26 - Laserfiche WebLink

1999-2006 RHNA 2007-2014 RHNA - 2007-2014 RHNA - Draft Methodolol!V * New Recommendation* Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Income Level Units % of total Units % oftotal Units % of total Very Low Income 729 15% 834 23% 1,204 33% Low Income 455 9% 610 16% 827 22% Moderate Income 1,239 26% 708 19% 804 22% Above Moderate Income 2,636 50% 1,535 42% 853 23% Total 5,059 100% 3,688 100% 3,688 100% REVISED HMC HOUSING UNIT DISTRIBUTION BY HOUSEHOLD NCOME 'Numbers are based on the existing regional number. The new RHNA numbers will be available in Spring 2007. With these actions, the HMC has completed its recommendations to the ABAG Executive Board which will make a decision on this matter at its meeting of January 18. As indicated, once adopted, the methodology will be used to allocate portions of the total regional housing number and income levels to all jurisdictions in the ABAG region which is expected to take place between March to June 2007. Following this action, jurisdictions will have an opportunity to request revisions to the draft allocations and to appeal an ABAG decision on the matter. The final allocations will be made by ABAG in Winter/Spring 2008. Based on these final numbers, each city is required to adopt a housing element update reflecting the new housing unit and income allocations by June 30, 2009. DISCUSSION While City staff and Mayor Hosterman have found agreement in much of the process used by the HMC and ABAG staff, it consistently expressed concern about three issues: . The RHNA should discourage housing in areas adjacent to gridlocked freeway systems as the new units will most likely further impact traffic conditions. . Consideration should be given to areas with unusually high housing costs which should not have the same affordable housing burden as those with lower housing costs. . ABAG should consider a new definition of jobslhousing balance that identifies the goal of securing housing near employment centers rather than a definition that views the matter as jobs/housing within a particular jurisdiction. During the course of the HMC's discussions, it became clear that ABAG staff would not support the gridlock concept. However, a number of cities expressed concern regarding the inclusion of transit as a weighted factor based on the fact that this information is already included as part of ABAG's Projections which is used to develop the regional housing unit target. The impact of removing transit as a factor is that household growth and employment would be given greater weight. The effect of removing transit would be that jurisdictions with transit, including Oakland, San Francisco, and Berkeley, and similar cities, would see their allocations reduced over the draft method numbers. Allocations would go up in cities with high levels of expected household growth and/or where there are no or few transit stations, including San Jose, Page 5