|
<br />Brentwood, Antioch, Oakley, and the northern rural counties of Napa, Solano, Marin and
<br />Sonoma. Removal oftransit as a factor would have a minimal effect on the City housing target.
<br />
<br />While many members of the HMC expressed an interest in the problems of high housing cost
<br />areas, it ultimately felt that sharing the affordable housing cost equally was the fairest approach
<br />to this issue. However, as indicated, at its January 4 meeting, the HMC developed a new
<br />recommendation that places a higher affordable housing burden on jurisdictions with higher
<br />household incomes. As noted in the previous table, this new methodology would significantly
<br />increase Pleasanton's affordable housing requirement. Further, staff has concerns that this
<br />method unfairly impacts higher income cities and creates an unrealistic affordable housing target
<br />that will be met by only few cities, if any, in the region. As indicated in the table below,
<br />Pleasanton's very-low income housing target would be seventh highest in the entire ABAG
<br />region. As result, staff supports the initial HMC methodology.
<br />
<br />lARGEST NUMBER OF VERY LOW INCOME TARGETS BASED ON THE HMC
<br />ALTERNATIVE HOUSEHOLD INCOME METHODOLOGY
<br />
<br />City Population Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate
<br /> (2005)
<br />San Francisco 795,800 40,494 8,477 7,268 8,695 16,055
<br />San Jose 912,332 33,259 7,361 5,166 5,877 14,855
<br />Oakland 410,600 17,099 2,189 2,487 3,641 8,782
<br />Sunnyvale 128,902 4,584 1,927 1,102 743 1,943
<br />Santa Rosa 153,158 6,673 1,540 1,031 1,134 2,969
<br />Fremont 210,000 4,827 1,476 988 957 1,406
<br />Santa Clara 105,402 5,974 1,304 942 1,009 2,719
<br />Pleasanton 69,200 3,688 1,204 827 804 853
<br />Dublin 41,200 3,440 1,121 690 293 960
<br />San Ramon 49,999 3,292 1,110 686 698 798
<br />Livermore 80,400 3,423 1,040 673 682 1,028
<br />
<br />The final issue is meant to have a jobs/housing balance that reflects the fact that an employment
<br />center in one city is often located adjacent to neighboring cities and as a result, the goal should
<br />be to assure that housing is in close proximity to jobs rather than assuring that the jobs and
<br />housing are in one city. This City's comments on this matter are further explained in the
<br />attached letter from Mayor Hosterman (Attachment I).
<br />
<br />Because the RHNA process is complex and impacts each jurisdiction in the region, it is difficult
<br />to establish a methodology that is acceptable to each jurisdiction. Nevertheless, there are many
<br />positive aspects to the current HMS recommendations and the attached recommended letter
<br />from Mayor Hosterman is intended to further emphasize opportunities to improve the
<br />methodology.
<br />
<br />As indicated previously, because the region's housing unit target will not be made available
<br />until later this year, the City does not know the exact impact of these methodologies. However,
<br />based on the current RHNA regional housing target, the recommended formula would reduce
<br />the City's overall housing target but increase it percentage of affordable units. Regardless of the
<br />
<br />Page 6
<br />
|