in the City. HOUSING STOCK CONDITION Dublin ' s housing stock is characterized by homes built within the last 30 years (approximately 95% of the entire housing stock) , as 14 shown below (U. S . Census Bureau, 1980 and Planning Department estimates , 1990 ) . Units Percent of Built Existing Units 1980 to 1989 2 , 940 41 . 7% 1970 to 1979 462 6 . 5% 1960 to 1969 3 , 314 46 . 8% 1950 to 1959 156 2 . 2% 1940 to 1949 186 2 . 6% 1939 or earlier 15 0 . 2% The predominance of buildings constructed within the past 30 years means that the housing stock is in very good condition. Maintenance varies from poor to excellent, but instances of poor maintenance are few and scattered. Dublin' s Building Inspector reports few violations . There are no substandard units needing replacement . There have been no homes demolished in the past five years . The City provides information to the public regarding the Alameda County Home Improvement Loan Program which is administered by the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development . The program provides low interest home improvement loans to homeowners who have low or moderate incomes . Very few households in Dublin have applied for assistance from the program (refer to Program III .M. in the Goals , Quantified Objectives Policies and Programs Section) . NUMBER OF HOUSING UNITS Between January 1985 and January 1990 , a total of 2 , 645 housing units were constructed in Dublin, including 1 , 011 single family units and 1 , 634 multi-family units . Approximately 62% of the new housing units were multi-family and there was an increase in multifamily units within the City from 9% of the total housing stock in 1985 to 29% in 1990 . There are no manufactured homes or mobile homes in Dublin. However, manufactured homes and mobile homes are permitted in all single family zoning districts . Below are the total number of existing housing units in Dublin: Single Family* Multi-Family** Total 1/1/89 Estimate *** 5 , 024 1 , 693 6 , 717 Final Inspections 29 327 356 in 1989 Total Existing Units 5 , 053 2 , 020 7 , 073 as of 12/31/89 * Single family detached ** Includes single family attached units *** California Department of Finance, 1989 15 TENURE* Approximately 760 of the City' s units are occupied by owners while 24% are occupied by renters ( 1980 Census) . Applying these percentages to the total number of existing households ( 7 , 073 ) results in an estimated 5, 375 owner households and 1 , 698 renter households in 1990 . Dublin currently has the lowest proportion of single family houses in its housing stock ( 71% ) compared to the other cities in the Tri- Valley which range from 76% to 93% . By comparison, the Tri-Valley average is about 80% and the County average is 59% (ABAG 1989 ) . Dublin ' s housing growth rate during the first nine years of the 1980 ' s has been greater than for the Tri-Valley area, Alameda County or the San Francisco Bay Area as shown below (WPM Planning Team, 1989 ) . Area Growth Rate City of Dublin 62% Tri-Valley Area 39% Alameda County 13% Bay Area . 13% A total of 2 , 365 building permits for new homes were issued in Dublin from January 1985 through December 1989 , including 803 single family homes ( 34% ) and 1, 562 multi-family homes ( 660 ) . The building permits issued for new homes in Dublin from 1985 through 1989 are shown below (Dublin Building Department, 1990 ) . Single Family Multi-family Total 1985 195 43 238 1986 259 129 388 1987 251 756 1, 007 1988 25 204 229 1989 73 430 503 Total 803 1 , 562 - 2 , 365 *Tenure means the type of occupancy within a housing unit (renter or owner-occupied) . VACANCY RATES Vacancy rates are a commonly used indicator of the adequacy of the existing housing stock in meeting market area needs . The difference between current and optimal vacancy rates is a good measure of existing need. The 1980 census reported vacancy rates in Dublin as follows : Vacant Units Percent of Total Units Vacant for Sale 28 • 9 Vacant for Rent 17 1 . 8 16 ABAG has used a vacancy goal of 4 . 5 percent for housing need calculations . In 1988 , the vacancy rate for the Bay area was 3 . 58% . According to the State Department of Finance, as of January 1989 there were 6 , 516 occupied units in Dublin and an overall vacancy rate of 2 . 99% . Thus, the overall vacancy rate for Dublin in January 1989 was below the region ' s vacancy goal as well as the average vacancy rate . This would indicate a need for additional housing to satisfy demand. A 5% rental vacancy rate is considered necessary .to permit ordinary rental mobility (Local Housing Element Assistance Project, 1989 ) . A 2% vacancy rate for owned housing is considered normal . A sample survey in 1983 found virtually no vacancies in Dublin apartments , with waiting lists typical (Blayney-Dyett) . However, the relatively low cost of renting and the absence of a requirement of a large down payment makes rentals an important source of affordable market rate housing . SUBSIDIZED HOUSING The Arroyo Vista project in Dublin is a 150-unit housing complex for low income families . The Arroyo Vista project was approved by a two-thirds majority vote in the unincorporated area of Alameda County under Article 34 of the California Constitution, as required for publicly owned subsidized housing. In 1986 the Dublin Housing Authority was formed and the title to . the Arroyo Vista project was transferred from the City of Pleasanton Housing Authority to the City of Dublin Housing Authority. The management of Arroyo Vista was transferred from the Pleasanton Housing Authority to the Alameda County Housing Authority (Basgal , 1990 ) . The Arroyo Vista project houses very low income tenants . There are some existing tenants who are above 50% of the median income limits but admission requirements are 50% of the median income or below. Income eligibility is only one criterion for tenant selection at Arroyo Vista . Eligible applicants must also meet one of the following federal preferences : 1 . Involuntary Displacement, e .g. owner terminates tenancy for reasons beyond the control of the tenant, domestic violence which requires tenant to leave violent circumstances , or government action or a natural disaster requiring tenant to leave the dwelling . 2 . Substandard Housing, e . g. unit does not provide safe and adequate shelter, and homelessness . 3 . Paying 50% or More of Income for Rent, the amount paid includes a reasonable amount for utilities . 17 Other subsidized housing in Dublin is available through two Section 8 programs which provide rent subsidies to qualified households . Section 8 certificates provide the difference between one third of a household ' s income and the monthly cost of an apartment up to a certain standard price . Section 8 new construction funds were used in the construction of The Springs apartments , a 176-unit complex including 36 subsidized units . The Section 8 certificate program is administered by the Alameda County Housing Authority. Currently, the Housing Authority contracts for seven Section 8 units in Dublin (as of December 1, 1989 ) . Below is a summary of subsidized housing in the Livermore/ Amador Valley (Dublin Planning Department, 1990) : Type City Complex Total Age Group Rent ( # of units) of Tenants Subsidy Dublin Arroyo Vista 150 Elderly Q. I . Family Handicapped Dublin The Springs 176 Elderly Q. I . ( 36 subsidized) Family Handicapped Livermore Hillcrest 54 Elderly Q. I . Gardens Handicapped S . I . Livermore Leahy Square 125 Family Q. I . Elderly Handicapped Livermore Livermore 96 Family Q. I . Gardens S . S . Livermore Meadowlark 47 Elderly Q. I . Family Handicapped Livermore Vineyard 74 Elderly Q. I . Village Handicapped Pleasanton Kottinger 50 Elderly Q. I . Place Handicapped Pleasanton Pleasanton 39 Elderly S . S . Gardens Handicapped Pleasanton Pleasanton 131 Elderly S . S . Greens Family Handicapped Q. I . = 25% of income S . S . = Sliding Scale 18 Tenants at Arroyo Vista, The Springs ( subsidized units ) , Livermore Leahy Square and Pleasanton Kottinger Place pay 30% of their income for rent . The same may be true for the other projects listed depending on the type of project financing. Persons on Waiting Lists for Subsidized Housing One index of immediate need is the length of waiting lists for subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley. Households on waiting lists are in need of affordable housing and actively seeking to relocate . There is probably some overlap between projects , with a number of households on lists for more than one housing complex. Below are the waiting lists for subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley area as of January 1990 compared to the number on waiting lists for the same projects in June 1983 (Planning Department survey) . City Complex Total on Waiting Total on Waiting List - 1/90 List in 1983 Dublin Arroyo Vista 86 187 Dublin The Springs 22 N/A ** Pleasanton Kottinger Place 15 29 Pleasanton Gardens 22 27 Pleasanton Greens 54 57 Livermore Hillcrest Gardens 100 110 Livermore Leahy Square 75 150 Livermore Gardens 180 50 Livermore Meadowlark 250 70 Livermore Vineyard Village 146 86 Total 950 766 * At the time that the waiting list was checked for the Arroyo Vista project in 1983, only 85 of the 150 units were completed. ** A waiting- list was not maintained by The Springs in 1983 . Based upon the survey results, the number of persons on waiting lists for subsidized housing has increased by 24% since 1983 . 19 HOUSING SERVICES The City of Dublin participates in a voucher program in which homeless persons who are referred to the Police Department are given a voucher by the police, for a hotel located in the City of Pleasanton . For Dublin residents in need of housing counseling or emergency shelter, a variety of services exist . Below is a summary of the services that are available (City of Pleasanton and City of Livermore, 1989 ) . For Seniors Alameda County Department of Aging - housing services for seniors , San Leandro . General Advisory and Counseling Service, Shared Housing Placement ECHO Housing Assistance Center - Housing advisory services, housing counseling services , discrimination investigation, Section 8 , tenant/ landlord problems, Senior Citizens, shared housing placement mediation services . Livermore. Emergency Shelter Tri-Valley Haven For Women - Services for victims of domestic violence and sexual assault . Housing, shelter, counseling and child care program. Pleasanton. Shepard ' s Gate - emergency shelter for women and children. Livermore Family Crisis Center for Men - emergency shelter for men. Livermore . Family Crisis Center for Families - emergency shelter for families . Livermore Emergency Fund Center - Casework, disaster, infant supplies, food, clothing, appliances , material needs, transportation. Livermore . Buenas Vidas Ranch - Emergency Housing for youth (wards of the court, not homeless) ages 10 to 19 years . Livermore 20 Emergency Shelter Program, Inc . - Emergency services include crisis counseling, temporary shelter for women and children, meals provided, advocacy services , children' s program, housing search, job training. Hayward. 21 6 . 1 . 3 LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT [65583 (a) ( 3) ] Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 3 ) requires that the Housing Element include an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment . It must also include an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites . During the five year planning period ( 1990 - 1995 ) , it is projected that 1 , 905 total additional housing units , 381 units/year, will be constructed in Dublin. INCORPORATED AREA Vacant Land Within the incorporated portions of the City, there are 29 vacant acres , which could yield a total of 202 (maximum) units including 107 single family homes and 95 multiple-family units . The following vacant sites are located within the incorporated portions of the City (refer to Sites for Housing Development Map in Appendix) . Projected No . of Units Single Multi- Current No . on Acres Family Family Zoning Map Arroyo Vista * 6+ 0 42-95 PD 2 Fallon School 8 17 0 R-1-B-E** 9 Valley Christian 15 14-90 0 Agricultural 12 Total 29 107 95 * Includes two sites for multi-family housing: a four acre site and a two acre site . ** R-1-B-E allows sites from 5 , 000-7, 500 square feet . Projects Currently Under Construction There are 646 units which have been approved within the city limits but have not received final inspections , as summarized below (Dublin Planning Department, 1990) . The locations of the projects are shown on the map of recent residential projects in the Appendix. Total # of Units Building Single- Multi- Permits No . or Map Name family family Issued Unoccupied 3 .a Bordeaux Estates 175 175 9 3 .b Ahmanson 69 69 69 8 . Kildara 174 174 132 16a Heritage Commons 303 73 230 16b Dublin Meadows 206 206 206 Total Unoccupied Units 646 22 Redevelopment Sites Sites having potential for redevelopment are zoned for a higher residential density than the development that currently exists on the site . If these sites were redeveloped at the current land use density, then more units could be developed on the lots . However, with very few units over 30 years old and a small number of units needing repair, it is unlikely that redevelopment resulting in more intensive use of presently developed land will occur within the five year time frame of the housing program. In addition, residential designations have been considered for several commercially zoned sites and rejected. Planning Commission and City Council members chose to retain commercial designations because of concerns regarding traffic and land use compatibility and in recognition of anticipated demand for commercial sites . The only sites having potential for redevelopment within Dublin are those in the downtown intensification area where mixed commercial/residential uses are allowed (refer to Site 13 on the Sites for Development Map in the Appendix) . The Downtown Specific Plan which was adopted in 1987 allows up to 200 additional multi- family units within the downtown area . It should be noted that while the potential for density increases in the downtown area, not all property owners redevelop their property, or develop it to the maximum density permitted. To date no property owners in this area have proposed residential units on their sites . SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AND EXTENDED PLANNING AREA The available vacant land designated for residential development within the City' s Sphere of Influence is 179 acres with a potential yield of 497 units . All of this area is within the Hansen Hill Ranch annexation area which is currently being reviewed by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) . Dublin has designated an extended planning area, largely within its sphere of influence, that "bears relation to its planning" (Government Code Section 65300) . The extended planning area is largely undeveloped and is characterized by steep slopes with oak woodlands west of the City and rolling grasslands east of the City . The area also includes the public lands comprising Parks Reserve Forces Training Area ( RFTA) , Santa Rita Rehabilitation Center, and Tassajara Regional Park. These areas include Hansen Hill , Donlan Canyon, East Dublin and West Dublin. Portions of East Dublin and West Dublin also lie within the City' s sphere of influence . The total number of projected units within the extended planning area is 12 , 697 to 24 , 897 units , including 7 , 960 to 15 , 620 multi- family units and 4 , 737 to 9 , 277 single family units (Planning Department, 1990) . Below are the projected total number of units in areas under consideration by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) for annexation to the City and the projected annexation dates . 23 Estimated Projected # of Units Year of Area Multi-family Single Family Total Annexation Hansen Hill - 180 180 1990 Donlan Canyon 300 17 317 1990 East Dublin * 7 , 000-14 , 000 3 , 000-6 , 000 10 , 000-20, 000 1992 West Dublin * 660-1, 320 1 , 540-3 , 080 2 , 200-4 , 400 1992 Total 7 , 960-15 , 620 4 , 737-9 , 277 12 , 697-24 , 897 * It is currently unknown how many housing units will be produced in East Dublin or West Dublin during the planning period because zoning has not been established for residential development in these areas ( i .e. , the estimated number of units shown above may be revised during the review process ) . If East Dublin and West Dublin are annexed to the City by the projected year ( 1992 ) , construction could begin in 1994 , thereby producing units within the five year planning period of the Housing Element . Prior to the year 2005 , the demand for units is projected to be 3 , 725 total units (about 350 units/year) . It is possible that a total of approximately 350 units could be built in East Dublin and/or West Dublin during the five year planning period . The projected total number of units in the extended planning area during the five year planning period is 847 to 857 units , including 475 multi-family units and 372 to 382 single family units as summarized below. Estimated Number of Units Area Multi-family Single Family Total Hansen Hill - 180-190 180-190 Donlan Canyon 300 17 317 East and West Dublin 175 175 350 Total 475 372-382 847-857 RELATIONSHIP OF ZONING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES TO HOUSING SITES The sites described above within the city limits currently have adequate services available to accommodate their potential development . In addition, the existing General Plan land use designations and zoning for these areas would allow the potential development discussed above, with the exception of the Valley Christian Center property. It is currently within the Agricultural District . The zoning has not been changed on the Valley Christian 24 Center site . The property owner has not submitted a proposal for a residential project . General .Plan designations for the extended planning area are schematic in nature . General Plan Policy 2 . 1 . 4 calls for consideration of residential development on moderate slopes with multi-family densities on flatter land and next to business park areas . The potential number of units cannot be determined until utility plans for extension of urban services are prepared and further studies are completed. For example, the capacity of existing sewerage facilities must be expanded. Infrastructure needs for West Dublin also include the construction of on and off ramps from I 580 at Schaffer Canyon. LAND INVENTORY SUMMARY The total number of projected units in the five year planning period is 1 , 905, as summarized on the next page . 25 SITES SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE FIVE YEAR PLANNING PERIOD Density Dwelling Projected Projected Projected General Plan Existing Proposed JJ of Range Unit Year of Year of Year Services Project (JJ on Map) Designation Zoning Zoning Acres (units/acre) Ca acity Annexation Rezoning Available Vacant Sites Within City Limits (1!�) N/A Available Arroyo Vista Medium Density 1- N/A 6+ 6.1 to 6 95 N/A N/A Available Single Family R-1-D-E N/A 8 .9 to 6 17 N/A N/A Available Fallon School (JJ9) 9 Valley Christian (Ji12) Pub/Semi-Pub Ag R-1-8-E 15 .9 to 6 90 N/A Projects Under Construction Single Family PO N/A 89 .9 to 6 9 N/A N/A Available Bordeau Estates (JJ3a) g [ 9 to 6 69 N/A N/A Available Ahmanson (JJ36) Single Family PD N/A 3i Available 13 6.1 to 14 132 NIA N/A Kildara (JJB) Medium Density PO N/A N/A Available Medium Density N/A Heritage Commons (#16a)6a) y PD N/A 21 .7 6.1 to 14 230 16.5 6.1 to 14 206 N/A N/A Available Dublin Meadows (b16b) Medium Density PD N/A Redevelopment Sites Downtown (JJ11) Commercial/ C-1 , M-1 , NIA N/A 200 N/A N/A Available Light Indust C-2 & PD N/A Extended Planning Area Single Family PD N/A 57.2 .5 to 3.8 190 1990 1990 1991 Hansen Hill 0/7) Donlan Canyon (JJ25) Single Family, Medium to High Density Ag 197 .5 to 25 317 1990 1990 1991 East Dublin U26) Open Space/Res 1992 1993 Unknown Unknown 7,400 N/A 175 1992 West Dublin U27) Open Space/Res Unknown Unknown 3,400 N/A 175 1992 1992 1993 1 ,905 TOTAL -tThe extent to which residential development is appropriate in the downtown, and the area of future intensification is not known at this time. "The proposed zoning of Donlan Canyon is as follows: Land Use Designation - Low Density Single-Family Residential (0.5 to 3.8 DU/Acre) 13 acres: medium-high density (14.1 to 25 DU/Acres) 19.1 acres; open space; stream corridor 164.9 acres N 6 . 1 . 4 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS [ 65583 (a) ( 4) ] Government Code Section 65583 ( a) ( 4 ) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels , including land use controls , building codes , and their enforcement, site improvements , fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures . Local governments are empowered with the authority to regulate, among other things , the location, density, timing, and type of residential development which occurs in their jurisdiction. This authority is exerted in several ways , from controlling land uses through zoning to levying development fees and exactions to pay for municipal improvements . While intended to protect the interests of residents , local regulations can have effects which present potential barriers to the production of housing. LAND USE CONTROLS The Municipal Code Zoning Districts correspond to the General Plan land use designations . Each general plan designation and its implementing zone specify allowed or conditionally permitted land uses and set forth property development standards such as maximum density, minimum lot size, setbacks , and building height requirements . The Dublin Zoning Ordinance provides five basic residential districts ; single-family, two-family, four-family, multiple and suburban residential . The general lot size requirements for each district are described below. More complete details on the requirements for each district are contained in the Zoning Ordinance . The single family residential district (R-1 ) requires a separate 5 , 000 square foot lot for each residence . Only one residence may be constructed on a lot . R-1-L, R-1-L-B-E, and R-1-B-E districts also permit only one residence per lot but the minimum lot size is specified . The required front yard and rear yard setbacks are 20 feet . The maximum building height is 25 feet (two stories ) . - The two-family residential district (R-2 ) also has a 5 , 000 square foot building site requirement, but on this building site may be located one two-family or two one-family residences . The required front and rear yard setbacks are 20 feet . The maximum building height is 25 feet (two stories ) . The four-family residential district (R-4 ) requires a 6 , 000 square foot lot minimum building site area and allows one unit for each 1, 200 square feet . The required front and rear setbacks are 20 feet . The maximum building height is 45 feet or 75 feet, depending upon the lot coverage . 27 The suburban residence (R-S) district has a basic density requirement of one unit for each 5, 000 square feet of lot area, but unlike the R-1 , R-2 and R-3 districts , each unit (or group of units ) does not have to be on a separate lot . The required front and rear setbacks are 20 feet. The maximum building height is 25 feet ( two stories ) . Planned Development (PD) zoning is another category that permits greater flexibility in addressing site-specific or project objective issues . The overall density generally falls into the range of one of the regular zoning categories but site layout and other matters are permitted greater flexibility. Since the amount of vacant land within the City limits is minimal ( 29 acres ) , the densities allowable under the existing residential zoning districts are not considered to be a constraint to providing adequate housing for all income levels . In addition, the present zoning reflects the land uses that have existed in Dublin for over 20 years . Recent construction over the past ten years has been primarily multi-family development . However, the City will review the development standards ( setbacks , building height, parking, etc . ) to determine whether changes should be made to reduce development costs (refer to Program I .C . in the Goals , Quantified Objectives , Policies and Housing Programs Section) . Zoning could be a constraint to housing if the density categories are low in an area that could support higher density residential development . To encourage higher density development, the City will 1 ) consider higher densities near the proposed BART station, 2 ) the use of air rights over parking lots and sites with low intensity land uses to build housing, 3 ) an ordinance allowing density bonuses in excess of those called for by State law, 4 ) an inclusionary housing ordinance and 5) other incentives (refer to Programs I .A. , I . B. , I .D. , and I . E . in the Goals , Quantified Objectives , Policies and Housing Program Section) . These programs will provide incentives for constructing affordable housing units . BUILDING CODES 11 Dublin uses the Uniform Building Code and Uniform Housing Code as the basis for the City' s building standards . These codes are enforced by the Building Department as new projects are proposed or completed, or existing housing is upgraded to current standards . The City does not have a systematic code enforcement program. Existing units are inspected only when complaints are received by the City. If code violations are discovered, owners are only required to make improvements which bring the property up to minimum code requirements . Because the City has not adopted more stringent standards , the enforcement of the UBC does not pose a significant constraint to the production or improvement of housing in Dublin . 28 SITE IMPROVEMENTS The provision of on-site improvements is a standard condition of all new development in Dublin. These improvements usually include streets , curbs , gutters , sidewalks , landscaping, drainage, water, sewer, power and communications utilities . In some cases , off-site improvements may be required (e . g . , drainage or flood control , street widening, etc . ) . These requirements are not excessive and are comparable to provisions in neighboring cities . FEES AND EXACTIONS One often cited constraint is the high cost of development fees and permits . These include fees for planning services , building permits , sewer and water hookups and park land dedication. Development fees raise housing costs diminishing the pool of possible buyers for any given project . Though fees act to reduce the rate of residential development, they are an essential means of funding necessary services for new development . Given the choice made by Californians in 1978 when Proposition 13 passed, Dublin ( like other jurisdictions ) has no practical alternative resources with which to fund basic improvements to serve new residences . Planning Fees and Processing Time Planning Department fees for major projects ( e .g. , rezonings , planned development projects and subdivisions ) are on a fee for service basis . The applicant submits a deposit with the City and pays the actual costs for processing the project . For smaller projects the fees vary from $25 for a variance in an R-1 District to $350 for refiling a previously approved subdivision map . Processing time for planning applications vary depending upon the completeness of the application the complexity of the request and various State and local processing requirements . For example, recent zone change applications have gone to public hearing within about one month after submittals were found to be complete . Allowing two additional months for City Council hearings and the 30-day effective period, the estimated overall processing of a zone change would be three months from the time that the application submittal was completed. Recent conditional use permit applications have gone to public hearings within about five weeks after the submittals were found to be complete. Recent variance and subdivision applications have gone to public hearing within an average of two months after the submittals were found complete . Program II .B. would reduce application fees for senior projects and developments providing 10% or more units affordable for very low, low and moderate income households (refer to the Goals, Quantified Objectives , Policies and Housing Programs Section) . 29 Building Fees and Processing Time The current building permit fees for residential uses are $56 . 50/sq. ft . of living area plus $15/sq. ft . for the garage . For example, a new home costing $137 , 000 would have a building permit and plan check fee of $1 , 164 . The processing time for building permits varies depending upon the quality of the plans submitted by the applicant . Other Fees Engineering fees are charged on a time and material basis , similar to other cities in the area . Park dedication requirements are based upon . 011 acres/unit for single family subdivisions and . 009 acres/unit for multi-family subdivisions . In-lieu fees are calculated by multiplying the acreage requirement by the value of the undeveloped land. PROCESSING TIME AND PERMIT PROCEDURES Depending on the complexity and magnitude of the development proposal , the time which elapses from application submittal to project approval may vary considerably. Examples of factors which affect the duration of development review are whether the land to be developed requires annexation or rezoning or whether a Negative Declaration, rather than an Environmental Impact Report ( EIR) , is sufficient . Generally, all developments undergo an environmental review and design review to ensure the continuity of design throughout the City. This process can take anywhere between six weeks for a small design review application, up to six months or longer for a subdivision application requiring and Environmental Impact Report . Fees for processing development proposals can be significant and combined with long processing time can add to the cost of housing . Dublin has made every effort to minimize processing times and fees . Program II . A. would provide priority processing for senior projects and developments providing loo or more units affordable for very low, low and moderate income households ( refer to Goals , Quantified Objectives , Policies and Housing Programs Section) . 30 6 . 1 .5 NONGOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS [ 65583 (a) (5) ] Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 5 ) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels , including the availability of financing, the price of land, and the cost of construction. While local government actions can have a significant effect on the production of housing, there are several market related factors , acting independently and beyond a local government ' s immediate control , which may pose barriers to housing production. The inventory of non-governmental constraints can be separated into two groups : those that increase housing cost to the consumer and those factors that reduce or slow down housing development . In the first category are financing, land prices and construction costs . In the second category are community opposition to high density housing, possible lack of infrastructure capacity and competition of different land uses for undeveloped land. AVAILABILITY OF FINANCING The cost of borrowing money to finance the construction of housing or to purchase a home can have a large impact on the amount of affordable priced housing produced and subsequently purchased in a community. Fluctuating interest rates can eliminate many potential home buyers from the housing market or render infeasible a housing project which, at lower interest rates, could have been successfully marketed . Rental housing costs are also affected by higher interest rates , since the owner will pass added costs directly to the tenant in the form of higher contract rents . Financing is generally available in Dublin. There are no mortgage deficient areas in Dublin. Interest rates are not significantly different than other areas in Northern California. Current prevailing interest rates for a conventional single-family mortgage are about loo to 11% , assuming a 30-year fixed rate loan with an 80% loan to value ratio . These rates represent a noticeable decline from the mid-1984 rates of 13% to 14% for comparable loans . PRICE OF LAND The cost of land is one housing constraint where local government actions and market forces are closely related. Land prices in Dublin depend on a number of factors , including : the allowable density and type of residential development suitable for the property, the proximity to the freeway and commercial developments , and the quality of nearby existing development . Because the City is relatively built out, there is not an abundant supply of undeveloped land, a factor which pushes up prices further. 31 COST OF CONSTRUCTION An ongoing survey of construction costs in the San Francisco Bay Area conducted by the Bank of America reveals that materials and labor costs are continually increasing. In July 1983, the per square foot construction cost of a typical, three-bedroom/two-bath, standard quality, single-family home was $46 . 73 . By July 1987 , the per square foot construction cost of an identical home had risen to $53 . 67 , an almost 15% increase in four years (Bank of America, 1987 ) . COMMUNITY OPPOSITION TO MEDIUM AND HIGH DENSITY HOUSING Two multi-family residential projects proposed in Dublin were delayed and finally were approved at reduced densities as a consequence of opposition of nearby residents to multi-family dwellings at high densities . Community concerns that have been raised centered on noise and traffic impacts , aesthetics and neighborhood character. Opposition of some Dublin residents to higher density housing has impeded development of a wider variety of housing types than the city has had in the past . Approvals contingent on redesign have meant projects with fewer and larger, more costly units than initially proposed by developers . However, despite density reductions resulting from community sentiment, medium-high density has been approved in Dublin since 1985 . POSSIBLE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY The most prominent public facilities issue faced in Dublin and other Tri-Valley cities is limited sewer capacity (refer to the Dublin General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element, Section 4 . 3) . Sewage collection and treatment and effluent disposal are provided to Dublin residents and businesses by the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) , a member of the Livermore Amador Valley Water Management Agency (LAVWMA) . DSRSD owns and operates its own sewage treatment plant, while LAVWMA owns an effluent pipeline used by member jurisdictions , DSRSD and the cities of Pleasanton and Livermore . DSRSD ' s treatment plant can be expanded to four times its present size, but the LAVWMA pipeline that carries treated effluent through Dublin Canyon to the Bay is nearing capacity. Development of additional LAVWMA capacity in the form of another pipeline in the Valley would require Valley-wide voter approval . Thus, the capacity of existing sewerage facilities is a potential constraint to the growth of both East Dublin and West Dublin. Infrastructure costs for West Dublin will also be relatively high due to the required construction of on and off ramps from I 580 at Schaffer Canyon. Other potential long term constraints include solid waste and water supply and distribution (ABAG) . 32 The analysis of capital/infrastructure costs for the East Dublin planning alternatives found that the magnitude of the capital cost load estimated would not be totally insupportable, but it would be among the highest for recent Bay Area development (Wallace, Roberts & Todd, East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Studies , 1990 ) . This is due largely to the limited sewer capacity, the required improvements to Interstate 580, and the fact that infrastructure is currently not available to the area. Consequently, absorption rates in East Dublin may be slowed by this cost disadvantage . COMPETITION AMONG LAND USES Closely related to the limited availability of land in Dublin is the tension between competing uses for what limited undeveloped land does exist . For example, in deciding on General Plan designations for the Fallon School site, the need for housing was weighed against the growing need for recreation facilities as the city' s population grows . The resulting plan devotes a portion of the site to park land while designating the remaining acreage for residential development . CONCLUSION With a total of 2 , 645 housing units constructed between January 1985 and January 1990 . (approximately 37% of Dublin' s existing housing stock) , it becomes clear that, overall , neither governmental nor non-governmental constraints are impeding the total number of housing units which are being produced. Furthermore, since the City' s development fees and exactions are comparable to surrounding jurisdictions , governmental constraints do not appear to be unreasonably increasing housing costs . The problem has been the high cost of housing caused primarily by non- governmental constraints which have resulted in limited housing available for low and moderate income households . 33 6 . 1 . 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS [65583 (a) ( 6 ) ] Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 6 ) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of any special housing needs, including those of the following population groups : Handicapped Elderly Large families Farm workers Families with female heads of households Families and persons in need of emergency shelter HANDICAPPED PERSONS The Valleys Corridor Project which was prepared by United Way of the Bay Area in 1982 reports the number of persons in Dublin and the Valley corridor with major disabling conditions (United Way of the Bay Area, 1982 ) . The two categories likely to include the greatest portion of people with special housing needs are "Amputees and Others" and Other Physical Disorders" which total 803 , or 5 . 9% of Dublin ' s 1980 population. This figure can be compared with the 1980 Census counts of those with work place and public transportation disabilities , totaling 722 , or 5 . 3% of Dublin ' s residents (U. S . Census Bureau, 1980 ) . The figure double counts an unknown number of people who have both work place and public transportation disabilities . In sum, 5% represents the high end of an estimated portion of Dublin' s households with special housing needs related to disabling conditions . Applying this percentage to the estimated 1990 population results in an estimated 1, 275 handicapped persons in Dublin. Applying the percentages of renters to owners in Dublin' s population, results in an estimated 306 handicap persons renting and 969 handicap persons owning. The special housing needs of the disabled population are accessible housing units , housing within convenient access of services , and special design features to mitigate the disability. State law requires handicap provisions in all rental apartment units . All recent construction of apartment units has incorporated these provisions . ELDERLY PERSONS The 1980 Census reported 429 Dublin residents over age 62 , representing 3 . 2% of the City' s population, considerably below the Bay Area total of 12 . 6% (U. S . Census Bureau, 1980 ) . Applying the 1980 percentage to the 1990 population would result in 816 residents over age 62 . Applying the percentages of renters to owners in Dublin ' s population, results in an estimated 196 elderly persons renting and 620 elderly persons owning. 34 Unfortunately, data is not available which indicates the portion of Dublin ' s elderly households that are overpaying. The generally low incidence of overcrowded and unsafe housing units in the city suggests that these are not problems for the elderly or other groups with special housing needs . Access to services is another concern for the elderly. The shopping opportunities in Dublin ' s relatively compact downtown are attractive to those with mobility problems, but may be offset by delays associated with bus transit . Low and moderate income elderly households have greater opportunities to find subsidized housing in the Tri-Valley area than do families . This is probably attributable to the relative ease of gaining acceptance for affordable housing when it is provided for seniors instead of families with children. Five of the Tri Valley ' s ten subsidized housing complexes are for elderly and disabled households only. Recent studies have shown that seniors are living longer and as they age require some form of assisted living care when they are no longer able to, or wish to, live independently. To address these needs , housing for seniors is changing and more congregate living facilities are needed . Senior housing facilities and shared housing are discussed in more detail in the housing program section . LARGE FAMILIES A family with five or more persons is considered a large family. The 1980 Census reported a total of 746 large families , 19% of the total number of families in Dublin (U. S . Census Bureau, 1980 ) . Applying this percentage to the 1990 population results in an estimated 4 , 845 large families in Dublin. Applying the percentages of renters to owners in Dublin ' s population, results in an estimated 1, 163 large families renting and 3 , 682 large families owning. Though data is not available that relates family size to ability to pay, the frequency of large families living in unsuitable housing units would presumably be evident by a high incidence of overcrowding . Since overcrowding is reported to occur in less than 30 ( 188 units ) of Dublin ' s housing units , it appears that large families are not facing severe housing problems in the city. FARMWORKERS State law requires analysis of the special needs of Farm workers . Dublin does not contain any land which is currently used for agricultural purposes , other than some land used for grazing in East Dublin and West Dublin. To the best of our knowledge, there are virtually no Farm workers in Dublin who require special housing assistance . 35 FAMILIES WITH FEMALE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD The 1980 Census reported 222 female headed households with children present, 5 . 3% of the City' s population (U. S . Census Bureau, 1980 ) , as compared with almost 10% reported for the Bay Area . The number of female headed households with children living below poverty was 22 , 0 . 6% of all Dublin households . The corresponding figure for the Bay Area was 44 , 061 , or 2 . 2% of all households . Applying the 1980 percentages to the estimated 1990 population in Dublin, there would be 1 , 352 single parent female headed households and the number of female headed households with children living below poverty would be 43 . FAMILIES AND PERSONS IN NEED OF EMERGENCY SHELTER State legislation (AB 2579 ) enacted September 30 , 1984 requires , among other provisions , local governments to assess in the housing element the need for temporary or emergency shelter in their community (Government Code Section 65583 ( a) ( 6 ) . Effective January 1 , 1988 , housing elements are required to identify "adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate the development of . . . emergency shelters and transitional housing" (Government Code Section 65583 ( c) ( 1 ) . Homebase, a regional support center for homeless policy and programs , reported approximately 6 , 000 homeless persons in Alameda County in 1989 . It also reported 535 shelter beds which represents a ratio of 11 homeless persons for each shelter bed (this does not include vouchers to house people on an emergency basis in low-rent hotels ) . The ratio for the Bay Area is 15 homeless persons for each shelter bed (Homebase, 1989 ) . A survey of emergency shelter providers in the Tri-Valley area ( including a conversation with Reverend Earl Heverly of the Good Samaritan Committee in Dublin which issues emergency shelter vouchers ) revealed that in 1989 a total of 92 individuals from Dublin spent 756 bed nights in emergency shelters in the Tri-Valley area . Below is a summary of number of beds available, the number of persons from Dublin that were provided with shelter and the costs of providing shelter. 36 No . No. No . Bed Cost Per Program Beds Persons Nights Bed Night Total Tri-Valley Haven 30 11 217 $44 . 85 $9 , 732 for Women Sheperd ' s Gate 16 15 180 $37 . 47 $6 , 745 Family Crisis Center for Men 6 0 0 $10 . 00 0 Family Crisis 15 11 237 $15 . 37 $3 , 643 Center for Families Emergency Shelter 44 4 71 $32 . 00 $2 , 272 Good Samaritan Committee Motel/ Hotel Vouchers 0 51** 51 $33 . 50 $1 , 709 Total 111 92 756 $31 . 88* $24 , 101 * Average cost per night bed (all providers ) . ** Reverend Heverly estimates 60% of these persons were transients . According to the Dublin Police Department, Dublin does not have a permanent population of homeless persons living outside of shelters similar to the situations in larger cities in Alameda County. When the Police Department was contacted in February 1990 , they indicated that there are currently no known homeless persons living in Dublin (Clouse, 1990 ) . The homeless are usually either individuals from Dublin who normally have homes and jobs but lose their homes due to financial reasons or family stress, or are transients passing through Dublin to large urban centers to the west . Homeless persons are directed to emergency shelters or are offered hotel vouchers for a hotel in Pleasanton. Locations where homeless persons have stayed include under the overpass between Clark Avenue and Sierra Court and in cars parked in the rear of parking lots . Due to the low numbers of homeless persons in Dublin, it is generally felt that there are adequate number of existing programs in the Tri-valley area to adequately accommodate existing needs . However, residents from Dublin and a small percentage of transients did cost emergency shelter providers $24 , 101 in 1989 . The City will consider supporting the existing programs to the extent of its resident ' s needs by purchasing bed spaces and/or providing financial assistance ( refer to Program II .E . in the Goals , Quantified Objectives , Policies and Housing Program Section) . 37 Other potential means of providing support would be to 1) provide financial assistance to the existing motel voucher system administered by the Valley Christian Center, and 2 ) providing funding and/or personnel support to encourage churches in Dublin to provide winter relief to homeless persons in the form of food and shelter ( refer to the Housing Program Section) . In addition, the City will consider amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a conditional use (refer to Program I .F. in the Goals , Quantified Objectives , Policies and Housing Programs Section) . 38 6 . 1 . 7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION [ 65583 (a) ( 7) ] Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 7 ) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development. Rapidly rising energy costs over the past decade have focused attention on the patterns of energy consumption and the opportunities for energy conservation in all sectors of society. Residential-related energy use is one area where opportunities for modifying energy consumption exist. Once considered an insignificant factor of housing costs, the energy needed to fuel residential heating and cooling systems and household appliances is consuming and increasing share of a household ' s income devoted to housing expenses . Recognizing the potential for saving through energy conservation techniques , the California Energy Commission developed standards for new residential construction and additions to existing dwellings . These regulations are contained in Title 24 (State Building Standards Code) of the California Code of Regulations . The City of Dublin currently enforces the State Energy Conservation Standards . In addition to the Mandatory Features and Devices which all new construction must include, the regulations establish minimum levels of wall , ceiling, and floor insulation, maximum glazing area, minimum glazing U-values (e .g. , single, double, or triple glazing) , and minimum space conditioning and water heating system efficiencies . Credit for thermal mass , shading, infiltration control, and solar space and water heating is also considered. It is in approving site plans and subdivision maps that the City can assure that new developments will have energy efficient designs . Prior to project approval , the City requires developers to demonstrate that solar orientation and access has been a consideration in site design. 39 6 . 2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO CHANGE TO NON-LOW- INCOME HOUSING USES (Government Code Section 65583 (a) (8) ) Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 8 ) enacted in 1989 ( SB 1282 ) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of existing housing developments that are eligible to change to non-low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts , mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions . The Housing Element must identify all federal , state and local subsidized housing in the city, note when the subsidies expire and determine the cost of replacing that housing. In the 1960 ' s , the federal government provided low-interest loans and rent subsidies through various programs administered by the federal Housing and Urban Development Department (HUD) and the Farmers Home Administration (FHA) . In return, private developers/owners agreed to build or operate rental projects which were protected by 40-year low income use restrictions . In order to stimulate private participation, the owners were given the option to terminate their contracts prior to the loan maturity dates . As owners exercise their options , the units may be sold or converted to market-rate units . In many cases the tenants are displaced and the inventory available to lower-income rental units declines . SUBSIDIZED DEVELOPMENTS There are two federally subsidized low income projects in Dublin . Arroyo Vista is also a federally funded low income project located at 6700 Dougherty Road, Dublin, CA 94568 . The subsidy terminates 40 years after the permanent financing was issued on the project ( i .e . , in the year 2003) . Thus , Arroyo Vista is not at risk to convert to non-low income housing uses during the next ten year period. The Springs Apartments complex is located at 7100 San Ramon Road, Dublin, California 94568 . The Springs was constructed with 20-80 tax exempt bond financing in 1981 . The Springs complex includes 176 total units including 36 Section 8 units . The 36 Section 8 units are occupied by 18 families and 18 elderly households . The Section 8 units include 7 one bedroom units and 29 two bedroom units (Giordano, 1990 ) . The earliest date of Section 8 subsidy termination for the Springs is September 25 , 1991 . If the owner does not choose to opt out of the Section 8 contract in 1991 , he or she may renew it in five year intervals for a total of ten additional years (California Coalition of Rural Housing Projects, 1989 ) or HUD could issue Section 8 Certificates to the Alameda County Housing Authority. The Dublin Housing Authority does not have a Section 8 program (Basgal , 1990) . The City will work with the property owner and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to encourage the parties to negotiate a contract renewal . However, in the event that the property owner decides to opt out of the Section 8 contract, the City will work with a non-profit entity ( such as the Volunteers of 40 America, BRIDGE or Eden Housing) to consider acquiring the Springs Apartments and provide equivalent rent subsidies . The Volunteers of America, BRIDGE and Eden Housing have expressed interest in providing low income housing in Dublin. Eden Housing and Bridge possess the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage a project such as the Springs . Eden Housing has been in operation since 1963 . BRIDGE has been in operation since 1983 . There is no redevelopment agency in the City of Dublin. Neither the Dublin Housing Authority nor the Alameda County Housing Authority have any administrative fees (reserves) available for funding new programs within the City of Dublin (Dross , 1990 ) . In addition to federally subsidized units, State law (Government Code Section 65583 ( a) ( 8 ) requires the City to identify and gather information on any projects developed with assistance from any of the following programs , and which are subject to low-income use restrictions which could be terminated within the next ten years : - FmHA Sec . 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans - HUD Community Development Block Grant Program - State (CHFA) and local multifamily revenue bond programs , - redevelopment programs - local in-lieu fees , and units that were developed pursuant to: a local inclusionary housing program Government Code Section 65916 , a density bonus project which has direct financial assistance and affordability controls . However, there are no existing housing units within the City which were developed with assistance from any of the above-referenced programs . COST OF REPLACEMENT HOUSING Eden Housing recently built Ridge View Commons , a 200 unit subsidized multi-family project in the City of Pleasanton. The total construction cost was approximately $75 , 000/unit (Truesdale, 1990 ) . Assuming similar construction and land costs in Dublin, 36 new rental units would cost approximately $2 , 700 , 000 . The estimated cost of preserving ( i . e . , providing rent subsidies from funding source( s ) other than Section 8 ) of the 36 units over a four year period ( 1991 through 1995 ) is approximately $640 , 000 . This estimate is based upon an average monthly rent subsidy of $370/unit (Giordano, 1990 ) . Preservation of the 36 Section 8 units until the year 1995 would provide time for new replacement housing to be constructed (e .g . , through implementation of the programs to provide new units for very low and low income households , such as the inclusionary housing program) . 41 6 . 3 GOALS, QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, POLICIES [ 65583 (b) ] AND HOUSING PROGRAM [ 65583 (c) ] Government Code Section 65583 (b) requires that the Housing Element include a statement of Dublin' s goals , quantified objectives , and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement and development of housing. The quantified objectives should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over the five-year planning period. State law recognizes that the total housing needs identified may exceed available resources and the City' s ability to satisfy this need within the General Plan. Under these circumstances , the quantified objectives need not be identical to the identified existing housing needs , but should establish the maximum number of housing units that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. Government Code Section 65583 (c) requires that the Housing Element include a program which sets forth a five-year schedule of actions to implement the housing goals , objectives and policies through the administration of land use and development controls , provision of . regulatory concessions and incentives , the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available and the utilization of moneys in a low and moderate income housing fund of an agency which has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to community redevelopment law. In order to make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, the program must do all of the following : 1 . Identify the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other general plan elements and community goals; 2 . Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards and with public services and facilities needed to meet the needs of all income levels ; including rental housing, factory-built housing, mobile homes , emergency shelters and transitional housing; 3 . Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of low- and moderate-income households ; 4 . Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing; 5 . Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable housing stock; and 6 . Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status , ancestry, national origin or color. 42 In addition, SB 1282 requires the Housing Element to address whether a program to preserve subsidized housing for lower income households is feasible . However, a provision of current law specifically provides that local governments are not required to allocate funds to subsidize housing for low income persons (Government Code Section 65589 ) . Therefore, the implementation program should identify use of redevelopment programs, and federal and state grants and loans for development and preservation of low income housing. This section outlines Dublin' s housing programs over the next five year period. Programs are linked with goals and policies as well as the identified housing needs which they address . For appropriate programs , quantified objectives over the next five year term ( into 1995 ) are stated. Programs are also linked with potential funding sources , and those agencies or City officials responsible for implementation. HOUSING OBJECTIVES The objectives for the City' s housing programs are both qualitative and quantitative . Quantitative objectives, where applicable, are identified for each program both under "Housing Program Description" . Quantitative objectives are related to the overall quantitative targets identified for the City and the region in ABAG' s Housing Needs Determinations report . Below is a summary of the City' s housing needs during the five year planning period (ABAG) . Number of Units Needed for 1990 - 1995 Very Low 678 Low 475 Moderate 499 Above Moderate 819. Total Projected Need 2 , 471 The total number of projected units within the existing city limits in the five year planning period is 1 , 905, as summarized below. Multi- Single Family Family Total Vacant Sites 95 107 202 Projects Under Construction 436 210 646 Redevelopment Sites (Downtown) 200 0 200 Extended Planning Area 475 372-382 847-857 Total 'Units 1 , 206 689-699 1 , 895-1 , 905 43 Thus , the total projected unmet demand during the five year planning period is. approximately 566 units . However, after 1995, proposed developments in East Dublin and West Dublin would supply adequate total numbers of units to meet the demand. Unmet needs during the five year planning period are expected to be concentrated in the low and very low income categories . In 1988 and 1989 , 24% of the units produced in Dublin were affordable to moderate income families and the remaining 76% were affordable only to above moderate income households (Planning Department, 1990 ) . Applying these percentages to the projected number of units during the planning period results in the following number of projected new units and projected unmet needs : Housing Projected Projected Needs Unmet Quantified Units (ABAG) Needs Objectives* Programs Very low -0- 678 -678 285 IB/ID/IIIH Low -0- 475 -475 170 ID/IIIA/IIID/IIIF Moderate 457 499 - 42 570 IA/IIIA/IIIB/IIIC/ IIID/IIIF Above Mod 1 , 448 819 +629 . 880 IIIA 1 , 905 2 , 471 -566 1 , 905 In addition to the quantified objectives for new housing units , there are objectives for housing rehabilitation and preservation. The quantified objective for Alameda County' s Minor Home Repair and Housing Rehabilitation Programs is 25 units (refer to Program ( III .M. ) There is also a quantified objective to preserve the 36 existing Section 8 units at The Springs Apartments . Thus , given the recent housing production in Dublin and the projected number of units, the housing need of the very low, low and above moderate income families are not expected to be met during the five-year planning period. For example, even if 90 units affordable to very low and low income families were constructed at Arroyo Vista, a total of 1 , 063 units would be needed to satisfy the housing needs of these income categories . Thus , the programs emphasize housing assistance to very low and low income families . HOUSING PROGRAM FUNDING SOURCES State law recognizes the various realistic limitations which keep housing needs from being met. These include the limitations of private market-driven housing development, environmental limitations on land use, and a lack of adequate federal and state funding for housing assistance programs . Housing program funding is a key factor for many of the programs outlined in this section. The City must be realistic in setting numerical objectives for programs which require funding. Thus , the 44 program objectives set forth below are subject to available funding, and are set at a realistic level based on expectations of non-guaranteed funding. Below is a discussion of potential program funding sources . This is not intended as an exclusive listing of funding. Other sources , as they may become available, will be pursued by the City. A. City General Fund - Can be applied at the City' s discretion to any program. The amount of funds available which are not already obligated to other City services and operations will be limited. B. City Community Development Block Grant (CBDG) Funds - Annual allocation expected to be approximately $40 , 000 , depending on the continuation of this federal program. C . Urban County CDBG Operational Funds - As long as the City is a "non-entitlement City" , the City' s participation under the County' s "Urban County" CDBG program should continue . This affiliation provides a percentage of funding for the Alameda County Housing and Community Development ' s operation of a variety of programs available to apply within the City. D. Dublin Housing Authority Operational Funds - The Dublin Housing Authority receives no funds from anyone to operate the Arroyo Vista project . Operating expenses are paid for from operating income . The federal government paid for the construction of the project only. E . Special Federal/State Project Funding - The federal and state governments provide funds for a variety of specified programs . Some are on a continuing basis . For example, federal funds for Section 8 certificates or housing vouchers are provided by HUD to local housing authorities . Some are limited, one-time grants for specific purposes . Examples of the latter are State Propositions 77 and 84 , which through sale of State bonds will generate one-time funds which can be applied to owner-occupied or rental rehabilitation (Proposition 77 ) , or for new construction, emergency shelters , or limited rehabilitation ( Proposition 84 ) . F. Lending Institution Housing Funds - Private lending institutions in California have created various funds ear- marked for affordable housing . These include SAMCO ( Savings Association Mortgage Co. ) , a savings and loan institutional fund; CCRC (California Community Reinvestment Corp. ) , a bank fund; and a fund created through FIRREA, the federal savings and loan "bail-out" program. the money available through these funds is required to be spent in a way to lower the finance costs of housing production or rehabilitation. and therefore increase affordability. It cannot be spent for administration or for support services related to housing. Money will also be allocated only on a project-by-project basis , and therefore cannot be guaranteed for programs . 45 HOUSING PROGRAM DESCRIPTION The following describes a range of housing programs to be implemented by the City of Dublin. Several of the programs will be accomplished through adoption of new regulations . Others require additional City action for implementation. Still others assume ongoing City efforts based on existing programs . I . STRATEGIES REQUIRING ADOPTION OF NEW REGULATIONS A. Adopt an ordinance allowing density bonuses in excess of those called for by state law (e.g. , a 30a bonus for 200 of the units set aside for lower-income/senior citizen households ) . The State legislature recently adopted AB 1863 which amends the density bonus law (Government Code Section 65915 ) . The bill requires cities to grant a density bonus of at least 2.5 percent, and an additional incentive, or financially equivalent incentive( s ) , to a developer of a housing development agreeing to construct at least 1 ) 20% of the units for lower-income households; or 2 ) 10% of the units for very low-income households ; or 3 ) 50% of the units for senior citizens . Policy Objective : Provide incentives for affordable units Quantified Objective : 100 units affordable to moderate income households Actions to be Undertaken: Adopt ordinance; inform developers of density bonuses ; .and require developers who are granted a density bonus to enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to ensure the continued affordability of the units Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame : 1991 ( adopt ordinance) B. Adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance requiring a minimum percentage (e .g. , 100) of low and moderate income housing in new developments with 20 or more units . Such an ordinance could include : income-eligibility criteria for defining affordability; pricing criteria for affordable units; 46 restrictions on resale and re-rental of affordable units ; provisions for in-lieu fees; other provisions regarding on-site or off-site construction requirements and transfer of excess affordable housing credits ; - time limit within which any in-lieu fees must be spent; and incentives , such as fee waivers , priority processing and reduced site design standards . Any in lieu fees collected under the program will go into an exclusive fund to be spent directly on creating new affordable housing opportunities in Dublin ( i . e . , fees could be paid to the City in lieu of the direct provision of affordable units ) . Such in-lieu fees usually are required to be spent within a limited time frame (e . g. , three years ) and could be used for landbank, rent writedowns , etc . Policy Objective : Require the development of lower income housing Quantified Objective : 190 units ( affordable to low and very low income households ) Actions to be Undertaken : Adopt an inclusionary ordinance Financing: Minor administrative cost (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time frame : 1991 (adopt ordinance) C . Review development standards. to determine whether changes should be made to reduce development costs . The Joint Venture for Affordable Housing (JVAH) provides technical assistance to local governments interested in modifying development standards to encourage the construction of , affordable housing. Site planning and building innovations can cut the costs of housing construction. Changes in site design which result in higher densities or reduced parking requirements can significantly reduce construction costs . Caution must be taken to avoid increasing liability. . Policy Objective : Modify development standards to encourage the construction of affordable housing 47 Actions to be Undertaken: Contact JVAH to obtain information on design and land use techniques to reduce development costs ; and review City codes for unnecessary or costly requirements which contribute to construction costs Financing: Minor administrative cost (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time frame : 1992 ( adopt any necessary changes to City regulations ) D. Encourage the use of air rights over parking lots and sites with low intensity land uses to build housing. Air rights projects have no land costs , and because land is a major cost of housing development, air rights projects can be significantly less expensive . However, additional design and construction costs may reduce some of the cost savings . Policy Objective : Provide affordable housing through reduced land costs Actions to be Undertaken: Initiate a study to determine the feasibility of using air rights downtown (as encouraged by the Downtown Specific Plan) and/or above public parking lots ; amend the Zoning Ordinance and rezone the sites , if necessary to allow use of air rights for housing Financing: Minor administrative cost (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : 1992 (complete study) E . Encourage higher density residential development near the proposed Dublin BART station. Higher densities can improve the affordability of housing because per unit land costs are lower and construction can be performed more efficiently. Density increases near employment centers and transit nodes can also help to reduce traffic congestion. 48 Policy Objective : Improve housing affordability with higher densities near BART Actions to be Undertaken: Initiate a study to determine the feasibility of increasing densities near the proposed BART station; rezone surrounding properties , if appropriate Financing: Minor administrative cost Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : 1992 (complete study) ; 1993 (rezonings) F. Adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a conditional use. To ensure that the regulatory process does not discourage the development of , or conversion to, or use of an emergency shelter for homeless persons , the Zoning Ordinance should be amended to allow emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit . Policy Objective: Allow emergency shelter for the homeless Actions to be Undertaken : Adopt amendment to Zoning Ordinance Financing: Minor Administrative Cost to the City (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame: 1992 (adopt ordinance) II . STRATEGIES REQUIRING OTHER CITY ACTION FOR IMPLEMENTATION A. Provide priority processing for senior housing projects and developments providing 100 or more units affordable for very low, low and moderate income households . Developers estimate that every month required for processing adds at least 1% to 2% to the overall project cost (Local Housing Element Assistance Project, 1989 ) . 49 Policy Objective: Simplify and coordinate the means of obtaining project approvals for senior projects and those with below market rate units Actions to be Undertaken: Review senior housing projects and developments with units affordable for very low, low and moderate income households in advance of other pending applications ; give applicants for these projects the opportunity to meet informally with City staff to present proposals and get early feedback before submitting formal applications Financing : Minor administrative cost (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : Ongoing implementation B. Reduce application fees for senior housing projects and developments providing 10a or more units affordable for very low, low and moderate income households . To encourage the use of fee waivers , a policy should be adopted- stating the City' s willingness and procedures for waiving fees . This would provide the City with an opportunity to encourage the inclusion of affordable housing in new developments . Policy Objective : Use fee waivers to encourage the development of affordable housing Actions to be Undertaken: Review all planning fees and determine which can be waived Financing : Minor administrative cost (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time frame : 1992 (complete study) C . Encourage shared living arrangements . Shared living occurs when people live together for social contact, mutual support and assistance, and/or to reduce housing expenses . State law requires that small shared living facilities ( serving six or fewer persons ) be permitted in all single family and multi-family districts . 50 Policy Objective: Encourage reduction of housing expenses through shared living arrangements Actions to be Undertaken: Work with ECHO and/or the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development to establish a County-wide shared housing referral and placement program primarily for low-income residents . Outreach could be conducted through the senior center, libraries , City Hall and the media. Financing: Minor administrative cost; and CDBG funds (A, B and C) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : 1992 ( implement referral and replacement program D. Work with the owner of The Springs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to encourage the parties to negotiate a renewal of the Section 8 program; if necessary, work with a non-profit entity to consider the acquisition of the project and maintain the rent subsidies . Government Code Section 65583 (a) ( 8 ) enacted in 1989 requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of existing housing developments that are eligible to change to non low-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts , mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions (refer to Section 6 . 2 of the Housing Element) . Policy Objective : Preserve low income housing Quantified Objective : 36 units (very low and low) Actions to be Undertaken: Contact owner of The Springs to discuss options and encourage renewal of the contract; if the owner opts out of the contract, work with a non- profit entity to acquire The Springs Apartments and provide equivalent rent subsidies . Financing : Minor administrative cost to City (A) 51 Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame : 1990 E . Fund existing emergency shelter programs in the Tri- Valley area to house citizens in need of emergency shelter. Ninety-two people who were either residents of Dublin or transients , spent 756 bed nights in Tri-Valley emergency shelters in 1989 (survey by City of Dublin) . The services cost those shelters and the citizens of Alameda County $24 , 100 . Support of these shelters by Dublin will be necessary to defray these costs . Policy Objectives : Support existing emergency shelter programs in the Tri-Valley area. Actions to be Undertaken: 1 . Review all Federal and State funding sources ( such as the McKinney Program and the Emergency Shelter Program - AB 2579 ) and apply for necessary funding . 2 . Consider providing financial assistance to the existing motel voucher system administered by the Good Samaritan Committee. 3 . Consider providing funding and/or personnel support to encourage churches in Dublin to provide winter relief to homeless persons in the form of food and shelter. Financing : Federal , State, local and private funds (A, B, C and E) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame : 1991 III . STRATEGIES REQUIRING ONGOING CITY EFFORT USING EXISTING PROGRAMS A. Annex and rezone additional land for residential use . The inventory of land suitable for residential development ( Section 6 . 1 . 3) includes two areas within the extended planning area ( East Dublin and West Dublin) which the City is currently considering annexing and 52 rezoning for residential development . These areas are currently zoned for agricultural use and are designated for residential/open space use in the General Plan. The proposed zoning densities for these annexation areas have not been determined. Policy Objective : Increase total number of units produced in Dublin by providing additional sites for residential use Quantified Objective : 350 units (affordable to low, moderate and above moderate households ) Action Undertaken: Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and General Plan Amendment Studies currently being prepared for both areas Actions Needed: Annexation of areas into City and adoption of General Plan Amendments , rezonings , specific plans and site development reviews Financing: No cost to City Implementation Responsibility: Dublin Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame : 1992 (Annexation may be completed) 1993 ( specific plans and site development reviews may be completed) B . Treat one-bedroom and studio units as equivalent to 750 of a housing unit when computing allowable density, provided that the maximum number of units permitted on a site shall not be increased by more than 250. Policy Objective : Avoid unintentional incentive to build large units ; increase profitability of small lower cost units ; and provide additional incentives to encourage low and moderate income housing Quantified Objective : 100 units (affordable to moderate income households) Action Undertaken: Flexible definition included in General Plan Action Needed: Continue to inform developers that this policy is available. 53 Financing : Minor administrative cost to City Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time Frame : Ongoing implementation C . Encourage residential development in the Downtown Intensification Area. Policy Objective: Increase units produced in Dublin; increase sites appropriate for affordable housing and accessible to downtown . Quantified Objective : 200 units (affordable to moderate income households ) Action Undertaken: On July 21 , 1987 the City Council adopted the Downtown Specific Plan which allows for residential uses ( i .e . , with approval of a use permit) in most of the downtown area. Actions Needed : Contact residential developers to encourage .joint venture projects with commercial developers; and grant additional incentives such as reduced site design standards , priority processing and fee reductions Financing : Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time Frame : 1991 ( adopt additional incentives ) and 1992 (contact developers ) D. Support Semi-Public Institutions in Efforts to Add Affordable Housing to Their Sites . With public funding for the development of affordable housing extremely limited, the City will support efforts by semi-public institutions to provide housing. The Valley Christian Center, for example, is considering construction of senior housing on a portion of its property at the west end of Dublin Boulevard. To facilitate the center or any other land-owning institution in developing affordable housing on an appropriate site, the definition of the General Plan ' s "semi-public" designation makes provision for residential uses . 54 Policy Objective: Encourage development of affordable housing by private organizations not primarily engaged in housing construction or management Quantified Objective : 90 units (affordable to low and moderate income households) Action Undertaken: Inclusion of "Semi-public use" definition in the General Plan that allows housing Actions to be Undertaken: Contact owners of semi-public property to inform them of this policy; and grant additional incentives such as reduced site design standards , priority processing and fee reductions Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementing Responsibility: Planning Department Time Frame: 1991 (adopt incentives ) and 1992 ( contact owners ) E . Require a percentage of units in large multi-family projects ( i .e. , projects with more than 10 units) be rented for a specified period of time . The difficulties of first-time home buying make rental units the only affordable housing for many moderate income households that do not have the assets to make a down-payment on a home . Other households may chose to rent for other reasons . Policy Objective: Insure availability of rental units in Dublin Action Needed: Require that a minimum of 10% of the units in large multi-family projects be maintained as rental units for a period of five years . Financing : No cost to City 55 Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department, Planning Commission and City Council Time Frame : Ongoing implementation F. Encourage development of second units in existing single family homes . Given decreasing household size and the increasing cost of housing, second units added to or converted from single-family homes may be a way to use this housing resource to provide needed new housing at minimal financial and environmental costs . However, during the past five years, there have been only four requests for second units (all four requests were approved) . Policy Objective : Encourage efficient use of existing housing stock; promote development of small units at low cost Quantified Objective: 50 units (affordable to low and moderate income households) Action Undertaken: Adoption of second unit ordinance Actions to be Undertaken: Consider reviewing the requirements for approval of second units ; publicize and promote the program; and consider implementing a program to give City recognition to good designs for second units Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementing Responsibility: Planning Department and Planning Commission Time Frame : 1991 (review requirements) and 1992 ( implement program) G. Cooperate with non-profit housing provider to develop units affordable to very low and low income households . Private non-profit housing organizations often have advantages in securing funds for development of housing as well as in reducing housing cost to the consumer. In 56 the Tri-Valley area, Eden Housing has been active in developing affordable housing, and has worked with the cities of Livermore, Hayward, Union City and Pleasanton as well as Alameda County. Other non-profit developers ( e .g. , BRIDGE and Volunteers of America) have also been active in the area, and may be interested in working in Dublin. Policy Objective: Promote development of affordable housing in Dublin Actions to be Undertaken: Contact Eden Housing and other non- profit housing providers to make them aware of development opportunities in Dublin; and annex and rezone land to provide development sites within East Dublin for this program Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time Frame : 1991 (contact providers ) and 1993 (provide sites) H. Encourage development of additional units on Housing Authority land in Dublin. The Arroyo Vista site includes approximately six acres of undeveloped land on two parcels suitable for additional development . One parcel (approximately four acres ) is being considered for a senior housing project or a low income project for families . The other parcel contains approximately two acres . Policy Objective: Promote development of units affordable .to very low income households Quantified Objective : 95 units (affordable to very low income households) Actions Undertaken: The Dublin Housing Authority has retained a consultant to study the feasibility of the two projects . Actions to be Undertaken: Provide priority processing and reduced application fees ; change development standards; if appropriate 57 Financing: Housing Authority fund and minor administrative cost to City (A and D) Implementation Responsibility: Housing Authority and Planning Department Time frame: Ongoing implementation I . Monitor Availability of Rental Housing. If deemed necessary, consider enactment of condominium conversion ordinance . Only one condominium conversion project has been approved by the City. The developer did not follow through with implementation of the project. Policy Objective: Assist in maintaining rental stock as housing affordable to moderate income Dublin households Actions to be Undertaken: After an application for a condominium conversion is received by the City, evaluate the City-wide rental vacancy rate; pass a condominium conversion ordinance, if necessary Financing : Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time Frame : Ongoing implementation J . Require evidence of developer effort to receive public financial assistance for purpose of including below market rate units in proposed projects ; and assist developers in obtaining information on available programs . The range of available state and federal programs designed to increase housing affordability varies from year to year. To insure that developers are participating in appropriate programs when possible, the City will require evidence that developers of multi- family housing have investigated program availability and are using available assistance whenever possible . To reduce the burden on developers created by this requirement, the City will prepare a packet of information on available programs , including a list of agency contact persons responsible for program implementation. This information will be given to developers as early as possible in the project approval process . This requirement will apply only to developers of projects that contain 75 or more multi-family units . 58 Policy Objective : Promote use of available funds and funding mechanisms in private sector housing development Actions to be Undertaken: Collect and prepare information for developers, develop review process for implementation Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time Frame : 1992 ( information development, ongoing implementation) K. Promote equal housing opportunity for all Dublin residents and others seeking housing in Dublin. Operation Sentinel , a fair housing program of the Urban Coalition established in 1971, provides fair housing services , landlord-tenant counseling, and rental mediation. It also seeks to educate both the real estate industry and community citizens as well as investigate and/or refer housing complaints . In the Tri-Valley, the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) provides services to victims of housing discrimination. Services are provided to Dublin residents through the organization ' s Livermore office . Policy Objective: Support services and programs which fight housing discrimination; direct persons towards agencies which provide assistance to victims of discrimination Actions To Be Undertaken: Continue_ using a portion of the City' s CDBG funding has been used to support ECHO Financing: Minor administrative cost to City (A) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : 1992 ( information development, ongoing implementation) L. Promote energy conservation. In reviewing and approving site plans , the City can assure that new developments will have energy efficient design. Policy Objective : Promote energy efficiency in new projects 59 Actions to be Undertaken: Prior to project approval , require developers to demonstrate that solar orientation and access have been considered in site design Financing : No cost to City Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : Ongoing implementation M. Support Alameda County' s Minor Home Repair and Housing Rehabilitation Programs . A portion of the City' s CDBG funds are currently being used to support two housing rehabilitation programs administered by the Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development . Policy Objective : Provide subsidies for housing rehabilitation Quantified Objective : 25 units Actions Undertaken: In 1989 , a total of $3 , 559 from a total budget of $12 , 100 was expended. in Dublin from the Minor Home Repair Program and $38 , 180 was expended from the Housing Rehabilitation Program Actions to be Undertaken: Continue to use City CDBG funds to support the rehabilitation programs at levels similar to the past Financing: City CDBG funds (B) Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : Ongoing implementation 60 N. Participate in the Alameda County Mortgage Credit Certification (MCC) Program. Through the use of a MCC, eligible first-time home buyers increase their eligibility to qualify for a mortgage loan and reduce their effective mortgage interest rate approximately 2 percentage points . MCC recipients may take 200 of their annual mortgage interest payments as a dollar for dollar tax credit against their federal income taxes . The home buyer adjusts federal income tax withholdings, increasing income available to pay the mortgage . Under the program, the City currently has two reservations issued worth $230 , 900 and seven MCC ' s remaining worth $769 , 100 . Policy Objective : Increase the eligibility of first time home buyers to qualify for mortgage loans Actions Undertaken: On January 23 , 1989 , the City indicated its interest in participating in the MCC Program. Two reservations for Dublin residents have been issued. Actions to be Undertaken: Continue participation in the program Financing: Minor administrative cost Implementation Responsibility: Planning Department Time frame : Ongoing implementation 6 .4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS (65300 . 5) Government Code Section 65300 . 5 requires that the general plan and its elements comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies of the City. The other elements of the General Plan are being revised in conjunction with the preparation of the revised Housing Element . Revisions will be required to Section 1 . 0 (Background) , 2 . 0 (Land Use Element) and 6 . 0 (Housing Element Summary) of the Dublin General Plan. 61 6 . 5 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS [65351 and 65583 (c) 6 ) ] Government Code Sections 65351 and 65583 (c) ( 6 ) require that during the preparation of an amendment to the general plan, the City must provide opportunities for the involvement of citizens , public agencies , and civic, education, and other community groups . Community meetings were held on March 5 and 6 , 1990 , to explain the statutory requirements of the housing element and to solicit citizen input on the housing problems and issues facing the city. Public Notice of the meetings was posted in public buildings , published in the Valley Times , advertised on Viacom Channel 30 and mailed to: 1 . the Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors , 2 . the Southern Alameda County Apartment Owners Association, 3 . the Bay Area Council , 4 . the Alameda County Housing Authority, 5 . the manager of the Arroyo Vista housing project, 6 . all homeowners associations in the City, and 7 . the Chamber of Commerce membership list . The following issues were discussed at the public meetings : 1 . the appropriateness of the housing goals , objectives , and policies in the 1985 Housing Element; 2 . the effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of Dublin' s housing goals and objectives ; 3 . the progress of Dublin in implementing the Housing Element; 4 . Dublin' s housing needs that can be met over the next five years; 5 . what existing and new goals , objectives , policies and programs should be included in the revised Housing Element . Questionnaires were filled out by all in attendance . The input received at the meetings was considered in the preparation of the Housing Element . 62 6 . 6 EVALUATION OF 1985 HOUSING ELEMENT [65588] Government Code Section 65588 requires that the Housing Element evaluate : 1 . the appropriateness of the housing goals , objectives and policies in contributing to the state housing goal ; 2 . the effectiveness of the Housing Element in attainment of Dublin ' s housing goals and objectives; and 3 . the progress of the City in implementation of the 1985 Housing Element . The 1985 Housing Element did not include development in Hansen Hill , Donlan Canyon, East Dublin and West Dublin. This omission was due to the fact that development of these areas was not projected within the five year timeframe of the 1985 Housing Element . The 1985 Housing Element projected that the City would be built-out by 1995 . However, due to the future development of these four areas which contain approximately 11, 144 acres , build-out will not occur by 1995 . One of the major policy goals of the 1985 Housing Element was to produce more units and greater variety in unit types than would be achieved if previous policies were continued. Under Alameda County policies , most of Dublin' s residential land was zoned for single family detached houses . Therefore, many of the strategies in the 1985 Housing Element were intended to increase residentially zoned land in the city and raise permitted residential densities ( i . e. , higher densities generally result in smaller units and lower land costs per unit) . The 1985 Housing Element projected construction of half of the City' s remaining dwelling units (which was 950 units at that time) , during the five year planning period. It also projected that over 700 of these would be multi-family units . Between January 1985 and January 1990 , a total of 2 , 645 housing units were constructed, including 1 , 011 additional single family units and 1 , 634 multi-family units . Approximately 560 of the new housing units were multi-family (compared to 7% projected) . There was an increase in multi-family units within the City from 90 of the total housing stock in 1985 to 29% in 1990 . Below are each of the housing strategies from the 1985 Housing Element followed by a discussion of actions taken since 1985 to implement each strategy. 63 Increase Residential Densities . Policy Objective : Allow construction at higher densities to increase number of units constructed and lower land price per unit. Quantified Objective: Additional 250 units within five . years ; at buildout 500 units above number that would be produced under previous policies . Discussion: The 1985 General Plan changed the land use designation of the 79 acre area at the northwest corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Dougherty Road ( i . e . , the Villages 2 - 7 ) from single family residential to medium density with required mixed dwelling types , including single family detached and permitting up to 25 units per acre on portions of the site . Under the single family residential land use designation ( i . e . , which allows 0 . 9 to 6 . 0 units per acre) , the maximum allowable density would have permitted up to a total of 474 units . The Villages projects which have been approved by the City provide a total of 1 , 084 dwelling units , including 939 multi-family units and 145 single family units , as shown below. Single-family Multi-family Village 2 248 Village 3 216 Village 4 135 Village 5 204 Village 6 145 - Village 7 136 Total 145 939 The change in land use designation on the Villages 2 - 7 resulted in at least 610 additional units compared to the previous single family residential designation on the site. Thus , the objective of 250 units during the planning period was exceeded by 360 units . Designate Additional Land for Residential Use . Policy Objective : Increase total number of units produced in Dublin by providing additional sites for residential development. Quantified Objective : 93 units over next five years . Discussion: The 1985 Housing Element identified five sites available for development of housing which were not designated for residential use at that time. Of the five sites identified, four were designated for residential use during the planning period, as 64 shown below ( the quantified objectives shown below are from the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which pertain to build-out of the City) . # of Units Approved by the City Quantified Area Multi-family Single Family Total Objective Village 1 56 - 56 56 - 100 Fallon School - 17 17 8 - 48 Vista Green Terrace - 88 88 22 88 Valley Christian - - - N/A Center * Downtown ** - - - 200 Total 161 286 - 436 * The zoning on the Valley Christian Center property has not been changed. The property owner has not submitted a proposal for a housing project to the City. ** On July 21 , 1987 the City Council adopted the Downtown Specific Plan which allows for residential uses ( i .e . , with approval of a use permit) in most of the downtown area (refer to page 37 of the plan) . The plan encourages residential uses above the ground floor. To date, there have been no proposals submitted to the City for residential projects within the downtown area . There was one site which was not identified in the 1985 Housing Element that received approval for additional housing units during the planning period. On February 27 , 1989 , the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment for -Hansen Hill Ranch (west of Silvergate Drive) which allows increased density. The approved PD Rezoning allows 110 units compared to 72 units allowed under the previous land use designation. In conclusion, the quantified objective for the planning period was exceeded by 106 units ( i . e . , 199 additional units achieved compared to 93 projected) . Treat One-bedroom and Studio Units as Equivalent to 75 Percent of a Housing Unit When Computing Allowable Density, Provided that the Maximum Number of Units Permitted on a Site Shall not be Increased by More Than 25 Percent. Policy Objective : Avoid unintentional incentive to build large units ; increase profitability of small , lower cost units . 65 Discussion: The Planning Department staff has informed developers of large projects that this policy was available. However, developers of projects such as the Villages and Amador Lakes decided not to request increased densities because the land use regulations allowed the number of units proposed. Allow Residential Development in the Downtown Intensification Area. Policy Objective : Increase units produced in Dublin; increase sites appropriate for affordable housing and accessible to downtown. Quantified Objective : 200 units Discussion: This policy was included in the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan which was adopted by the City in 1987 . To date there have been no proposals submitted for residential development in the downtown area . This strategy is discussed in more detail above under the heading "Designate Additional Land for Residential Use" . The program is augmented in the revised Housing Element by providing additional development incentives . Support Semi-Public Institutions in Efforts to Add Affordable Housing on Their Sites . Policy Objective : Encourage development of affordable housing by private organizations not primarily engaged in housing construction or management . Discussion : The City has not received any proposals from private organizations for affordable housing projects . The City should actively work with developers to make them aware of affordable housing projects which have been implemented in other Bay area cities . The program is augmented in the revised Housing Element by providing additional development incentives . Require a Percentage of Units in Large Multi-family Projects to be Rented for a Specified Period of Time . Policy Objective : Insure availability of rental units in the City. Discussion: The majority of recent multi-family projects have been rented during the initial occupancy phase. 66 Encourage Development of Second Units in Existing Single Family Homes . Policy Objective : Encourage efficient use of existing housing stock; promote development of small units at low cost. Quantified Objective: 350 second units . Discussion: The 1985 Housing Element overstated the demand for this type of unit . During the past five years , there have been only four requests for approval of second units in the City. All four of the applications were approved. Due to the lack of requests for approval of second units , the quantified objective was not met ( i . e . , 346 additional second units would be required to meet the objective) . To make this program more effective, the City should consider relaxing the requirements for approval of second units . In addition, the City should publicize and promote the program. One option would be to implement a program to give City recognition to good designs for second units . Cooperate with Non-Profit Housing Provider to Develop Below-Market Rate Units . Policy Objective : Promote development of affordable housing. Discussion: During the planning period, the City did not receive any proposals for housing projects by non-profit groups . The City should actively work with non-profit housing providers such as Eden Housing and BRIDGE to make them aware of development opportunities in Dublin. The program is also augmented in the revised Housing Element by providing additional development incentives . Work with Pleasanton Toward Establishing a Joint Housing Authority. Policy Objective : Share control of Housing Authority activities in Dublin; support housing information and referral services . Discussion: In 1986 the Dublin Housing Authority was formed and the title to the Arroyo Vista project, Dublin' s only public housing project, was transferred from the City of Pleasanton Housing Authority to the City of Dublin Housing Authority. The management of Arroyo Vista was transferred from the Pleasanton Housing Authority to the Alameda County Housing Authority. This action made it unnecessary to establish a joint housing authority. The Dublin Housing Authority includes two residents of Arroyo Vista as well as the full membership of the City Council . The Housing Authority generally meets once a month. 67 Encourage the Development of Additional Units on Housing Authority Land in Dublin. Policy Objective : Promote development of below market-rate units affordable to low income households . Discussion: The Arroyo Vista site includes two vacant parcels of undeveloped land suitable for development . The first parcel (approximately three acres ) is being considered for a senior housing project with up to 75 units . The other parcel (approximately two acres ) is being considered for a low income project with up to 20 units . Recently, the Dublin Housing Authority retained a consultant to study the feasibility of the two projects . Encourage Development of Rental Housing. If deemed Necessary, Consider Enactment of Condominium Conversion Ordinance . Policy Objective : Assist in maintaining rental stock as housing affordable to moderate income Dublin households . Discussion: Only one condominium conversion project has been approved by the City. The developer did not follow through with implementation of the project. Consequently, the City does not have a program for ongoing monitoring of rental vacancy rates ( i .e . , there is no need for continuous monitoring due to the low interest in condominium conversions ) . However, after an application for a condominium conversion is received by the City, the City-wide rental vacancy rate is evaluated as part of the review process . Require Evidence of Developer Effort to Receive Public Financial Assistance for the Purpose of Including Below Market Rate Units in Proposed Projects ; Assist Developers in Obtaining Information on Available Programs . Policy Objective : Promote use of available funds and funding mechanisms in private sector housing development. Discussion: The Planning Department staff has monitored available public financial assistance programs for below market rate units . To reduce the burden on developers created by this requirement, the City will prepare . a packet of information on available programs , including a list of agency contact persons responsible for program implementation. This information will be given to developers as early as possible in the project approval process . This requirement applies only to developers of projects that contain 75 or more multi-family units . The program is augmented in the revised Housing Element by providing additional development incentives . 68 Grant 25 Percent Density Bonuses for Provision of 25 Percent Affordable Units as Required by State Law. Policy Objective : Provision of incentives for providing affordable units ; compliance with State law. Discussion: No developers have requested density bonuses . A revised program will consider an additional density bonus and other incentives for producing affordable housing. Promote Equal Housing Opportunity for All Dublin Residents and Others Seeking Housing in Dublin. Policy Objective : Support services and programs which fight housing discrimination; direct persons towards agencies which provide assistance to victims of discrimination as needed. Discussion: The City participates in the Alameda County small cities block grant program which provides assistance to the Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) . ECHO provides services to victims of housing discrimination. Continue City Code Enforcement Program; Aid Low Income Households in Obtaining Financial Assistance for Housing Rehabilitation. Policy Objective: Enforce building and zoning codes . Discussion: The City does not have a systematic code enforcement program. Existing units are inspected only when complaints are received by the City. If code violations are discovered, owners are only required to make improvements which bring the property up to minimum code requirements . The City provides information to the public regarding the Alameda County Home Improvement Loan Program which is administered by the _- Alameda County Department of Housing and Community Development. The program provides low interest home improvement loans to homeowners who have low or moderate incomes . The City of Dublin is participating in the funding of this program with funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. Promote Opportunities for Energy Conservation. During the five year planning period, the percentage of multi- family units in the City has increased from 9% to 29% . Multi- family units are energy efficient due to minimal exterior walls . In addition, developers of large residential projects have been required to demonstrate that solar orientation has been considered. 69 CONCLUSION The quantified objectives for the five year planning period were exceeded by 120 units . Below is a summary of the quantified objectives from the 1985 Housing Element and the additional units that resulted during the planning period. Additional Objective Units Difference Increase densities 250 610 +360 Designate additional land 93 199 +106 Encourage second units 350 4 -346 Total 693 813 +120 Below is a list of the projects which were included in the 1985 Housing Element . It includes the total number of approved or potential units and their status as of February 1990 (Appendix C contains a map showing the location of each project) : SITES CURRENTLY ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE: Total # of Units Building Single- Multi- Permits Map # & Name family family Issued Occupied Site 1 19 Village 2 248 248 20 Village 3 216 216 0 21 Village 4 135 SDR approved PC 8/15/88, building permits have not been issued. 22 . Village 5 204 204 163 24 Village 7 136 136 102 Site 2 17 Arroyo Vista Per City' s Development Policies , a range of 42 to 95 additional multi-family units are possible Site 3 12 Coral Gate 26 26 26 Site 4 9 Pulte Homes 25 25 25 Site 5 4 acres - Portion of Hansen Hill 70 Sites 6 and 7 Hansen Hill - 180 single family units are approved, but the Final Map( s ) is not recorded. SITES NOT CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE : Site 8 18 Village 1 56 56 56 Site 9 * 13a Brighton Meadows ( Fallon School Site - 17 single family units are approved, but the Final Map has not been recorded Site 11 2 Vista Green Potential for 18 - 42 multi-family units Site 12 * Valley Christian Center - plans have not been submitted to the City. Site 13 Downtown Intensification Area - plans have not been submitted to the City. * Projects identified in the 1985 Housing Element which are currently vacant but could provide housing during the five year planning period ( 1990 - 1995) . Below is a summary of those projects and the number of additional units they could provide . Approximate Acreage Potential # of Units Site 2 5 42 - 95 multi-family Sites 6 and 7 147 180 single family Site 9 8 17 single family Site 12 6 21 single family Site 13 Unknown 200 multi-family Total 166 469 - 513 units In 1988 and 1989 , 24% of the unites produced in Dublin were affordable to moderate income families and the remaining 76% were affordable only to above moderate income households (Planning Department, 1990 ) . Applying these percentages to the total number of units constructed between 1985 and 1990 , results in the following distribution of housing units affordable to the various income categories (compared to the City' s quantified objectives and the regional share allocation for the same period) : 71 Units Housing Needs Quantified Constructed (ABAG) Objectives Very Low 0 391 N/A Low 0 274 N/A Moderate 635 450 N/A Above Moderate 2 , 010 841 N/A TOTAL 2 , 645 1, 956 950 The total number of units constructed between 1985 and 1990 exceeded the project need for housing units (ABAG, 1983 ) by 689 units and the City' s quantified objectives by 1, 695 units . However, no units were constructed which were affordable to very low or low income households . Therefore, the programs in the updated ( 1990 ) Housing Element emphasize the achievement of housing affordable to very low and low income households . The following new programs have been included to better achieve the new construction needs of the very low and low income groups (refer to the Goals, Quantified Objectives , Policies and Housing Program Section) : I .A. Adopt an ordinance allowing density bonuses in excess of those called for by State law (e .g. , a 30% bonus for 20% of the units set aside for lower-income/senior citizen households) . I .B. Adopt an inclusionary zoning ordinance requiring a minimum percentage (e.g. , 10% ) of low and moderate income housing in new developments with 20 or more units . I .C. Review development standards to determine whether changes should be made to reduce development costs . I .D. Encourage the use of air rights over parking lots and sites with low intensity land uses to build housing. I .E . Encourage higher density residential development near the proposed Dublin BART station . I .F . Adopt an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance allowing emergency shelters in multi-family zoning districts as a conditional use. 72 II .A. Provide priority processing for senior housing projects and developments providing 10% units affordable to very low and low income households . II . B. Reduce application fees for senior housing projects and developments providing 10% or more units affordable to very low and low income households . II .C . Encourage shared living arrangements . II .D. Units at risk. Work with the owner of The Springs and the Department of Housing and Urban Development to encourage the parties to negotiate a renewal of the Section 8 program; if necessary, work with a non-profit entity to consider acquisition of the project and provide equivalent rent subsidies II . E . Fund existing emergency shelter programs in the Tri-Valley area to house citizens in need of emergency shelter. 73 APPENDIX A: REFERENCES 6 . 1 ASSESSMENT AND INVENTORY 6 . 1 . 1 . POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT TRENDS AND HOUSING NEEDS Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) , Housing Needs Determinations , January 1989 . Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) , Projections ' 90, December 1989 . 6 . 1 . 2 HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Association of Bay Area Governments , Projections 190, December 1989 . Basgal , Ophelia, Executive Director, Alameda County Housing Authority, January 9 , 1990 - telephone communication. Blayney-Dyett, City of Dublin Housing Element, September 10, 1984 , printed January 1985 . California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, Alameda County Population and Housing Estimates for January 1 , 1989 , printed April 25 , 1989 . City of Pleasanton and City of Livermore, Valley Human Services Directory, January 1989 . Farias , Cece, City of Dublin Building Department, January 22 , 1990 - personal interview. Kanalakis , Mike, Southern Alameda County Apartment Owners Association, January 29 , 1990 - telephone communication. Schriber, Larry, Key Financial Services , telephone communication, March 22 , 1990 . Spano, Jeff, California Department of Housing and Community Development, telephone communication, March 21, 1990 . Southern Alameda County Board of Realtors, Monthly Sales Statistics ( 1983-1989 ) . U.S . Census Bureau, 1980 Census . WPM Planning Team, Inc . , West Dublin General Plan Amendment Specific Plan Study, Study Report 1 : Environmental Setting/Planning Considerations , November 27 , 1989 . WPM Planning Team, Memorandum dated February 12 , 1990, ABAG' s Revised Estimates For Dublin and Tri-Valley. 6 . 1 . 3 INVENTORY OF LAND SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Dublin Planning Department, Recent Residential Projects , February 1990 . Gillarde, Brenda, Planning Consultant, City of Dublin Planning Department, telephone communication on February 15, 1990 . 6 . 1 . 4 GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS City of Dublin Building Department, 1990 . City of Dublin Engineering Department, 1990 . City of Dublin Planning Department, 1990 . Kattan, Emil, Dublin-San Ramon Services , telephone communication on April 2 , 1990 . Wallace, Roberts & Todd, East Dublin Specific Plan/General Plan Amendment Studies , 1990 6 . 1 . 5 NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS Bank of America, Bay Area Construction Cost Survey, 1987 . Economic Research Associates, Memorandum dated February 27 , 1990 to Wallace, Roberts & Todd. 6 . 1 . 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS Cantelow, Alice Ann, Shepard ' s Gate, telephone communication on February 14 , 1990 . Clouse, Deputy Doug, City of Dublin Police Department, telephone communication on February 15 , 1990 . Dublin Planning Department, Survey of Emergency Shelter Providers in the Tri-Valley Area, March, 1990 . Emergency Services Network, 1989 Unduplicated Count Study. Heverly, Earl, Valley Christian Center, telephone communication on February 14 , 1990 . Homebase, Homelessness in the Bay Area: Ten Points, Spring, 1989 . U. S . Census Bureau, 1980 Census . United Way of the Bay Area, Valleys Corridor Project, November, 1982 . ' r 6 . 1 . 7 OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION City of Dublin, 1985 Housing Element. 6 . 2 HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE TO CHANGE TO NON-LOW- INCOME HOUSING USES Basgal , Ophelia, Executive Director, Alameda County Housing Authority, March 8 , 1990 - Telephone Communication. California Coalition of Rural Housing Projects , Inventory of Federally Subsidized Low-Income Rental Units at Risk of Conversion, March 1 , 1989 . Dross , Jach, Alameda County Housing Authority, May 9 , 1990 - Telephone Communication. Giordano, Neck, Administrator, The Springs , May 9 , 1990 - Telephone Communication. Truesdale, Tim, Eden Housing, telephone conversation, March 8 , 1990 . 6 . 3 GOALS , QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS Local Housing Element Assistance Project, Blueprint for Bay Area Housing, December, 1989 . 6 . 4 CONSISTENCY WITH OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS 6 . 5 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EFFORTS 6 . 6 EVALUATION OF 1985 HOUSING ELEMENT Association of Bay Area Governments , Housing Needs Determination, 1983 . City of Dublin, Planning Department, July, 1989 , Recent Residential Projects . Basgal , Ophelia, Executive Director, Alameda County Housing Authority, January 9 , 1990 - telephone communication. Rankin, Paul , Assistant City Manager, City of Dublin, January 8 , 1990 - personal interview. APPENDIX B POPULATION, HOUSEHOLD AND EMPLOYMENT TABLES ABAG'S POPULATION,HOUSEHOLD,EMPLOYMENT&INCOME PROJECTIONS City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region 1980-2005 Year Population Households Employed Total HH ...........................�......Jobs in Area.............................................—. Residents Income Total A & Mf g.& Retail Services Other $Mil Em lov. Mining Wholesale Trade Jobs CITY OF DUBLIN 1980 15,299 4,039 6,497 $182 8,168 52 1,196 3,173 1,567 2,180 1985 17,600 4,800 8,000 $224 9,640 40 1,370 4,230 1,640 2,360 1990 25,500 7,100 12,000 $349 12,210 10 2,230 5,100 2,410 2,460 1995 29,500 8,470 14,000 $424 15,210 10 2,850 5,730 4,000 2,620 2000 37,100 10,940 17,500 $575 17,880 10 3,430 6,920 4,670 2,850 2005 46,200 13,990 21,700 5772 20,560 10 3,820 7,890 4,910 3,930 TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALANIO-BLACKHANVK 1980 160,367 51,386 76,876 $2,714 48,775 1,126 7,313 10,773 17,222 12,341 1985 185,100 60,220 93,000 $3,393 67,850 1,000 11,390 14,510 22,910 18,040 1990 235,600 79,500 124,800 $4,742 106,580 1,080 18,770 21,440 36,810 28,480 1995 266,900 91,040 145,400 $5,719 131,740 1,030 24,170 27,450 47,450 31,640 2000 297,900 103,780 165,400 $6,785 160,800 970 36,330 32,720 56,700 34,080 2005 331,800 117,120 183,800 $7,884 182,350 910 42,400 37,830 62,370 38,840 ALAMEDA COUNTY 1980 1,105,379 426,093 522,069 515,173 511,158 4,682 118,016 82,609 151,675 154,176 1985 1,191,450 451,750 579,400 517,076 559,800 3,910 128,420 98,140 166,140 163,190 1990 1,272,000 491,610 647,500 519,714 622,400 3,270 143,430 115,320 183,170 177,210 1995 1,330,800 519,520 707,000 $22,339 692,200 2,760 164,460 127,610 199,150 198,220 2000 1,387,900 547,320 752,400 $24,684 740,600 2,280 179,490 131,060 216,660 211,110 2005 1,444,600 572,420 778,900 526,846 776,900 1,820 194,590 136,920 226,370 217,200 SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 1980 5,179,789 1,970,551 2,552,894 $78,302 2,535,155 38,561 614,580 398,039 710,885 773,090 1985 5,537,650 2,095,940 2,840,100 590,754 2,758,170 33,960 656,100 454,350 801,290 812,470 1990 5,950,950 2,284,080 3,162,800 $105,524 3,073,280 33,660 690,150 525,460 942,190 881,820 1995 6,292,650 2,445,750 3,420,400 $119,597 3,418,900 32,330 774,300 599,580 1,052,110 960,580 2000 6,610,500 2,595,440 3,631,200 $133,665 3,705,980 30,190 850,720 653,150 1,151,570 1,020,350 2005 6,832,850 2,706,200 3,751,600 $145,864 3,954,160 27,690 916,940 700,880 1,239,630 1,069,020 Note: All dollar values in"constant 1988 dollars". Sources: ABAG Projecdons'90,December 1989. City&County: Pages 76.93. Region: Pages 26,29,33,39. File Ref:\Prj.ToolsWBAGWBAG 4 2/12/90..........page 1 The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin AVERAGE ANNUAL CHANGES IN ABAG'S PROJECTIONS City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region 1980-2005 Year Population Households Employed Total HH ...........................g.........Jobs in ............................................... Residents Income Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other $iVliI Em lov. 'Mining Wholesale Trade F_m lov. CITY OF DUBLIN Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 460 152 301 $8 294 (2) 35 211 15 36 1985-90 1,580 460 800 S25 514 (6) 172 174 154 20 1990-95 800 274 400 $15 600 0 124 126 318 32 1995-00 1,520 494 700 $30 534 0 116 238 134 46 2000-05 1,820 610 840 S39 536 0 78 194 48 216 %Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 202,% 24690 23490 325% 152% -8190 219% 149% 21390 80% TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALAMO-BLACKHAWK Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 4,947 1,767 3,225 136 3,815 (25) 815 747 1,138 1,140 1985-90 10,100 3,856 6,360 270 7,746 16 1,476 1,386 2,780 2,088 1990-95 6,260 2,308 4,120 195 5,032 (10) 1,080 1,202 2,128 632 1995-00 6,200 2,548 4,000 213 5,812 (12) 2,432 1,054 1,850 488 2000-05 6,780 2,668 3,680 220 4,310 (12) 1,214 1,022 1,134 952 90 Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 10790 128% 13990 19190 274% -19% 480% 251% 262% 215% ALAMEDA COUNTY Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 17,214 5,131 11,466 381 9,728 (154) 2,081 3,106 2,893 1,803 1985-90 16,110 7,972 13,620 527 12,520 (128) 3,002 3,436 3,406 2,804 1990-95 11,760 5,582 11,900 525 13,960 (102) 4,206 2,458 3,196 4,202 1995-00 11,420 5,560 9,080 469 9,680 (96) 3,006 690 3,502 2,578 2000-05 11,340 5,020 5,300 432 7,260 (92) 3,020 1,172 1,942 1,218 96 Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 3190 34% 4990 7790 52% -61% 65% 66% 4990 4190 SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 71,572 25,078 57,441 2,490 44,603 (920) 8,304 11,262 18,081 7,876 1985-90 82,660 37,628 64,540 2,954 63,022 (60) 6,810 14,22 28,180 13,870 1990-95 68,340 32,334 51,520 2,815 69,124 (266) 16,830 14,824 21,984 15,752 1995-00 63,570 29,938 42,160 2,814 57,416 (428) 15,284 10,714 19,892 11,954 2000-05 44,470 22,152 24,080 2,440 49,636 (500) 13,244 9,546 17,612 9,734 %Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 32% 37% 47% 86% 56% -28% 4976 76% 74% 3890 Sources: See Table 1 File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAGWBAG 4 2/12/90..........page 2 The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin PROJECTIONS: PERCENTAGE OF LARGER GEOGRAPHIC AREA City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region 1980-2005 Year Population Households Employed Total HH .....................................Jobs in Area............................................... Residents Income Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other SMil Employ. Mining Wholesale Trade Em lov. CITY OF DUBLIN AS%OF TRI-VALLEY AREA 1980 9.54% 7.86% 8.45% 6.69% 16.75% 4.62% 16.35% 29.45% 9.10% 17.66% 1985 9.5190 7.97% 8.60% 6.59% 14.21% 4.00% 12.03% 29.15% 7.1690 13.08% 1990 10.8291. 8.93% 9.62% 7.35% 11.4690 0.93% 11.88% 23.79% 6.55% 8.64% 1995 11.0590 9.30% 9.6390 7.42% 11.55% 0.97% 11.79% 20.87% 8.43% 8.2890 2000 12.4590 10.5490 10.58% 8.48% 11.12176 1.03% 9.44% 21.1590 8.2490 8.3617. 2005 13.92% 11.95% 11.81% 9.80% 11.28% 1.10% 9.01% 20.8691. 7.87% 10.12% TRI-VALLEY AREA AS %OF ALAMEDA COUNTY 1980 14.590 12.1% 14.790 17.990 9.591. 24.0% 6.2% 13.0% 11.4% 8.017o 1985 15.5% 13.3% 16.190 19.9% 12.1% 25.6% 8.9% 14.8% 13.890 11.1% 1990 18.5% 16.2% 19.3% 24.1% 17.1% 33.0% 13.1% 18.6% 20.1% 16.117o 1995 20.1% 17.5% 20.6% 25.6% 19.0% 37.3% 14.7% 21.5% 23.8% 16.0% 2000 21.5% 19.0% 22.090 27.5% 21.790 42.5% 20.2% 25.090 26.2%1. 16.1% 2005 23.0% 20.5% 23.6% 29.4% 23.5% 50.0% 21.8% 27.690 27.6% 17.9% ALAMEDA COUNTY AS 90 OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 1980 21.3% 21.690 20.5% 19.4% 20.2% 12.1% 19.2% 20.8% 21.3% 19.9% 1985 21.5% 21.690 20.490 18.890 20.390 11690 19.6% 21.690 20.7% 20.190 1990 21.4% 21.5% 20.5% 18.7.% 20.3% 9.790 20.8% 21.9% 19.4% 20.1% 1995 21.190 21.2% 20.7% 18.7% 20.2% 8.5% 21.2% 21.3% 18.9% 20.6% 2000 21.0% 21.1% 20.7% 18.5% 20.0% 7.6% 21.1% 20.1% 18.890 20.7% 2005 21.1% 21.2% 20.8% 18.47. 19.6% 6.6% 21.290 19.5% 18.3% 20.390 Sources: see Table 1. File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAGWBAG 4 2/12/90..........page 3 The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin PROJECTIONS: PER HOUSEHOLD&EINDLOYMENT RATIOS City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region 1980-2005 Year Population Employed Average Jobs Per ........................Jobs in Area Per 100 Households................................. /Household Residents Household Employed Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other /Household Income Residents Em lov. Mining Wholesale Trade Jobs CITY OF DUBLIN 1980 3.788 1.609 544,942 1.257 202 1 30 79 39 54 1985 3.667 1.667 $46,600 1.205 201 1 29 88 34 49 1990 3.592 1.690 549,100 1.018 172 0 31 72 34 35 1995 3.483 1.653 $50,100 1.086 180 0 34 68 47 31 2000 3.391 1.600 $52,600 1.022 163 0 31 63 43 26 2005 3.302 1.551 $55,200 0.947 147 0 27 56 35 28 TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALAMO-BLACKHAWK 1980 3.121 1.496 552,807 0.634 95 2 14 21 34 24 1985 3.074 1.544 $56,337 0.730 113 2 19 24 38 30 1990 2.964 1.570 $59,646 0.854 134 1 24 27 46 36 1995 2.932 1597 $62,820 0.906 145 1 27 30 52 35 2000 2.870 1.594 $65,375 0.972 155 1 35 32 55 33 2005 2.833 1.569 $67,314 0.992 156 1 36 32 53 33 ALAMfEDA COUNTY 1980 2.594 1.225 535,609 0.979 120 1 28 19 36 36 1985 2 637 1.283 $37,800 0.966 124 1 28 22 37 36 1990 2.587 1.317 $40,100 0.961 127 1 29 23 37 36 1995 2.562 1.361 $43,000 0.979 133 1 32 25 38 38 2000 2.536 1375 $45,100 0.984 135 0 33 24 40 39 2005 2.524 1.361 $46,900 0.997 136 0 34 24 40 38 SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 1980 2.629 1.296 539,736 0.993 129 2 31 20 36 39 1985 2.642 1355 $43,300 0.971 132 2 31 22 38 39 1990 2.605 1385 $46,200 0.972 135 1 30 23 41 39 1995 2.573 1399 548,900 1.000 140 1 32 25 43 39 2000 2.547 1.399 . $51,500 1.021 143 1 33 25 44 39 2005 2.525 1.386 $53,900 1.054 146 1 34 26 46 40 Sources: see Table 1. File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAG\ABAG 4 2/12/90..........page 4 The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin AVERAGE ANNUAL CHANGES IN PER HOUSEHOLD&EINIPLOYMENT RATIOS City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region 1980-2005 Year Population Employed Average Jobs Per ............................Jobs in Area Per Household..................................... /Household Residents Household Employed Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other /Household income Residents Em lov. Mining Wholesale Trade Em lov. CITY OF DUBLIN Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 3.024 1.975 $55,400 0.979 193 (2) 23 139 10 24 1985-90 3.435 1.739 $54,317 0.643 112 (1) 37 38 33 4 1990-95 2-920 1.460 $55,282 1.500 219 0 45 46 116 12 1995-00 3.077 1.417 $61,173 0.763 108 0 23 48 27 9 2000-05 2.984 1377 $64,526 0.638 88 0 13 32 8 35 %Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 (13%) (4%) 23% (25%) (27%) (94%) (8%) (28%) (10%) (48%) TRI-VALLEY CITIES+ALAMO-BLACKHAWK Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 2.800 1.825 $76,870 1.183 216 (1) 46 42 64 65 1985-90 2.619 1.649 $69,981 1.218 201 0 38 36 72 54 1990-95 2.712 1.785 $84,686 1.221 218 0 47 52 92 27 1995-00 2.433 1.570 $83,633 1.453 228 0 95 41 73 19 2000-05 2.541 1.379 $82,399 1.171 162 0 46 38 43 36 96 Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 (9%) 5% 27% 56% 64% (65%) 154% 54% 59% 38% ALAMEDA COUNTY Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 3.355 2.235 $74,187 0.848 190 (3) 41 61 56 35 1985-90 2021 1.708 $66,167 0.919 157 (2) 38 43 43 35 1990-95 2-107 2.132 $94,081 1.173 250 (2) 75 44 57 75 1995-00 2.054 1.633 $84,344 1.066 174 (2) 54 12 63 46 2000-05 2-259 1.056 $86,150 1.370 145 (2) 60 23 39 24 %Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 (3%) 11% 32% 2% 13% (71%) 23% 23% 11% 5% SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION Average Annual Change...5 Year Periods 1980-85 2 854 2.291 $99,310 0.776 178 (4) 33 45 72 31 1985-90 2-197 1.715 $78,507 0.976 167 0 18 38 75 37 1990-95 2.114 1.593 $87,046 1.342 214 (1) 52 46 68 49 1995-00 2-123 1.408 $93,981 1.362 192 (1) 51 36 66 40 2000-05 2-007 1.087 $110,139 2.061 224 (2) 60 43 80 44 96 Change...1980 to 2005 1980-05 (4%) 7% 36% 6% 14% (48%) 9% 2890 27% 1% Sources: see Table 1. File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAGWBAG 4 2/12/90..........page 5 The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin PROJECTIONS: PER HOUSEHOLD&EMPLOYMENT RATIOS...%OF LARGER AREA City of Dublin,Tri-Valley,Alameda County,San Francisco Bay Region 1980-2005 Year Population Employed Average Jobs Per ............................Jobs in Area Per Household..................................... /Household Residents Household Employed Total Agri.& Mfg.& Retail Services Other ousehold Income Residents Em lov. Mining Wholesale Trade Em lov. CITY OF DUBLIN AS%.OF TRI-VALLEY AREA 1980 121% 108% 85% 198% 213% 59% 208% 375% 11690 225% 1985 119% 108,% 83% 165% 178% 50% 151% 366% 90% 164% 1990 121% 108% 82% 119% 128% 10% 133% 266% 73% 97% 1995 119% 103% 80% 120% 124% 10% 127% 224% 91% 89% 7000 1186 100% 80% 105% 1059. 10% 90% 201% 78% 79% 2005 117% 99% 82% 95% 94% 9% 75% 175% 6690 85% TRI-VALLEY AREA AS %.OF ALAMEDA COUNTY 1980 120% 122% 148% 65% 79% 199% 5190 108% 9490 66% 1985 117% 120% 149% 76176 91% 192% 67% 111% 10390 83% 1990 115% 119% 149% 89% 106% 204% 81% 115.% 124% 99% 1995 114% 117% 146% 93% 10956 21390 84% 123%. 136% 91% 2000 113% 11690 145% 99% 115% 224% 107% 132.% 138% 85% 2005 11296 115% 14490 9990 115% 244% 106% 135% 135% 87% ALAMEDA COUNTY AS%OF THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION 1980 99% 95% 90% 99% 93% 56% 89% 96% 99% 92% 1985 100% 95% 87% 99% 94% 53% 9190 100% 9690 93% 1990 99% 95% 87% 99% 94% 45% 97% 102.% 90% 93% 1995 100% 97% 88% 9890 95% 40% 100% 100% 89% 9790 2000 100% 98% 88% 96% 9590 36% 100% 95% 89% 98% 2005 100% 9890 87% 95% 93% 3190 100% 92 17a 86% 96% Sources: see Table 1. File Ref:\Prj.Tools\ABAGWBAG 4 2/12/90..........page 6 The WPM Planning Team City of Dublin APPENDIX C SITES FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT MAP I :i .� � C I C � C I - • t •-{ •:titi , f;: ... titi:�:.?•ri b;: Approximate Location I le MU r..J• y ... JJJ��1 i - `••• •� �.•:JY• \ //}•pff}f/}f•}f.t •/■tf :Jr i. riti•:•:•:•: ... ti{ I 12 ff f��'r:ti~� ,� _ .. :4•Y'F"r. �.;Y, }� i; ?,•�#„,...a.,..M•�^"..,rM-�.:..'^� °"'�°" �.. :•.:.., Approximate Location•y;;; �•.•-'"�. �:� `~`- 4 :rte �. ~'ter S f `- Sites for Housing Development February, 1985 APPENDIX D RECENT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS MAP �•;��:;:;.., ... as ••,,. � . _ ,:4 ' J•1 '.,, t,�. Ilk v��•�;�����::::�� t G�_ 3 'r� _it ���p��,���.' ,�;� �� .;; \\,�YC!" Y., .11 V(�i.='rr '..\� , `. - _r :'-t-. .ti.I.• Y.' 'C. • _yam 1��1C >� !,, d.. t� _•- `•s'. ��.•/• `� w �� �.as� %;l' .� Py lam• �\'1 � �r kti��: la: _ .Tr.-, •• .5�1�� rll(�:f - - —• _• �>�t" ,•�.'(L'1(t0'\� � .I j.. ctil. 2/ �r7 r.�/:l , � I _�\`'•' r R.;�. ,lam '��. �' _ ,� Llp��yra��Ivl �, \: �`� �\D,1,_� �:: 'l-• �.�II806:. �.C.�•....r,,.•.�. ii �-j:Rj:,/) / �\ \ +' � '2� F _'�{ ��' ,(.m..) �U� �•� ,�:,>�)�� 1P�Z-Tb- '(.\ .�•.•- � •. •. ,r,'11 /��'\l/ jl I.�'- q •' r. i��A �� �� :-v�t�ti ,�4.��r mow' .y� '�;:����;:-• !J��J ,"'(�'''��: :!,' / , i �' s JJ1�1 �ti�`.d�rll=�N ti tU Ls�2,. _,/� ���\ , .� '•<� �1y�i j�\"ol.,; ! _i,. u,y;>. �+\ �v�k), 'SR' �,: � .� ":; ;,,•:' /% Pal 4 \P�i<' l ��� asr_L�., '1"`s.a Y ..--i L�� •�.•, �.. - i��__ ':,,:__ /. ;� ZBr,�� \ 1 � .l` f �� .. / t1 ` ...•. -� is 1 `� U _ ......................_............. A..1 ..R................. �._..._..........s.... .!..........\...�.. .. ' - I RECENT RESIDENTIAL PROJE ............................. / ................ . i February, 1990 RESOLUTION NO. - 90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq. , the City of Dublin has prepared a revised General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002, was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the projected dwelling units and population, and programs proposed in the revised Housing Element do not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council did review and adopt the Environmental Impact Report at a public hearing on February 11, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on May 21, 1990, did review the Housing Element relative to the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin General Plan and relative to the Negative Declaration prepared for the revised General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a noticed Public Hearing on May 21, 1990, adopted Resolution No. 90-022 recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration for the revised General Plan Housing Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council finds that: 1. The project will not have any significant environmental impacts and is consistent with the information in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Dublin General Plan and the Negative Declaration prepared for the subject revised General Plan Housing Element. lip i 4`-r� 2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. - 90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ APPROVAL OF THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq. , the City of Dublin has prepared a revised General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b) , the revised Housing Element was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Housing and Community Development submitted a letter dated April 30, 1990, containing comments on the revised Housing Elements; and WHEREAS, the City made changes to the Housing Element in response to said comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the comments by the State Department of Housing and Community Development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c) (5) , the City held public workshops on March 5th and 6th, 1990, to obtain citizen input regarding the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the comments from members of the public who attended the public workshops were considered in the preparation of the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the local newspaper and posted in public buildings in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been reviewed in accordance with the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002, was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of the revised Housing Element; and _� 1 t - r- ��N WHEREAS, the projected dwelling units and population, and programs proposed in the revised Housing Element do not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 1990, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-022 recommending City Council certification of the Negative Declaration as adequate and complete; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 1990, at a duly noticed Public Hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-023 recommending City Council approval of the revised Housing Element of the Dublin General Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council approves the revised Housing Element. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 11th day of June, 1990. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk - 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 022 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq. , the City of Dublin has prepared a revised General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , together with the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be prepared; and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared by the Dublin Planning Department; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002, was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the projected dwelling units and population, and programs proposed in the revised Housing Element do not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the Dublin City Council did review and adopt the Environmental Impact Report at a public hearing on February 11, 1985; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing on May 21, 1990, did review the Housing Element relative to the previously adopted Environmental Impact Report for the Dublin General Plan and relative to the Negative Declaration prepared for the revised General Plan Housing Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission recommends that the City Council find that: 1. The project will not have any significant environmental impacts and is consistent with the information in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Dublin General Plan and the Negative Declaration prepared for the subject revised General Plan Housing Element. ATTACH.MENT 2. The Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in accordance with State and local environmental laws and guideline regulations and that it is adequate and complete. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika NOES: None ABSENT: None L._ Planning Commiss'on Chairman ATTEST: Planning Director 2 - RESOLUTION NO. 90 - 023 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE REVISED HOUSING ELEMENT OF THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65580 et seq. , the City of Dublin has prepared a revised General Plan Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b) , the revised Housing Element was submitted to the State Department of Housing and Community Development for review; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Housing and Community Development submitted a letter dated April 30, 1990, containing comments on the revised Housing Elements; and WHEREAS, the City made changes to the Housing Element in response to said comments; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the comments by the State Department of Housing and Community Development; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c) (5) , the City held public workshops on March 5, 1990, and March 6, 1990, to obtain citizen input regarding the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the comments from members of the public who attended the public workshops were considered in the preparation of the revised Housing Element; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of State Planning and Zoning Law, it is the function and duty of the Planning Commission of the City of Dublin to review and recommend action on proposed amendments to the City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the local newspaper and posted in public buildings in accordance with California State Law; and WHEREAS, the revised Housing Element has been reviewed in accordance with the provision of. the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report, SCH #84011002, was prepared for the Dublin General Plan and certified on February 11, 1985; which Environmental Impact Report addressed impacts of the future development of the City of Dublin; and which impacts of said development of the General Plan exceed the impacts of the revised Housing Element; and T T A4" C H M E N T. 2 WHEREAS, the projected dwelling units and population, and programs proposed in the revised Housing Element do not raise any new significant environmental issues which were not addressed in the Dublin General Plan Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, on May 21, 1990, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 90-022 recommending City Council certification of the Negative Declaration as adequate and complete; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered all written and oral testimony submitted at the public hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the draft revised Housing Element. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 1990. AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Okun and Zika NOES: None ABSENT: None Planning Commis on Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director - 2 - .1q! �!�! CITY OF DUBLIN P.O. Box 2340, Dublin, California 94568 City Offices, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 NEGATIVE DECLARATION (To be prepared pursuant to City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines , Section 1 . 7 (c) , 5 . 5) Description of Project: City of Dublin Housing Element Project Location: City-wide (City of Dublin and extended planning area) Name of Proponent: City of Dublin I hereby find that the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment . Attached is a copy of the Initial Study ( "Environmental Information Form" and Environmental Checklist" ) documenting the reasons to support the above finding. The following mitigation measures are included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects on the environment . ( If no mitigation measures are included, indicate "not applicable" . If. mitigation measures are included, a Monitoring/Reporting Plan must be attached) : Not Applicable . The attached Monitoring/Reporting Plan designed to ensure that these mitigation measures are carried out during the project ' s implementation is hereby incorporated and fully made part of this Negative Declaration: Not Applicable . Signature Laurence L. Tong Printed Name Planning Director Title April 19 , 1990 Date rATTACHMENT 3 Administration (415) 833.6650 • City Council (415) 833-6605 • Finance (415) 833-6640 • Building Inspection (415) 833.6620 Code Enforcement (415) 833-6620 • Engineering (415) 833-6630 • Planning (415) 833-6610 Police (415) 833-6670 • Public Works (415) 833-6630 • Recreation (415) 833.6645 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , Housing Policy Development Division 1800 Third Street, Room 430 P.O. Box 952053 Sacramento, CA 94252-2053 (9 16) 323-3176 � rCEI "'ED I 1V rjoo DUSUIN PLANI'NIJ G April 30 , 1990 Mr. Richard C. Ambrose City Manager City of Dublin 100 Civic Plaza P.O. Box 2340 Dublin, California 94568 Dear Mr. Ambrose: RE: Review of City of Dublin ' s Draft Housing Element Thank you for submitting Dublin' s draft housing element, received April 3 , 1990, for our review. As you know, we are required to review draft housing elements and report our findings to the locality (Government Code Section 65585 (b) ) . Identified concerns were reviewed in a telephone conversation on April 16, 1990, with Dennis Carrington, the City' s Senior Planner. This letter and appendix contain a summary of that discussion. The draft element is a well written and comprehensive document, and establishes an ambitious schedule of program actions. In our opinion, however, revisions are needed for the element to. comply with State housing element law (Article 10 . 6 of the Government Code) . In particular, the element should clarify the availability of sites necessary to accommodate the City ' s share of the regional housing need for all income levels, expand the analysis of subsidized units at risk, and identify adequate sites for emergency shelter and transitional housing. The Appendix to this letter outlines these and other recommended changes. The enclosed "Supplemental Housing Element Information" appendix contains information about recent legislative changes that may affect your housing programs. We are also enclosing, under separate cover, a technical assistance paper on providing shelter for the homeless to assist the City in meeting the requirements of housing element law. HMEN ATTACT Mr. Richard C. Ambrose Page Two We hope our comments are helpful to the City and we appreciate the cooperation and assistance of Messrs. Carrington and Schubert during the course of our review. If you have any questions about our comments, please contact Gary Collord of our staff at (916) 327-2644 . In accordance with requests pursuant to the Public Information Act, we are forwarding copies of this letter to the persons and organizations listed below. Sincerely, Nancy J. Java Chief Division of Housing Policy Development NJJ:GC:bt Attachments cc: Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner, City of Dublin Bob Schubert, Consultant to the City of Dublin Gary Hambly, Building Industry Association Clifford Sweet, Alameda County Legal Aid Society Mike Rawson, Alameda County Legal Aid Society Sue Hestor, Attorney at Law Tom Cook, Bay Area Council Revan A.F. Tranter, Association of Bay Area Governments Kathleen Mikkelson, Deputy Attorney General Bob Cervantes, Governor ' s Office of Planning and Research Richard Lyon, California Building Industry Association Kerry Harrington Morrison, California Association of Realtors Marc Brown, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation Christine D. Reed, Orange County Building Industry Association APPENDIX City of Dublin The following changes would, in our opinion, bring Dublin' s housing element into compliance with Article 10. 6 of the Government Code. Following each recommended change or addition, we refer to the applicable provision of the Government Code. Where particular program examples or data sources are listed, these suggestions are for your information only. We recognize that Dublin may choose other means of complying with the law. A. Review and Revision 1. Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element (Section 65588 (a) and (b) ) . While the updated - element includes an analysis and overview of the achievements of the previous element, the City may wish to expand the analysis to include the following: Evaluate the effectiveness of the previous element ' s programs in meeting the City' s quantified objectives and the regional share allocation of new construction for all income groups. If the City was unsuccessful in meeting its previous quantified objectives, describe how the programs of the updated element will better achieve the new construction need for all income groups. B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints 1. Clarify the amount of land available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites proposed for annexation, to ensure that the City can accommodate its share of the regional housing need for all income levels, and analyze the relationship of zoning and public services and facilities available to these sites (Section 65583 (a) (3) ) . It is not clear whether the vacant sites within the City and the sites proposed for annexation will accommodate the City' s regional share allocation for all income levels. Expand the analysis to include for each zoning category: available acreage, existing and proposed zoning, expected development densities, proposed annexation time frames if applicable, and the availability of public facilities and services to these sites within the planning period. 2 . Expand the analysis of assisted housing developments with the potential to convert to non-low-income housing uses during the next ten-year period (Section 65583 (a) (8) ) . a. In addition to the federally-subsidized units you have identified, it is necessary to identify and gather information locally on any projects which may be located within your jurisdiction, developed with assistance from any of the following programs, and which are subject to low-income use restrictions which could be terminated within the next ten years (Section 65583 (a) (8) ) : 0 FmHA Sec. 515 Rural Rental Housing Loans ® HUD Community Development Block Grant Program a State (CHFA) and local multifamily revenue bond programs, ■ redevelopment programs a local in-lieu fees, and units that were developed pursuant to: m a local inclusionary housing program ■ Government Code Section 65916, a density bonus project which has direct financial assistance and affordability controls. Use restrictions for these units could be in effect from conditions of project approval and/or regulatory agreements. Include all of the following information for each assisted project in the ten-year inventory: project name and address, the type of governmental assistance received, the earliest possible date of change from low-income use and the total number of elderly and non-elderly units that could be lost from the locality' s low-income housing stock in each year during the ten-year period (Section 65583 (a) (8) (A) ) . For the purpose of the subsequent cost analysis, it may be useful to format the inventory listing into two five-year groups referencing the dates of the earliest potential terminations of use restrictions. Analysis of the inventory should characterize the nature of the units at risk, e.g. the average, or range of project sizes, building ages, tenant types (relative proportions of elderly vs. family) , and peak period(s) of potential conversions. It is also useful to summarize the type of assistance programs, e.g. incidence of units at risk due to rental 2 assistance contract expirations vs. loan prepayments; and condition of the housing stock as it may relate to housing rehabilitation needs. b. Identify nonprofit entities with capacity to acquire and manage assisted projects to preserve their low- income use (Section 65583 (a) (8) (C) ) . Potential nonprofit entities might include housing authorities and redevelopment agencies, in addition to private nonprofit housing developers. In our opinion, the City should include, but is not limited to, the following considerations for your assessment of their capacity: are any of the identified nonprofits interested in potential acquisition and management of such at-risk units now or in the future, how long they have been operating, how many projects/units they have developed and/or managed, and do they have rehabilitation experience? C. Identify all financing sources which could be used to preserve the projects which could convert from low-income use over the ten years, including amounts of each program which have not been legally obligated, and which could be available for preservation of these projects. Financing sources to be analyzed include, but are not limited to, all of the following: e HUD Community Development Block Grant Program funds, n Redevelopment Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Funds, and a administrative fees (reserves) of any housing authority operating within the community (Section 65583 (a) (8) (D) ) . For example, if your . jurisdiction is a CDBG entitlement city, or if it has received CDBG funds through the Small Cities non-entitlement program, indicate the approximate amount of annual funds which have been allocated for housing programs, and which might therefore be eligible for use in preserving at-risk units in the future. d. Include a cost analysis of the following (Section 65583 (a) (8) (B) ) : 1) the cost, in aggregate amounts over two five- year periods, of producing new housing that is comparable in size and rent levels, to replace all of the units that could change from low-income use, and 3 2) an estimated cost of preserving all of the assisted housing developments. This may be described relative to the estimated replacement costs, e.g. whether such costs would be anticipated to be higher or lower than replacement estimates, and for what reason(s) , as well as the magnitude of the difference in estimates. 3 . Expand the analysis of the City' s zoning ordinance as a potential governmental constraint to the development of housing for all income levels (Section 65583 (a) (4) ) . The analysis should include a more detailed review of the City ' s development standards (setback and building height requirements for example) and other land use policies including open space and parking requirements. The element indicates that "Zoning could be a constraint to housing if the density categories are low in an area that could support higher density residential development. " In light of the City ' s past record in accommodating its new construction need for all income levels, evaluate whether the City' s zoning ordinance has served as such a constraint. C. Quantified objectives Depending upon the results of the analysis required in B-1 above, the City may wish to revise its quantified objectives to establish the maximum number of housing units which potentially may be constructed for all income levels during the planning period of the element (Section 65583 (b) ) . Within the quantified objective for number of units to be conserved, include a quantified number of the assisted multi- family rental units at risk of losing government assistance over the next ten years (from earlier inventory) to be preserved over the five-year period of the housing element (Section 65583 (b) ) . D. Programs 1 . Identify adequate sites which will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards, and with public services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing for all income levels, including sites for emergency shelter and transitional housing (Section 65583 (c) (1) ) . Without a complete site inventory as described in Item B-1, the adequacy of the existing sites cannot be determined. 4 After a more complete site inventory, the City may need to identify program actions to increase the variety of housing types and zoning densities necessary to provide adequate housing sites for all income levels. The City may wish to rezone vacant sites within the City and prezone sites proposed for annexation, to better accommodate the housing needs of the various income groups. For example, to meet the needs of the following income groups the City could consider zoning at these densities: Very Low: (multifamily rental : 25-40 du/ac) Low: (multifamily rental or owner: 18-25 du/ac) Moderate: (rental and owner: 8-18 du/ac) While the City's proposed program to apply for federal and State financing to support services to Dublin' s homeless population by shelters in the Tri-Valley Area is encouraged, the City will also need to designate appropriate zoning for a shelter and transitional housing site(s) at a suitable location (s) within the City. Additionally, the City should ensure that the regulatory process does not discourage the development of, conversion to, or use of, a shelter or transitional housing. 2 . Identify programs, if necessary (see Item B-3 , above) to remove or mitigate any identified governmental constraints (Section 65583 (c) (3) ) . 3 . The program section of the element contains an extensive array of ambitious programs. However, some of the programs should more strongly indicate the City' s commitment towards implementation. Programs should include specific activities with target dates or timelines for implementation within the planning period (Section 65583 (c) (1-5) ) . Examples of programs which should provide additional information include, but are not limited to: Program IE: Does the City have a program action to increase development densities should the study warrant higher densities? When would the program be implemented? Program IIIA: What are the proposed zoning densities for these annexation areas? Do the zoning densities support the quantified objectives of 350 low-, moderate-, and above-moderate-income units? Program IIIG: What does the City mean by "provide development sites within East Dublin for this program"? Does the City intend to landbank sites for the 5 development of affordable housing by nonprofit housing providers? Program IIIH: How will the City encourage the development of additional units? What does the City mean by "Provide assistance as requested by Housing Authority staff"? Program IIIM: What are the quantified objectives of this program? What is the estimated extent of City financial participation in the program throughout the planning period of the element? Program IIIN: How does the City participate in this program? How will the eligibility of first-time homebuyers to qualify be increased? 4 . Describe program efforts to be undertaken to preserve the assisted at-risk projects listed in the ten-year inventory for low-income use. These efforts should include utilization of all financing sources identified earlier, except where the community has identified other (more) urgent needs for these funding sources (Section 655883 (c) (6) ) . Efforts might range from regulatory and technical assistance measures to providing the option for direct financial participation (loans/grants for acquisition/rehabilitation) for preserving the at-risk units. 6 SUPPLEMENTAL HOUSING ELEMENT INFORMATION The following information represents recent legislative changes in housing element or State planning law. This information is provided for your general information and to assist you in updating your housing element. 1 . Chapter 1451, Statutes of 1989 , require all housing elements to include, by January 1, 1992 , additional needs analyses and programs to address the potential conversion of existing assisted housing developments to non-low-income housing uses during the next ten-year period (Government Code Section 65583 (a) (8) and (c) (6) ) . Assisted housing developments are defined to include any multifamily rental housing assisted under any of the following programs: 1 . Federal : Section 8 , 213 , 221 (d) (3) , 236 , 202 , and 101 ; CDBG and FmHA Section 515 . 2 . State: Multifamily revenue bonds 3 . Local : Multifamily revenue bond, redevelopment, in- lieu, inclusionary, and density bonus program units with affordability controls. HCD is developing a technical assistance document to assist localities in meeting the new requirement. 2 . Chapter 1140, Statutes of 1989 , amends housing element law (Section 65583 (c) ) to require the housing program of an element to include, by January 1, 1990, a description of the use of moneys in a redevelopment agency ' s Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund if the locality has established a redevelopment project area pursuant to the Community Redevelopment Law (Division 24 (commencing with Section 33000) of the Health and Safety Code) . 3 . Recently enacted State general obligation bond programs established by Proposition 77 (California Earthquake Safety and Housing Rehabilitation Bond Act of 1988) and Proposition 84 (Housing and Homeless Bond Act of 1988) are currently available to assist localities with funding to implement low- and very low-income housing programs. These funds may be used for the following activities: t� acquisition and rehabilitation of rental housing and residential hotels, o rehabilitation of owner-occupied housing, seismic rehabilitation of multifamily rental housing, rental housing construction, m acquisition and rehabilitation of emergency shelters, m development of migrant farm labor centers, and e development of congregate housing for families and the elderly. Inquiries regarding these and other assistance programs offered by HCD should be directed to: California Department of Housing and Community Development Division of Community Affairs P.O. Box 952054 Sacramento, CA 94252-2054 Telephone (916) 322-1560 4 . Chapter 842 , Statutes of 1989 , amended State density bonus law (Government Code Sections 65913 . 4 , 65915 and 65917) by providing for additional local incentives for affordable housing units and strengthening income targeting requirements, among other changes . We have attached a copy of the amended law for your information. HCD is developing a technical assistance document to assist localities in meeting the new requirements . 5 . Chapters 1571 and 1572 , Statutes of 1988 ,, require that manufactured housing must be permitted on permanent foundation systems on all single-family-zoned lots, so long as the unit is no more than ten years old on the date of application, and meets federal and optional local standards specified in Government Code Section 65852 ..3 . (A locality may exempt from this provision any place, building, structure, or other object listed on the National Register of Historic Places. ) Section 65852 . 3 specifies that local governments may impose architectural requirements on the manufactured home itself which are limited to roof overhang, roofing material , and siding material, so long as the requirements, or any other lot development standards imposed on the manufactured home installation, do not exceed those required for a conventional home on the same lot. Section 65852 . 4 has been added to the Government Code to specify that a locality may not subject an application to install a manufactured home on a foundation system on a single-family lot to any administrative permit, planning, or development process or requirement unless it is identical to those which would be imposed on a conventional home on the same lot. San Francisco Chronicle larch 20, 1990 aratcav". Is Wa­ a I ' Mee"in -`-Goals hs 'L.ow By Wae Kershner ple who earn 80 percent of the Chronicle Economics Editor AFFORDABLE median income in their communi- ty could rent it without using more Sacramento HOUSING — HOW . than 30 percent of their incomes.A California is producing only 16 $AY AREA LAGS : portion of that housing is supposed percent as much affordable hous- to be reserved for people who earn ing as it needs, even though plen- Affordable Percen. no more than 50 percent of the ty of market-rate housing is being .. units built rose median income. built,according to a report issued County 1980-88 of goal The goals for affordable hous- yesterday. Alameda 6,141 . 30% ing come from state-mandated The Bay Area barely exceeded Contra Costa 3,031 15 housing requirements. Regional the statewide average. Only about agencies, such as the Association 20 percent of the 119,650 low-cost Morin 1,176 33 for Bay Area Governments, deter housing units needed in the nine Napa: :: .52 1 mine how many lower-income county region were built between units are needed and apportion 1980 and.1938,.the.report by.the,•,. San Francisco 2,902 40 that total among cities and coun California Coalition for Rural.'_ San Mateo 1,250 15 . ties.,:The.local governments "are Housing said. Santa Clara 2,957 11 < ': supposed to respond, but there is While the inability of local gov- '•;-little enforcement capability," ac- Solana 3,669. 28 ';^ ernment to provide incentives to cording to Rolf Pendall, a policy developers was cited as one reason Sonoma 2,655 18 analyst with the Bay Area Council, for the lack of affordable housing, TOTAL 23,833 20 Which compiled many of the Bay the authors of the report said the Area numbers used in the survey. biggest problem was local indiffer- NOTE:Affordable units are those The law does not necessarily ence or hostility. that could be rented by people earn- require communities to meet their ing 80 percent of a county's median "Some neighborhoods don't income. goals, but does require some of ���ant low- and moderate-income fort,the authors of the report said. housing n their back ards, said Source:California Coalition g Y �� for Rural Housing Statewide, only five of the 156 Ann Harrinoton,who directed the largest communities met their study."They fight tooth and nail to goals: Palm Springs,.Costa Mesa, keep out the people who mow incy in communities that have not Woodland, Suisun City and Santa their lawns, wash their shirts and met their housing goals. . Barbara,which did by far the best, harvest their food. building about seven .times as The study's authors said factors . The report cited 18 Bay Area such as congestion and a lack of many lower-income units as its tar- communities among 116 cities and land could not account for the lack get. unincorporated suburbs statewide of low-income units,.because Cali- Besides Suisun City, only Fair- that had built no lower-income fornia has been producing about fax in the Bay Area had built units in the 198088 period:Albany, 120 percent of its goal for.total enough affordable housing to Atherton, Brisbane, Burlingame, housing units. meet its goals. Only Belvedere, Clayton, Colma, Danville, Dublin, Berkeley, El Cerrito, Mountain East Palo Alto, Emeryville, Half "What's, shocking about the View,Oakland,San Bruno,San Ra ' Moon Bay, Hillsborough, Lafay- survey.is that it found that Cali for fael and Vacaville had met half ette, Monte Sereno, Piedmont, nia has built plenty of housing,but almost none for those most in their goals: . Ross, San Carlos, and Saratoga. San Francisco did comp rativ Stan Keaslin of the California need," said Senate Housing and P a. g' Urban Affairs .Committee .Chair ly well , building 2,902 affordable Right to Housing Campaign, said man Leroy Greene. housing units,or 40 percent of its his organization planned to begin oal,the highest percentage of any filing lawsuits against the commu- We still have nearly 150,000 g g p g nities that had not produced any homeless in the state. Why? Be Bay .Area county. Be- low-income housing. He also cause'one-third of 'our communi- Greene indicated that he had threatened action against 82 rede- : ties are producing no'low-income no sympathy for cities that want- velopment agencies,which he said housing at all," Greene said. ed, for whatever reason, to keep violated the law by failing to set ..Under state guidelines, hous—low-income housing .out. He said aside money for low-income hous- ing is considered affordable if peo- he believed the state should force social change on communities if :necessary, but noted that there is no consensus in the Legislature for the laws that would.force those � M changes. TA BAY AREAN f COUNCIL •847 Sansome Street May 31, 1990 ECEIVEQ San Francisco 94111 (415) 981-6600 J 1A �� icj0 FAX (415) 981-6408 Mr. Paul Moffatt 1)U3LIN PLANNING ■EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Mayor PAUL M.P City of Dublin PAUL M.COOK chairman of the Board&CEO P.O. Box 2340 Raychem Corporation Dublin, CA 94568 DAVID A.BOSSEN President&CEO Measurex Corporation Dear Mayor Moffatt and Members of the City Council: ALBERT BOWERS Chairman of the Board Syntex Corporation The Bay Area Council, a business-sponsored regional public affairs organization, RICHARD A.CLARKE Chairman of the Board&CEO supports housing elements which encourage the creation of more housing which is Pacific Gas and Electric Company affordable and accessible to the region's growing workforce. Dublin's draft hous- A.W.man&CEO in element is a sound document on which to base a comprehensive housing pro - Bank Chairman t,CEO g p g p of America gram, and we encourage its adoption. Its programs represent a step forward for MVRON DU GAIN Chairman of the Board b Dublin and a good example le for the Tri-Valley as a whole. SRI International SAM GINN We are disappointed that Dublin is not planning to provide its regional fair share of Chairman&CEO PP P g P Pacific Telesis Group housing between now and 1995. The city's inability to meet its housing obligations TED W.HALL within the current city limits points to the importance of moving ahead quickly with Managing Director-SF Office McKinsey&company.Inc. the East Dublin plan. By moving forward with the housing element's new JAMES R.HARVEY programs—especially high density housing near the planned BART station and ac- Chairman of the Board&CEO Transamerica Corporation tive promotion of other downtown housing—and with its plans for East Dublin, PAUL HAZEN Dublin can position itself to meet and exceed its obligations in the future. We have Wells Fargo Bank several comments and suggestions which would further improve the housing ele- GEORGE M.KELLER ment and help the city realize or exceed its housing objectives by actually leading to Chairman of the Board.Retired Chevron Corporation the construction of affordable housing. CHARLES A.LYNCH Chairman.Executive Committee Levolor Corporation Funding. As the housing element indicates, Dublin has experienced difficulty in RICHARD B.MADDEN providing housing affordable to lower income households. While many of the Chairman&CEO Potlatch Corporation housing element's programs respond to this need, we feel the element would ben- JOHN N.MCMAHON efit from more programs aimed at making new housing more affordable. Some of President&CEO these might include: Lockheed Missiles& g Space Company.Inc • City-issued multi-family mortgage revenue bonds for affordable apartment ROBERT T.PARRY construction; President t;CEO Federal Reserve Bank el Active pursuit of and publicity for multi-family development using state and • San Francisco federal low-income housing tax credits; Chairman�CEO Establishment of redevelopment areas, where housing can be built and from American President Companies whose revenues the city can derive resources for affordable housing. JAMES A.VOHS Chairman&President Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inclusionary Zoning and Density Bonuses. If Dublin adopts an inclusion- CHARLES R.WEAVER zoning ordinance, it should also provide incentives to encourage the develop- 1 Chairman&ceo �' g P g he Clorox Company ment of more housing, both market rate and below-market rate. Program I-A— ■EX OFFICIO allowing for greater density bonuses than called for by state law—is an excellent ANGELO 1.SIRACUSA start. We recommend that the ordinance, when adopted, allow flexibility by setting President Bay Area Council g�criteria for evaluatin the amount of bonus but not statin g the exact amount of the bonus. Criteria might include the number of affordable units provided, the length •The Bay Area Council.established in of affordability, the cost of the land or construction, and the underlying zoning. 1945,is a business-sronsored The city hould encourage negotiation with developers who want to provide afford- aryani;ation dedicated to analysis and Y g developers action on regional issues.Its program currently(cruses on economic use is i h using..strategic r ymuoh and land IT use issues,fiausiny,transrohatian,and Y:h employment training.The Council co- sp sronwrs the Bow Area Economic Forum. Dublin City Council May 31, 1990 Page 2 able units, not simply force developers to provide—and unsubsidized homeowners to pay for —affordable housing. East Dublin and Affordable Housing. We are encouraged that the draft housing element directs the city to plan for affordable housing throughout the East Dublin study area. By incor- porating a mix of housing types and prices into the plans from the beginning,Dublin is more likely to see the construction of housing suited to the range of workers employed in and around the city. We suggest that language in the housing element be strengthened to emphasize the importance of also adding affordable housing within the current city limits. This could be done, for example, by encouraging the incorporation of affordable units within projects under- taken as a result of the programs encouraging use of air rights (Program I-D) and higher den- sity housing near the planned BART station (Program I-E). We hope that Dublin adopts its draft housing ele nent with,our suggested revisions and addi- tions, and that it follows up on its new programs. We applaud the city's commitment to pro- viding more affordable housing. If you have any questions about these comments,please contact our Director of Housing and Development, Thomas B. Cook, at 981-6600. Sin er 1 elo J. Siracusa esident