The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Report - May 21, 2014 C-12AGENDA'ITEM C•12 - CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION • TM AGENDA TITLE: Receive Draft Allocation Methodology for the 2014-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for San Joaquin County MEETING DATE: May 21, 2014 PREPARED BY: Community Development Department RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive draft allocation methodology for the 2014-2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for San Joaquin. County. BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG), as the Metropolitan Planning Organization for San Joaquin County, has been actively working on , the draft allocation methodology for the 2014-2023 RHNA for San Joaquin County. The goal of the RHNA methodology is to equitably assign to each jurisdiction a portion of the 40,360 countywide RHNA target. The proposed RHNA methodology takes into consideration the following objectives: 1. Relationship between jobs and housing. 2. Identify any existing local, regional, or state incentives available to local governments that are willing to accept a higher RHNA share than proposed in the draft allocation. 3. Ensure that the total regional housing need, by income category is maintained and that each jurisdiction in the region receives an allocation of units for low- and very low- income households. 4. Consistency with the Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) development pattern. City of Lodi staff actively participated in the RHNA process and will continue to participate in the process and ensure that City concerns and short and long term housing needs are met on a regional basis. The draft document is out for a 55 -day public comment period that ends May 27, 2014 and can be found on the SJCOG website. Staff has been reviewing the draft document to ensure City concerns are incorporated into the plan. A copy of the draft RHNA Executive Summary is provided as Attachment A. A final RHNA will be published in the future. FISCAL IMPACT: Not applicable. FUNDING AVAILABLE: Not applicable. Stephen Schwabaue Interim Community Development Director Attachments SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS .555 E. Weber Avenue • Stockton, California 95202 209.235.0600.209.23.5.0438 (f?cr) www.sjcog.org Jeff Laugero CHAIR Sieve Dresser MEMORANDUM VICE CHAIR Andrew T Cheslep EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR DATE: April 29, 2014 Member Agencies CITIES OF ESCALON, LATHROP, LODI, MANTECA, RIPON, STOCKTON, TRACY, AND THE COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN TO: Interested Parties FROM: Kim Anderson, Associate Regional Plann( RE: Adoption of Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology and Issuance of Draft Allocation / 60 -Day Review Period Deadline May 27, 2014 At is January 23, 2014 Board meeting, the SJCOG Board of Directors authorized the release of the Draft RHNA Allocation Methodology for a required 60 -day public review and comment period. The draft methodology included a preliminary allocation of the regional RHNA total to the seven incorporated jurisdictions and the unincorporated county area of San Joaquin County. Subsequently, SJCOG held two public hearings on February 26, 2014 to allow interested parties to provide public input on the methodology. During the comment period, one comment letter was received. This input resulted in a refinement of the methodology to insure that the regional targets for very -low, low, moderate, and above moderate income limits were consistent with those issued by HCD. The refined RHNA Methodology was approved by the SJCOG Board of Directors on March 27, 2014. The approved methodology included a draft RHNA allocation as shown in the table on the next page. RHNA Allocation Memorandum / Page 2 Draft RHNA Allocation Summary by Jurisdiction Pursuant to State housing law, Government Code (GC) Section 65584.05, a jurisdiction has 60 days from the date of issuance of the draft allocation to request a revision of its share of the regional housing need. Given the 60 -day time line, revision requests are due to SJCOG no later than May 27, 2014. Requests, comments, or questions relating to the draft allocation may be directed to: San Joaquin Council of Governments Kim Anderson, Associate Regional Planner 555 E Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202 andersonkslcog org 209-235-0565 Attachments: SJCOG Board Approved 5th Cycle (2014-2023) RHNA Methodology & Draft Allocation Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Agency ($16,129 & ($16,130 to ($26,883 to ($43,012 to ($64,518 & Total Below) $26,882) $43,011) $64,517) Above) RHNA Escalon 60 42 66 65 192 425 Lathrop 526 493 759 957 2,421 5,156 Lodi 244 253 331 333 770 1,931 Manteca 459 466 693 825 1,958 4,401 Ripon 154 154 215 231 726 1,480 Stockton 1,675 1,482 2,004 2,103 4,560 11,824 Tracy 513 467 705 828 2,463 4,976 SJ County 1,257 1,239 1,727 1,724 4,220 10,167 Total 4,888 4,596 6,500 7,066 17,310 40,360 12.11% 11.39% 16.11% 17.51% 42.89% 100.00% Pursuant to State housing law, Government Code (GC) Section 65584.05, a jurisdiction has 60 days from the date of issuance of the draft allocation to request a revision of its share of the regional housing need. Given the 60 -day time line, revision requests are due to SJCOG no later than May 27, 2014. Requests, comments, or questions relating to the draft allocation may be directed to: San Joaquin Council of Governments Kim Anderson, Associate Regional Planner 555 E Weber Avenue, Stockton, CA 95202 andersonkslcog org 209-235-0565 Attachments: SJCOG Board Approved 5th Cycle (2014-2023) RHNA Methodology & Draft Allocation SJCOG Board Approval March 27, 2014 RHNA Period of 2014 2023 PP,Vwlel, SAN ,(,AqL 1N UO N(;I I. OF G 0 E R N M E N'Is U 9 ` SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment Allocation Methodology San Joaquin Council of Governments (March 2014) The goal of the RHNA methodology is to equitably assign to each jurisdiction a portion of the 40,360 countywide RHNA target. The proposed RHNA methodology takes into consideration the following objectives: 1) Relationship between jobs and housing. 2) Identify any existing local, regional, or state incentives available to local governments that are willing to accept a higher RHNA share than proposed in the draft allocation. 3) Ensure that the total regional housing need, by income category is maintained, and that each jurisdiction in the region receives an allocation of units for low- and very low income households. 4) Consistency with the SCS's development pattern. PROPOSED RHNA ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY FACTORS FACTOR 1: Jobs & Household Relationship Objective: The objective is to establish an individualized job and household relationship factor for each jurisdiction. These factors allow the methodology to be more sensitive to the jobs and household characteristics of the region to the individual jurisdictions in order to promote a more balanced allocation of the countywide RHNA target. Escalan YEAR 2023 JOBS TO HOUSEHOLDS ■Yar2021 dohs �Ywr SQ23Au�ehulda � c n � � n Lathrop Lodi Maateca Ripua St—ktaa jIm a � Tracy San Joaquin Canaty The data needed to arrive at the Job Household Relationship Factors includes: The methodology to arrive at the individualized jobs to household relationship factors is as follows: Jobs Relationship _ Year 2013 Workers per Household Working Adults per Factor — Job Growth _ Household Household 5,850 Year 2023 52% Working Adults per Relationship Factor 11,232 Household Growth i Household The following Table I provides the draft calculation to arrive at the individualized jobs and households relationship factors: Table I: Jobs & Housing Relationship AGENCY Year 2023 Jobs Year 2023 Households Workers per Household Working Adults (Ages 19-64) Jobs Relations Factor (JRF) Households Relations Factor (HRF) Escalon 1,974 3,048 1.92 5,850 33.7% 52% Lathrop 6,283 11,232 2.05 23,020 27.3% 49% Lodi 25,344 25,663 1.86 47,620 53.2% 54% Manteca 17,176 26,609 2.07 55,000 31.2% 48% Ripon 4,152 7,198 2.01 14,470 28.7% 50% Stockton 131,564 114,410 1.97 225,790 58.3% 51% Tracy 24,581 31,197 2.08 64,820 37.9% 48% San Joaquin County 31,613 40,842 1.93 79,020 40.0% 52% Total 242,687 260,199 515,590 38.80% 50.24% Data sources: Employment (Business Forecasting Center, Eberhardt School of Business), Population & Household (Planning Center), Working Adults per Household (Year 2010 United States Census Bureau) FACTOR 2: Sustainable Housing Objective: The objective of this factor is to meet the intent of SB 375 by accounting for each jurisdiction's portion of the countywide RHNA subject to the projected year 2035 SCS. The following initial step would be applied to convert SCS related households to housing units: RHNA & SCS housing units I= I RHNA/SCS period households I X I Healthy vacancy rate The use of year 2000 United States Census Bureau vacancy rates for each jurisdiction are proposed to be used because they best correspond to what is considered a "healthy" vacancy rate by industry standards. The following Table II documents and compares the year 2000 and year 2010 vacancy rates: Table II: Housing Vacancy Rates AGENCY Escalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy SJ County Average Year 2000 3.56% 2.77% 3.21% 3.36% 2.26% 4.25% 2.58% 4.95% 3.37% Vancancy Rate Year 2010 Vancancy Rate 5.13% 9.10% 7.12% 6.55% 5.34% 9.06% 6.29% 8.27% 7.11% Difference 1.57% 6.33% 3.91% 3.19% 3.08% 4.81% 3.71% 3.32% The data needed to arrive at the Sustainable Housing Factors includes: Applying the SCS period average growth rate to the RHNA period total provides an average RHNA to SCS housing unit outcome based on each jurisdiction's SCS development pattern to the region. The methodology to arrive at a sustainable housing factor for each jurisdiction is as follows: Sustainable _ - 1 RHNA period X 2035 SCS percentage + RHNA period housing i 340 Housing Factor Housing housing Rate Households Units Households Units Units growth rate Units SCS based on SCS unit rate 4,542 2 The following Table III provides the preliminary sustainable housing factor results: Table III: Sustainable Housing Factor RHNA 2035 SCS Healthy Year 2014 Year 2023 Period SCS Period Average AGENCY 1.00% 340 Vacancy Year 2014 Housing Year 2023 Housing Housing Housing Housing RHNA to Rate Households Units Households Units Units Unit Rate Units SCS Escalon 3.56% 2,658 2,753 3,048 3,157 404 1.00% 340 372 Lathrop 2.77% 6,812 7,001 11,232 11,543 4,542 14.18% 4,820 4,681 Lodi 3.21% 24,219 24,996 25,663 26,487 1,490 4.24% 1,440 1,465 Manteca 3.36% 23,444 24,232 26,609 27,503 3,271 13.77% 4,681 3,976 Ripon 2.26% 5,835 5,967 7,198 7,361 1,394 3.67% 1,246 1,320 Stockton 4.25% 107,629 112,203 114,410 119,272 7,069 34.11% 11,591 9,330 Tracy 2.58% 27,056 27,754 31,197 32,002 4,248 13.08% 4,446 4,347 SJ County 4.95% 29,822 31,298 40,842 42,864 11,565 15.95% 5,420 8,492 Total 227,475 236,204 260,199 270,188 33,984 100.00% 33,984 33,984 Data sources: Vacancy Rates (United States Federal Census Bureau), Households (Planning Center) FACTOR 3: Family Income Characteristics Objective: The objective of this factor is to ensure that an equitable share of each jurisdiction's RHNA target is responsive to family income limits characteristics of the jurisdiction. The family income characteristic factor recognizes the difference between the total households regionally in each income category to the jurisdiction's proportion for that same income category. The following Table IV outlines the households to family income ranges from the United States Census Bureau: Table IV: Family Income Limits by Jurisdiction Data Source: United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2011 American Community Survey) Based on a countywide medium household income of $53,764, the RHNA medium family income limits include: Extremely Low (30% median) $0$16,129 Very Low (50% median) $16,130$26,882 Low (80% median) $26,883 $43,011 Moderate (120% median) $43,012 to $64,517 Above moderate (all else) $64,518 and Above Using the United States Census Bureau to realign the RHNA income limits ensures that jurisdictions are not disproportionately allocated RHNA targets in any particular income category. The following Table V provides the results of the alignment of the family income characteristics by jurisdiction: Table V: RHNA Family Income Characteristics by Jurisdiction Agency Extremely Low City of City of City of City of City of City of City of SJ County San Joaquin Agency ($26,883 to $43,011) to $64,517) ($64,518 & Above) Households Escalon 391 (Unincorporated County 378 Fscalon Lathrop Lodi Manteca Ripon Stockton Tracy 14.8% 7.9% 14.3% 12.9% 50.1% 100.0% Area) Region Family Income Limits 331 HOLLSeholds to Medium Family Income of $53,764 4,703 $0 $10,000 118 200 966 650 102 5,993 864 2,080 10,973 $10,000 $14,999 252 112 1,376 860 199 6,203 749 2,441 12,192 $15,000 $24,999 178 293 2,903 1,789 348 10,861 1,468 4,863 22,703 $25,000 $34,999 259 370 2,506 1,818 406 9,681 1,450 5,290 21,780 $35,000 $49,999 314 562 3,395 3,234 424 14,145 2,966 6,161 31,201 $50,000 $74,999 334 1,146 3,763 4,890 725 16,717 4,073 7,569 39,217 $75,000 $99,999 523 839 2,302 3,614 575 10,373 3,292 5,387 26,905 $100,000 $149,999 480 817 2,932 3,182 772 10,199 5,487 5,746 29,615 $150,000 $199,999 150 273 1,039 1,199 470 3,431 2,079 2,261 10,902 $200,000 or more 28 90 851 382 446 2,213 1,185 2,219 7,414 Total households 2,636 4,702 22,033 21,618 4,467 89,816 23,613 44,017 212,902 Data Source: United States Census Bureau, American Fact Finder (2011 American Community Survey) Based on a countywide medium household income of $53,764, the RHNA medium family income limits include: Extremely Low (30% median) $0$16,129 Very Low (50% median) $16,130$26,882 Low (80% median) $26,883 $43,011 Moderate (120% median) $43,012 to $64,517 Above moderate (all else) $64,518 and Above Using the United States Census Bureau to realign the RHNA income limits ensures that jurisdictions are not disproportionately allocated RHNA targets in any particular income category. The following Table V provides the results of the alignment of the family income characteristics by jurisdiction: Table V: RHNA Family Income Characteristics by Jurisdiction Agency Extremely Low Very Low ($16,130 Low Moderate ($43,012 Above Moderate Total ($16,129 & Below) to $26,882) ($26,883 to $43,011) to $64,517) ($64,518 & Above) Households Escalon 391 208 378 340 1,321 2,637 14.8% 7.9% 14.3% 12.9% 50.1% 100.0% Lathrop 346 331 601 927 2,498 4,703 7.4% 7.0% 12.8% 19.7% 53.1% 100.0% Lodi 2,675 3,053 3,848 3,766 8,693 22,034 12.1% 13.9% 17.5% 17.1% 39.5% 100.0% Manteca 1,715 1,935 3,204 4,345 10,419 21,618 7.9% 9.0% 14.8% 20.1% 48.2% 100.0% Ripon 341 386 556 618 2,567 4,468 7.6% 8.6% 12.4% 13.8% 57.4% 100.0% Stockton 13,450 11,477 15,417 16,292 33,180 89,816 15.0% 12.8% 17.2% 18.1% 36.9% 100.0% Tracy 1,786 1,582 2,762 3,746 13,740 23,615 7.6% 6.7% 11.7% 15.9% 58.2% 100.0% SJ County 5,078 5,321 7,587 7,267 18,757 44,009 11.5% 12.1% 17.2% 16.5% 42.6% 100.0% Total 25,782 24,292 34,353 37,298 91,176 212,902 Regional % 12.1% 11.4% 16.1% 17.5% 42.8% 100.0% Data sources: Median Family Income (2010 United States Census Bureau) Median Family Income Limits (2010 United States Census Bureau) The methodology to distribute the individualized RHNA target by the family income limit is as follows: R14NA by Family Income Limits — Net RHNA x Income percentage limits by jurisdiction PROPOSED RHNA ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY The countywide and individualized data for each jurisdiction is applied to the proposed RHNA Allocation Methodology. The following Sample RHNA Allocation Methodology, uses the outcomes of the three factors of. 1) Jobs to Housing Relationship; 2) Sustainable Housing; and, 3) Family Income Characteristics to arrive at the RHNA share per jurisdiction. 2- 3- 4- 5- 6 - A B C D E F * Includes Extremely Low The description of the values found in the Sample RHNA Allocation Methodology are as follows: 1) Section 1C is the difference of year 2023 (1A) and year 2014 (113) household growth. 2) Section 11) is the year 2023 countywide household growth. 3) Section lE is the percentage share of housing growth (1C/11)). 4) Section 2C is the difference of the year 2023 (2A) and year 2014 (2B) jobs growth. 5) Section 21) is the year 2023 countywide jobs growth. 6) Section 2E is the percentage share of job growth (2C/21)). 7) The sub total of RHNA in Section 3F is derived by multiplying the share of job growth (3A) by the individualized jobs relationship factor (3B) and the share of household growth (3C) by the individualized household relationship factor (31)). The amount in (3E), represents the remaining 15.8% of the countywide RHNA after the SHF is applied. The amount in (3E) is slightly higher (6,434) than the difference between the total SHF and the countywide RHNA (6,376) to adjust for Regional Share of Households Households Household Household Household 2023 - 2014 = Growth Growth Growth # Households # Households Difference 1134A Yr. 2014-2023 1C/11) Jobs Jobs Job Regional Share of 2023 - 2014 = Growth Job Growth Job Growth Total # Jobs # Jobs Difference 213-2A Yr. 2014-2023 2C/21) Share of Jobs Share of Household Remaining Job Relationship Household Relationship RHNA Projected Growth x Factor (JRF) + Growth x Factor (HRF) x SHF of 16% ,-= Housing Target Value of 2E 3A x JRF Value of 1 E 3C x HRF Net RHNA Value Portion of RHNA Sustainable Housing Factor SCS Housing Units TOTAL RHNA1 Share of RHNA Household Income Distribution Household Household Average of Reconcilliation Housing Income Income Agency & of Income Unit Income Percentage by Percentage Regional Limit Allocation by Category Jurisdiction for Region Income Differentials Income Category *Very Low 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Plus & or Minus RHNA to Income Low 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Plus & or Minus RHNA to Income Moderate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Plus & or Minus RHNA to Income Above Moderate 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Plus & or Minus RHNA to Income TOTAL 0% 0% 0% Total RHNA * Includes Extremely Low The description of the values found in the Sample RHNA Allocation Methodology are as follows: 1) Section 1C is the difference of year 2023 (1A) and year 2014 (113) household growth. 2) Section 11) is the year 2023 countywide household growth. 3) Section lE is the percentage share of housing growth (1C/11)). 4) Section 2C is the difference of the year 2023 (2A) and year 2014 (2B) jobs growth. 5) Section 21) is the year 2023 countywide jobs growth. 6) Section 2E is the percentage share of job growth (2C/21)). 7) The sub total of RHNA in Section 3F is derived by multiplying the share of job growth (3A) by the individualized jobs relationship factor (3B) and the share of household growth (3C) by the individualized household relationship factor (31)). The amount in (3E), represents the remaining 15.8% of the countywide RHNA after the SHF is applied. The amount in (3E) is slightly higher (6,434) than the difference between the total SHF and the countywide RHNA (6,376) to adjust for an under allocation of 58 units. The jobs and housing factors are unique to each jurisdiction because they are based on working adults per household. Therefore, the jobs and housing factors for each jurisdiction never equal exactly 100%. Increasing the difference from the SHF and the countywide RHNA offsets the under allocation and ensures that these units are allocated based on the same individualized jobs/housing factor formula. 8) Section 3F is the countywide net RHNA determination to the individual jurisdiction. 9) Section 4F is the proportional Sustainable Housing factor supported by the SCS. 10) Section 5E is the sum of the portion of net RHNA (3E) and the Sustainable Housing Factor (4E). 11) Section 6E includes the results of any reconciliation needs across the family income limits based on the results of Table VII below. 12) Section 6F includes the sub total allocations by mandated family income limit categories. Based on the draft methodology, the following Table VI provides a preliminary RHNA allocation summary for each jurisdiction by family income limits: Table VI: Preliminary RHNA Allocation by Jurisdiction (Prior to Reconciliation Step in Section 6E) The prescribed family income limit targets compared to the preliminary outcomes of the allocation methodology in Table VI are as follows: Family Income Categories Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate State Mandated Outcomes Agency ($16,129 & ($16,130 to ($26,883 to ($43,012 to ($64,518 & Total 4,428 Below) $26,882) $43,011) $64,517) Above) RHNA Escalon 57 41 65 65 197 425 Lathrop 503 475 745 960 2,473 5,156 Lodi 233 244 325 334 795 1,931 Manteca 439 449 681 828 2,005 4,402 Ripon 147 148 211 232 742 1,480 Stockton 1,600 1,428 1,968 2,109 4,718 11,824 Tracy 490 450 692 831 2,513 4,976 SJ County 1,201 1,193 1,696 1,730 4,346 10,166 Total 4,670 4,428 6,383 7,089 17,789 40,360 The prescribed family income limit targets compared to the preliminary outcomes of the allocation methodology in Table VI are as follows: Family Income Categories Extremely low Very low Low Moderate Above moderate State Mandated Outcomes 4,888 4,596 6,500 7,065 17,310 Allocation Outcomes 4,670 4,428 6,383 7,089 17,789 Differential 218 (Under) 169 (Under) 117 (Under) 25 (Over) 479 (Over) To maintain consistency, the percentages representing each jurisdiction from the allocation formula are applied to the over and under amounts to balance the distribution across the family income limit controls totals prescribed by the state. The results of the reconciliation step is on the following Table VII: Table VII: Preliminary RHNA Allocation Summary by Jurisdiction (After Reconciliation) Extremely Low Very Low Low Moderate Above Moderate Agency ($16,129 & ($16,130 to ($26,883 to ($43,012 to ($64,518 & Total Below) $26,882) $43,011) $64,517) Above) RHNA Escalon 60 42 66 65 192 425 Lathrop 526 493 759 957 2,421 5,156 Lodi 244 253 331 333 770 1,931 Manteca 459 466 693 825 1,958 4,401 Ripon 154 154 215 231 726 1,480 Stockton 1,675 1,482 2,004 2,103 4,560 11,824 Tracy 513 467 705 828 2,463 4,976 SJ County 1,257 1,239 1,727 1,724 4,220 10,167 Total 4,888 4,596 6,500 7,066 17,310 40,360 12.11% 11.39% 16.11% 17.51% 42.89% 100.00%