Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.1 Regional Housing Needs/Housing Element CITY CLERK File # DW31~-~CJ AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 19,2006 SUBJECT: ATTACHMENTS: RECOMMENDATION: rj( -1) /1 ')1',., / (,A,/\ l FINANCIAL STATEMENT: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Background Informational Report on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Methodology for the 2007-2014 Housing Element Cycle Report prepared by Mamie R. Nuccio, Associate Planner 1) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) memo to the ABAG Executive Board dated October 26, 2006 regarding Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology. Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) memo to the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) dated October 11, 2006 regarding Scenarios for Allocating Units by Income 2) 2) Receive report and accept the 2007-2014 RHNA methodology for the allocation of total housing units and allocation of units by income level, OR Direct Staff to forward comments to ABAG regarding the methodology. None. State law requires that all governing bodies (i.e. the City Council) adopt a comprehensive, long term General Plan for the physical development of the City. The General Plan must include the 7 State mandated elements; one of which is the Housing Element. The Housing Element establishes specific goals, policies and objectives to meet the current and future housing needs of the City. The Housing Element must be updated approximately every 5 years and submitted for review to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for compliance with State law. The City completed the most recent update to the Housing Element in June 2003 and received State certification in July 2003. The next update to the Housing Element is due in June 2009. COPY TO: Page 1 of7 R,{ '.J- (Y ITEM NO. G:\General Plan\Housing Element\RHNA 2007 -2014\12-19-06 CCSR RHNA Methodology,doc The updating of the Housing Element begins with the State issuing Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers to the local Council of Governments. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the Council of Governments for the 9 county San Francisco Bay Area region. In accordance with State law, ABAG is required to determine the existing and projected housing need for the San Francisco Bay Area and to develop a methodology by which to allocate the region's housing need to individual counties and cities within the region. The State, in collaboration with ABAG, assigns the RHNA numbers which must then be incorporated into each jurisdictions Housing Element update. 1999-2006 RHNA Period Regional Housing Need The methodology adopted by ABAG for allocating the regions total housing need during the 1999-2006 Housing Element cycle included two factors, 1) Household Growth and 2) Employment Growth. Both factors were weighted equally at 50% (See Table 1 below). Table 1. 1999-2006 RHNA Methodolo Factor Household Growth from 1999-2006 Employment Growth from 1999-2006 Total Percenta e 50% 50% 100% The number of housing units allocated to each jurisdiction was based on the projected growth in households and employment for the 1999-2006 RHNA period. Based on this methodology, the City of Dublin was assigned a RHNA of 5,436 housing units. State law requires that local jurisdictions remove constraints and adequately zone land to allow for the construction oftheir RHNA. During the 1999-2006 RHNA period, the City of Dublin successfully zoned land to allow for the construction of over 5,436 housing units. While local jurisdictions are not required to actually construct their allocation of housing units, the City issued building permits for the construction of 3,585 new housing units during the 1999-2006 RHNA period. Dublin's success in enabling the construction of new housing units surpasses that of many jurisdictions within the Bay Area. Affordability In addition to adopting a methodology for allocating the regions total housing need to individual jurisdictions, ABAG also adopts a methodology for the distribution of affordable housing units. When allocating affordable housing units, the methodology attempts to ensure that all communities contribute equally in providing affordable housing and responding to existing needs for affordable housing without over concentrating lower income households within a particular community. In an effort to move the Bay Area region towards a more equitable distribution of affordable housing units, the methodology adopted for the 1999-2006 RHNA period started with each jurisdictions existing income distribution and then moved it 50% towards the regional average. Based on this methodology, the City of Dublin received an allocation of 796 very low income units, 531 low income units, 1,441 moderate income units, and 2,668 above moderate income units (see Table 2 below). Page 2 of7 Table 2. Cit of Dublin 1999-2006 RHNA Income Level 1999-2006 RHNA ** Very Low Income ( <50% AMI* ) Low Income ( >50% to <80% AMI* ) Moderate Income (>80% to <120% AMI*) Above Moderate Income ( > 120% AMI* ) Total 5,436 3,585 * AMI: Area Median Income. The Area Median Income for a family of four living in Alameda County in 2006 is $86,300. **Local jurisdictions are required by State law to remove constraints and adequately zone land to allow for the construction of their housing unit allocations. ***Permitted is defined as the issuance of Building Permits for the construction of a residential unit. 796 T otalllni 1999 257 (32%) 531 239 (45%) 1 ,441 369 (26%) 2,668 2,720 (102%) 2007-2014 RHNA Period In order to determine how to allocate the Bay Area's share of housing need for the 2007-2014 RHNA period, ABAG assembled a Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) comprised of elected officials, city and county members and stakeholder representatives to advise ABAG staff on a methodology for the allocation. City Staff attended the HMC meetings which were held monthly from May to October 2006. ABAG discussed with the HMC various methodologies and a variety of factors were considered including, household growth; existing employment; employment growth; household growth near transit; and, employment growth near transit. In all, the HMC reviewed 10 different methodologies. The HMC was also asked to recommend a methodology for determining the Regional Income Allocations. The Regional Income Allocations set forth the number of RHNA housing units which must be set aside for very low, low, moderate and above moderate income levels. Regional Housing Need The HMC recommended that the following five RHNA factors be used in allocating the regional housing need: 1) Household Growth; 2) Existing Employment; 3) Employment Growth; 4) Household Growth near Transit; and 5) Employment Growth near Transit (See Table 3 below). Projections 2007 is used to determine what each jurisdictions household growth and employment growth will be for the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Because Projections 2007 looks at data in 5 year increments (i.e. 2005, 2010, 2015, etc.) ABAG will look at growth between 2005 and 2010 and between 2010 and 2015 and average the growth on a yearly basis to estimate the 2007 and 2014 numbers. For example, Dublin's number of households in 2005 was 13,440 and is projected to be 16,600 in 2010 for a total household growth of 3,160 households. By dividing the household growth (3,160 households) by 5 (the number of years between 2005 and 2010) you obtain an estimated yearly household growth rate of 632 households. In order to estimate Dublin's 2007 household population you would add the total number of households in 2005 (13,440) plus 632 households for 2006 and another 632 households for 2007. The result is an Page 3 of7 estimated 14,704 households for 2007. The same formula would be used to estimate household population in 2014 as well as existing employment and employment growth. Each factor is weighted based upon the relative importance of the factor. For example, the HMC felt that household growth over the next 7 years (2007-2014) should receive the greatest weighting at 40% since this factor directly affects the need for additional housing units. Existing Employment in 2007 is included as a factor and weighted 20% in order to improve the existing jobs/housing balance within the region. Employment Growth is also included as a factor and weighted 20% in order to maintain a jobs/housing balance over the next 7 years. Lastly, the HMC felt that Household Growth and Employment Growth near Transit were important factors to include but gave them a lower weighting of 10% each. To determine Household Growth and Employment Growth near Transit, ABAG will focus on growth within a 12 mile radius of existing or planned transit stations. Including growth near transit as a factor is intended to focus future development near transit stations to help alleviate traffic congestion within the region. Table 3. HMC Recommendation for the RHNA Methodolo2Y Factor Percenta2e Household Growth from 2007-2014 40% Existing Employment in 2007 20% Employment Growth from 2007-2014 20% Household Growth near transit from 2007-2014 10% Employment Growth near transit from 2007-2014 10% Once the State of California releases the regional housing needs number in March 2007, ABAG will apply the methodology shown in Table 3 above to distribute the housing units among the individual counties and cities within the region. Affordability ABAG presented the HMC with four different scenarios for allocating housing units by income level (Attachment 2). However, the HMC did not recommend any of these scenarios because they felt that the allocation of housing units by income level based on the regional income distribution was the best solution (See Table 4 below). The regional income distribution is proposed to be based on household income data from Census 2000 or data from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that specifies household incomes by household size. Table 4. Recommended Re2ional Income Allocation based on Affordability Income Level Area Median Income* (AMI) Percenta2e Very Low Income Up to 50% AMI 23% Low Income 50%-80% AMI 16% Moderate Income 80%-120% AMI 19% Above Moderate Income Above 120% AMI 42% Total 100% *In 2006, the Area Median Income for a family offour living in Alameda County is $86,300. By assigning each community an equal share of the region's affordable housing units, the methodology recognizes that the need for affordable housing is a problem that is shared by the region as a whole and it is consistent with the idea that every jurisdiction must contribute its "fair share" to providing affordable housing. The proposed methodology also promotes a more equitable income distribution by moving each jurisdiction to the same standardized income distribution and is more likely to avoid the over concentration of income groups within a particular jurisdiction. Page 4 of7 ABAG Executive Board Meeting At the October 26, 2006 ABAG Executive Board Meeting, ABAG staff presented the HMC's recommendation for the RHNA methodology and the Regional Income Allocation methodology (See Tables 3 and 4 above). The Executive Board adopted a Resolution authorizing the release of the draft methodology for public review and comment. The public review and comment period is November 16, 2006 to January 18, 2007. On January 18th, ABAG staff will return to the Executive Board with a recommendation on the final methodology including responses to all comments received during the public review and comment period. ANALYSIS: 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) Based on the recommended methodology (See Table 3 above), and if the total RHNA were the same as last cycle, City Staff estimates that Dublin's total housing allocation would be reduced by approximately 39% from the previous 1999-2006 Housing Element cycle. Because the RHNA numbers for the 2007- 2014 period have not been released yet by the State of California, and in order to illustrate the proposed methodology, ABAG has applied the draft methodology to the total 1999-2006 RHNA resulting in a hypothetical allocation of 3,326 housing units (See Table 5 below). Table 5. Comparison ofRHNA for 1999-2006 and 2007-2014 RHNA Period 1999-2006 2007-2014 *Not the official RHNA number for 2007-2014. Housing Units 5,436 3,326* The primary reason for the anticipated reduction in RHNA is based on the new methodology which has been designed to direct growth to the more urbanized areas of the region (i.e. San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose) and by including existing employment centers as a factor and not just employment growth. By taking into consideration existing employment centers, jurisdictions which currently have a greater imbalance between jobs and housing would be assigned a larger number of housing units in order to try and correct the imbalance. Since Dublin currently has a jobs/housing balance of approximately 1.39 jobs per housing unit and planned future development that will provide both jobs and housing, Dublin is not anticipated to have a tremendous imbalance. 2007-2014 Regional Income Allocation based on Affordability One of the goals of the RHNA process is to ensure that local governments consider the housing needs of persons at all income levels. In allocating affordable units to individual jurisdictions, the idea is that each locality must contribute their fair share in planning for some of the region's need for very low and low income units and at the same time avoiding or mitigating the over concentration of income groups in a jurisdiction. To meet these goals, the proposed methodology for the 2007-2014 period would assign each jurisdiction's need based on the regional average. In order to illustrate this, ABAG applied the proposed methodology (See Table 3 above) to the 1999-2006 RHNA numbers (See Table 6 below). Page 5 of7 Table 6. Comparison of RHNA by Income Cate20ry 1999-2006 RHNA 2007-2014 RHNA Income Level Dwellin2 Units % of total Dwelling Units % of total Very Low Income 796 15% 765* 23% Low Income 531 9% 532* 16% Moderate Income 1 ,441 26% 632* 19% Above Moderate Income 2,668 50% 1,397* 42% Total 5,436 100% 3,326* 100% *These numbers are based on the 1999-2006 RHNA and are not the official RHNA numbers for 2007-2014. Again, it should be noted that the number of total housing units and corresponding breakdown of units by income category are illustrative only. Until the State determines the overall housing need for the entire Bay Area region, Staffwill not know what Dublin's allocation will be. While Dublin's total allocation of housing units for the 2007-2014 RHNA cycle is anticipated to be 39% less than the previous RHNA, the percentage of very low and low income units is expected to be higher in order to meet the region's need for housing units in these income categories. Though the percentage of very low and low income units may be higher, the actual dwelling unit count in these categories is expected to be relatively the same as the previous RHNA. Conversely, the percentage of moderate and above moderate units is expected to be lower and the actual dwelling unit count significantly less than the previous RHNA in these income categories. NEXT STEPS: Regional Housing Needs Allocation Timeline (See Table 7) As mentioned previously in this report, the public review and comment period for the 2007-2014 RHNA methodology will end on January 18, 2007. Also, on January 18th ABAG staff will return to the ABAG Executive Board to present the final methodology and all comments received during the public review and comment period. It is expected that the State of California will release the draft RHNA numbers to ABAG in March 2007 and ABAG anticipates issuing the draft RHNA numbers to individual jurisdiction's by June 30, 2007. Following the release of the draft RHNA numbers there will be a revision period at which time local jurisdictions will have an opportunity to review and request changes to their allocations. At the close of the revision period, the final allocations will be assigned and an appeal period begins (approximately from November 2007 to April 2008). It is expected that the final RHNA numbers will be allocated by ABAG no later than June 30, 2008. The RHNA time line is set forth in Table 7 below. Table 7. RHNA Timeline Date November 16, 2006 ABAG Executive Board releases proposed methodology for public review and comment November 16, 2006 - January 18, 2007 60-day Public Review and Comment Period on methodology January 18,2007 ABAG Executive Board to adopt final methodology March 1, 2007 State of California determination of regional housing need June 30, 2007 ABAG issues draft RHNA numbers June 2007 - October 2007 Revision Period November 2007 - April 2008 Appeals Period June 30, 2008 Final RHNA numbers issued by ABAG June 30, 2009 Housing Element Update due to State of California Page 6 of7 CONCLUSION: The allocation of RHNA marks the beginning of the next Housing Element update and the methodology, which will be adopted by the ABAG Executive Board on January 18,2007, will determine how the 2007- 2014 RHNA is distributed to local jurisdictions. ABAG is currently accepting comments on the methodology for the allocation of total housing units and affordable housing units. Staff recommends that the five proposed factors used for the methodology - household growth, existing employment, employment growth, household growth near transit and employment growth near transit - be accepted because the factors consider expected household and employment growth as well as existing employment to ensure an adequate jobs/housing balance for the region. Staff also recommends that the use of the regional income allocations to distribute affordable housing units to individual jurisdictions be accepted because the methodology recognizes that the need for affordable housing is a problem that is shared by the region as a whole and requires that all jurisdictions contribute to providing affordable housing in order to reduce the over concentration of affordable units within a particular jurisdiction. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Receive report and accept the 2007-2014 RHNA methodology for the allocation of total housing units and allocation of units by income level, OR 2) Direct Staff to forward comments to ABAG regarding the methodology. Page 7 of7 11J 2 i ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS o Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area ABAG MEMO To: From: Date: Re: ABAG Executive Board ABAG Staff October 26, 2006 Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology Recommendation Staff recommends that the ABAG Executive Board adopt Resolution 13-06 authorizing release of the Housing Methodology Committee's recommendation for a proposed Regional Housing Needs Allocation Methodology (RHNA) for the 2007-2014 period. Upon release, a not less than 60-day public comment period on the methodology will begin. The comment period will close on January 18, 2007. On that date, staff will bring to the Executive Board recommendations for the final methodology. The final methodology shall include responses to all comments received on the draft RHNA methodology and reasons for any significant changes. Background As the region's Council of Governments, ABAG is responsible for allocating the state-determined regional housing need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The HMC was established in May 2006 to assist staff in developing a recommended methodology for allocating the regional need for adoption by the ABAG Executive Board. The HMC was comprised of local elected officials, city and county staff, and stakeholder representatives. Regional Housing Needs Allocation Process The Regional Housing Needs (RHN) process is a state mandate regarding planning for housing in Califomia. The state, regional and local governments each have a role to play. Local governments have autonomy in planning for exactly how and where housing will be developed in their individual communities. The amount of housing cities and counties must plan for, however, is determined through the interplay of state, regional and local housing policy. The State of California requires that all jurisdictions in the state update the Housing Elements of their General Plans. Housing Elements serve as the local plan for how a jurisdiction will meet its share of the region's housing need. The State of California, via the Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), determines each region's need for housing, primarily based on estimated population growth. COGs then allocate that need, for all income groups, amongst jurisdictions. jurisdictions then plan for that need in their housing elements, which are state-certified by HCD. RHNA Methodology Recommendation The regional housing needs allocation methodology is the tool used to assign each jurisdiction in the Bay Area its share of the region's total housing need. The actual tool is a mathematical equation that consists of weighted factors. There are also a set of "rules" that dictate how units will be allocated by income, within spheres of influence, voluntary transfer of units, and subregions. The HMC's recommendation encompasses these distinct components of the methodology. In their recommendation, the HMC members considered local land use plans and policies, regional growth policies and the state's housing polices, as expressed in the state mandated RHNA objectives. Additional information on how these recommendations were derived is contained in the attached report. /2 _./q- ()r:~ f. j Attachment 1 I) _, c/o 110 Draft RHNA Allocation Methodology 10/26/06 Page 2 1. Weighted Factors Factors in the allocation methodology are the mathematical variables that allocate shares of the regional housing need (RHN). The factors reflect: 1) state mandated RHNA objectives; 2) RHNA statutory requirements; 3) local policy and 4) regional policy. In the methodology, each factor is given priority relative to the others. Priority is established through "weighting" in the formula. For example, if one of the factors, household growth, is determined to be more important than another factor, e.g., transit, the methodology can give household growth a higher weight than transit in the formula. The methodology may also equally weight the factors, therefore ensuring that all the factors are of equal priority. A. Household Growth, 40 Percent Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing according to regionally projected household growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). Household growth should be weighted 40 percent in the allocation. Household growth is used as a factor, as opposed to existing households or total households, to ensure that additional housing is not allocated where there are existing concentrations of homes in the region, but rather where growth is anticipated to occur. In this way household growth as a factor in the methodology ensures that the allocation is consistent with both local plans for growth and with regional growth policies, as those areas that are planning for household growth would receive a higher allocation than those areas not planning for growth. Household growth in ABAG's Projections is most influenced by local land use plans and policies, including planned and protected agricultural lands, open space and parks, city-centered growth policies, urban growth boundaries, and any physical or geological constraints. Regional policies have been incorporated into Projections since 2002, are assumed to go into effect by 2010, and therefore have some effect on regional housing growth estimates in the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Regional policies assume that there will be increased housing growth in existing urbanized areas, near transit stations and along major public transportation corridors. These regional policies are consistent with state housing policies to promote infill development, environmental and agricultural protection and efficient development patterns. B. Existing Employment, 20 Percent; Employment Growth, 20 Percent Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing to accommodate existing employment (2007) and regionally projected employment growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). This would ensure that the need allocation gives jurisdictions with both existing concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a share of the regional housing need. This would direct housing to existing job centers and to areas with anticipated employment growth. These jobs allocation factors may address regional jobs-housing imbalance and facilitate access by proximity, for housing would be directed to communities with jobs and planned jobs, which may reduce vehicle miles traveled due to reduced inter- and intra-regional commuting. C. Household Growth near Transit, 10 Percent; Employment Growth near Transit, 10 Percent Each local jurisdiction with an existing or planned transit station should plan for more housing near such stations. Current regional policy places incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations. Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing growth and employment as factors would be inclusive of "transit" as a policy issue. Using transit as a i .0' JfJU I Draft RHNA Allocation Methodology 10/26/06 Page 3 direct factor in the methodology would give transit a greater .degree of policy weight. Those jurisdictions with transit, existing and planned, would receive a relatively higher proportion of the housing needs allocation than those jurisdictions without existing or planned transit. The inclusion of "planned" transit in the methodology could potentially give a relatively higher allocation to an area where the planned transit does not materialize. However, if housing is built at appropriate densities before transit is put in place, the transit investment may become more financially feasible, for projected ridership would be higher. 2. Regional Income Allocations Each local jurisdiction should plan for income-based housing in the same ratio as the regional average income distribution. A methodology that assigns each jurisdiction's regional housing need based on the regional average income distribution would be an "equal share" approach because it applies the same income distribution to each jurisdiction. Although considered an equitable approach, it does not consider existing concentrations of poverty. 3. Spheres of Influence Each local jurisdiction with the land-use permitting authority in a "Sphere of Influence" should plan for the housing needed to accommodate housing growth, existing employment and employment growth in such "Sphere of Influence" areas. A 100 percent allocation of the housing need to the jurisdiction that has land use control over the area would ensure that the jurisdiction that plans for accommodating the housing units also receives credit for any built units during the RHNA period. 4. Transfer of Units After the initial allocation of the regional housing need, a local jurisdiction may request approval to transfer units with willing partner(s), in a way that maintains total need allocation amongst all transfer parties, maintains income distribution of both retained and transferred units, and includes package of incentives to facilitate production of housing units. This transfer rule would allow the transfer of allocated housing need between willing jurisdictions in conjunction with financial resources, while maintaining the integrity of the state's RHNA objectives by preventing any jurisdiction from abdicating its responsibility to plan for housing across all income categories. Transfers done in this manner may facilitate increased housing production in the region. 5. Subregions The County of San Mateo, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, has formed a subregion, as allowed by state statute. ABAG will assign a share of the regional need to the subregion "in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households" in Projections 2007. The subregion is then responsible for completing its own RHNA process that is parallel to, but separate from, the regional RHNA process. The subregion will create its own methodology, issue draft allocations, handle the revision and appeal processes, and then issue final allocations to the members of the subregion. The rules on how to handle the subregion allocation in the event the subregion fails are contained in the attached RHNA technical document. Planning I-Iousing in San Francisco Bav Area .! l:%R.~$'-!W~W,'::i~*,~@i~~""<'A:-"':l.~~S~W?iP~,"~,l----~- :@"":-~'T~~il:i<~M_~~,~.~~'~~<1!:~~~<<<:"-~~ Draft Housing Needs Allocation 1\-fethodology, 4th Revision Technical Documentation Novemher 2007 o ABAG , f L-[frb j I ! ,/ "'I ~. 9<. '1 ;<) I -J v D or" Introduction The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) process is a state mandate on planning for housing in California. The state, regional and local governments each have a role to play. Local governments have autonomy in planning for exactly how and where housing will be developed in their individual communities. The amount of housing cities and counties must plan for, however, is determined through the interplay of state, regional and local housing policy. Periodically, the State of California requires that all jurisdictions in the state update the Housing Element of their General Plans. Within these Housing Elements, the state mandates that local governments plan for their share of the region's housing need, for people of all income categories. In the case of the San Francisco Bay Area, ABAG, as the region's Council of Governments, and the State Housing and Community Development Department (HCD), determines the region's need for housing. This determination of need is primarily based on estimated population growth. ABAG then allocate that need, for all income groups, amongst jurisdictions. The jurisdictions then plan for that need in their local housing elements, which are eventually state-certified by HCD. This technical document details the process for developing the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, describes the Housing Methodology Committee's allocation methodology recommendations and rationale for each component, and offers information on ABAG's Projections. I. RHNA Schedule II. RHNA State Goals & Regional Policy III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors IV. The Housing Methodology Committee V. Draft Allocation Methodology VI. Regional Projections San Francisco Bay Area l'-o 06 ~ l Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision I. RHNA Schedule On September 29, 2006, ABAG received approval of a two-year extension for completing the RHNA process from the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The following milestones are consistent with that two-year extension: . November 16, 2006: Adoption of draft allocation methodology by ABAG Executive Board; start of a 60-day public comment period . January 18, 2007: ABAG Executive Board adopts final methodology . March 1,2007: Determination of regional housing need . June 30,2007: Release of draft allocations . June 30,2008: Release of final allocations . June 30, 2009: Housing element revisions due to HCD II. RHN A State Goals & Regional Policy There are four statutory objectives of RHNA. As shown below, these objectives include increasing housing supply, affordability, and housing types; encouragmg efficient development and infill; promoting jobs-housing balance; and reducing concentrations of poverty . These objectives are consistent with the Bay Area's regional policies regarding growth. Following the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project that was completed in 2002, ABAG's Executive Board resolved to use theses regional policies as the basis for Projections. Since that decision, Projections assumes that, over time, local land use policies will move the region closer toward regional policies. The shift to policy-based Projections has important implications for growth and development in the region. Projections now forecasts more growth in existing urbanized areas and near transit, and less in agricultural areas. This is consistent with the RHNA objectives that call for an increase in the supply of housing, jobs-housing balance, more infill development, and protection of the environment, and efficient development patterns. Since the Projections forecast is the basis for the RHNA allocations, these same regional policies will influence how housing units are distributed within the region. RHNA Objectives (1) Increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in an cities and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction receiving an allocation of units for low and very low income households. (2) Promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns. (3) Promote an improved intraregional relationship November 2006, Page 2 Regional Policies · Support existing communities · Create compact, healthy communities with a diversity of housing, jobs, activities, and services to meet the daily needs of residents · Increase housing affordability, supply and choices · Increase transportation efficiency and choices · Protect and steward natural habitat, open space, and agricultural land · Improve social and economic equity ,,{ 1l b San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision between jobs and housing. (4) Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when ajurisdiction already has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent decennial United States census. · Promote economic and fiscal health · Conserve resources, promote sustainability, and improve environmental quality · Protect public health and safety III. Statutory Factors & Survey of Factors 1. Statutory Factors The RHNA statutes delineate specific factors that the HMC had to consider for inclusion in the allocation methodology, including: . Water and sewer capacity . Land suitable for urban development or conversion to residential use . Protected open space - lands protected by state and federal government . County policies to protect prime agricultural land . Distribution of household growth . Market demand for housing . City-centered growth policies . Loss of affordable units contained in assisted housing · High housing cost burdens . Housing needs of farm workers . Impact of universities and colleges on housing needs in a community With the advice of the HMC, ABAG staff considered how to incorporate the statutory factors into the allocation methodology, how to allocate units by income, and how to address issues such as spheres of influence, the relationship to subregions, and voluntary transfers of housing units between jurisdictions. Their goal has been to develop an allocation methodology that is consistent with the RHNA objectives and statutory requirements while also reflecting local conditions and the regional goals for growth. See Section IV. 1. Weighted Factors for a detailed description of how the factors are included in the recommended methodology. 2. Survey of Factors On September 15, 2006, ABAG sent a memorandum and survey form to each planning director of every local jurisdiction in the region. The memorandum explained the use of factors in the RHNA allocation methodology, described the status of the HMC's deliberations, set forth the criteria for using a factor in the methodology, and solicited local input on the statutory factors and suggestions for additional factors. ABAG received responses from 42 local jurisdictions (A detailed summary of survey responses is available at http://w\vv.i.abag.ca.gov/planningihousinb.1leeds or by contacting ABAG staff.) November 2006, Page 3 b oD3 \ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The Governor signed AB 2572 into law on September 29, 2006. The legislation adds a statutory factor: housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the Califomia State University or the University of California. The HMC concluded that student populations need not be added as an explicit factor in the allocation methodology. The reason is that the existence of universities and resulting student populations are included in ABAG's household population estimates. Therefore, ABAG will circulate its explanation of the effects of this factor and a survey form for this factor during the review period of the draft methodology. Responses will be due in time for ABAG staff to evaluate them and to make any necessary changes to the methodology. The 42 survey responses varied widely. Many commented on the HMC deliberations, supporting or opposing specific measures under consideration, and offering alternative methodological approaches. Others commented on the existing and near-term market conditions for housing in their jurisdictions. The comments that focused on how specific factors should be explicitly considered in the methodology can be summarized as follows: s s R ummary urvey espouses 1. Jobs/Housing Relationship (a) use employed residents to. measure jobs/housing balance 3 (b) take into account home based businesses/employment 1 (c) use commute shed to assess jobs/housing balance 2 2. Constraints due to SewerlWater/Land Capacity (a) respondents identified specific sewer/water constraints 2 3. Public TransitlTransportation Infrastructure (a) respondents confirmed they were planning for TOO 5 4. Market Demand for Housing 0 5. City-Centered Development (a) described local city-centered policies 6 (b) described specific policies, agreements, etc. on development in spheres of influence 7 (SOl) (c) stated there were no written agreements on SOls 1 6. Loss of Assisted Housing Units (a) identified at risk units at varying degrees of specificity 10 (b) do not use as a factor 1 7. High Housing Cost Burden (a) use CHAS data 1 8. Housing Needs of Farmworkers (a) identified local efforts for farmworker housing 4 9. Others (a) use congestion levels 1 (b) reward past performance in meeting RHNA goals 1 (c) RHNA allocation should at least equal planned growth 1 November 2006, Page 4 t1~~1 L San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Several of the possible allocation factors proposed in the surveys were considered by the HMC, but not explicitly incorporated in the draft methodology. These factors include those related to: . Jobs-housing balance: lea) - (c) Sewer/water constraints: 2 City-centered development: 5(a) - (c) Loss of assisted housing units: 6 High housing cost burdens: 7 Housing needs of farm workers: 8 Traffic congestion: 9(a) Rewards for past RHNA performance: 9(b) . . . . . . . The HMC has included the following suggested RHNA factors as explicit components of the draft methodology but may not have used them in precisely the way suggested by the respondents: . Public transit/transportation infrastructure: 3 The HMC did not consider 9( c). In each instance where a respondent described specific localized data in support of its response to a survey question, e.g. 2, 6(a) and 8(a), the respondent did not identify sources for comparable data for other jurisdictions. Therefore, staff could not conclude that the proffered factor met the statutory requirement for comparability and availability. Consequently, the proposed factor was not used. IV. Housing Methodology Committee As the region's Council of Governments, ABAG is responsible for allocating the state- determined regional housing need to all jurisdictions in the Bay Area. The HMC was established in May 2006 to assist staff in developing a recommended methodology for allocating the regional need for adoption by the ABAG Executive Board. The HMC was comprised of local elected officials, city and county staff, and stakeholder representatives from each county in the region. It includes members from each county so that it adequately represents the entire region. The members of the Housing Methodology Committee were: Barbara Kondylis, Supervisor, District 1 (Solano), ABAG Executive Board Scott Haggerty, Supervisor, District 1 (Alameda), ABAG Executive Board Jerffery Levine, Housing Department, City of Oakland, Alameda Jennifer Hosterman, Mayor, City of Pleasant on, Alameda Dan Marks, Director of Planning & Development, City of Berkeley, Alameda Julie Pierce, Council Member, City of Clayton, Contra Costa Phillip Woods, Principal Planner, City of Concord, Contra Costa Gwen Regalia, Council Member, City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Linda Jackson, Principal Planner, City of San Rafael, Marin Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Dir., City of Sausalito, Marin November 2006, Page 5 lODb31 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Stacy Lauman, Assistant Planner, County of Marin, Marin Jean Hasser, Senior Planner, City of Napa, Napa Diane Dillon, Supervisor, County of Napa, Napa Howard Siegel, Community Partnership Mgr., County of Napa, Napa Amit Ghosh, Assistant Planning Director, San Francisco, San Francisco Doug Shoemaker, Mayor's Office of Housing, City of San Francisco, San Francisco Amy Tharp, Director of Planning, City of San Francisco, San Francisco Duane Bay, Housing Director, San Mateo County, San Mateo Andrea Ouse, City Planner, Town of Co 1m a, San Mateo Mark Duino, Planner, San Mateo County, San Mateo Laurel Prevetti Deputy Dir., Planning, Building and Code Enforcement, City of San Jose, Santa Clara Regina Brisco, Housing Planner, City of Gilroy, Santa Clara Steve Piasecki, Planning Director, City of Cupertino, Santa Clara Matt Walsh, Principal Planner, Solano County, Solano Chuck Dimmick, Councilmember (Vacaville) Solano City/County Coord. Council, Solano Eve Somjen, Assistant Director, City of Fairfield, Solano Mike Moore, Community Development Dir., City of Pet alum a, Sonoma Jake MacKenzie, Council Member, City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma Jennifer Barrett, Deputy Director - Planning, County of Sonoma, Sonoma Geeta Rao, Policy Director, Nonprofit Housing of Northern California, Stakeholder Kate O'Hara, Regional Issues Organizer, Greenbelt Alliance, Stakeholder Margaret Gordon, Community Liaison, West Oakland Indicators Project, Stakeholder Andrew Michael, Vice President, Bay Area Council, Stakeholder Paul B. Campos, VP, Govt. Affairs & Gen. Counsel, Home Builders Association, Stakeholder v. The Regional Needs Allocation Methodology The RHNA methodology assigns each jurisdiction in the Bay Area its share of the region's total housing need. The methodology includes an allocation tool that is a mathematical equation that consists of weighted factors. There are also "rules" regarding allocation of units by income, how to handle units in spheres of influence, voluntary transfers of units, and subregions. The draft methodology encompasses these distinct components of the methodology. In their recommendation, the HMC members considered local land use plans and policies, regional growth policies and the state's housing polices, as expressed in the state mandated RHNA objectives. 1. Weighted Factors Factors in the allocation methodology are the mathematical variables that partly determine how the regional housing need (RHN) is allocated to local jurisdictions. The factors reflect: 1) state mandated RHNA objectives; 2) RHNA statutory requirements; 3) local policy and 4) regional policy. In the methodology, each factor is given priority relative to the others. Priority is established through "weighting" in the formula. For example, if one of the factors, e.g., household growth, is determined to be more important than another factor, e.g., transit, the methodology can give household growth a higher weight than transit in the formula. The methodology may also equally weight the factors, therefore ensuring that all the factors are of equal priority. November 2006, Page 6 tl~3\ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The factors and weights (expressed in parenthesis) recommend by the HMC are: . Household growth (40%) Existing employment (20%) Employment growth (20%) Household growth near existing and planned transit (10%) Employment growth near existing and planned transit (10%) . . . . Household growth, existing employment, and employment growth are estimated in ABAG's regional household and employment forecasts, Projections. A. Household Growth, 40 percent Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing according to regionally projected household growth within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). Household growth should be weighted 40 percent in the allocation. The use of housing as a RHNA factor represents consistency with local, regional, and state policies regarding where housing growth will and should occur in the region. Where and how much housing growth will occur in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, household growth is based on: 1) local land use policies and plans; 2) demographic and economic trends, such as migration, birth and death rates, housing prices, and travel costs; and 3) regional growth policies. Household growth in ABAG's Projections is most influenced by local land use plans and policies, including planned and protected agricultural lands, open space and parks, city- centered growth policies, urban growth boundaries, and any physical or geological constraints. Regional policies incorporated into Projections since 2002, are assumed to go into effect by 2010, and therefore have some effect on regional housing growth estimates in the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Regional policies assume that there will be increased housing growth in existing urbanized areas, near transit stations and along major public transportation corridors. These regional policies are consistent with state housing policies to promote infill development, environmental and agricultural protection and efficient development patterns. The impacts of regional policy assumptions in Projections are: a) potential environmental and agricultural resource protection by directing growth away from existing open and agricultural lands; b) the encouragement of efficient development patterns through increased in fill development and higher densities in existing communities; and c) the potential for increased transportation choices, e.g. walking and public transit, through more housing development near transit and jobs. The household estimates in Projections account for all people living in housing units, including students. Thus, the portion of the student population that occupies part of a local jurisdiction's housing stock is counted as such and as a source of future household formation. The portion of the student population that occupies "group quarters," such as college dormitories, are not included in household population counts. This is consistent with state policy regarding RHNA that excludes "group quarters" from being counted as housing units. November 2006, Page 7 12 1J3 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs .'\Ilocauon, 4th Revision Household growth is used as a factor, as opposed to existing units or total units, to ensure that additional housing is not planned where there are existing concentrations of homes in the region, but rather where growth is anticipated to occur. In this way household growth as a factor in the methodology ensures that the allocation is consistent with both local plans for growth and with regional growth policies, as those areas that are planning for household growth would receive a higher allocation than those areas not planning for growth. B. Employment, 40 percent (Existing Employment, 20 percent; Growth, 20 percent) Each local jurisdiction should plan for housing to accommodate existing employment (2007) and regionally projected employment growth (2007-2014) within its boundaries during the RHNA planning period. This would ensure that the need allocation gives jurisdictions with both existing concentrations of jobs and planned job growth a share of the regional housing need. This would direct housing to existing job centers and to areas with anticipated employment growth. These jobs allocation factors may be effective in addressing regional jobs-housing imbalance. These factors would also facilitate access by proximity, for housing would be directed to communities with jobs and planned jobs, which may reduce vehicle miles traveled due to reduced inter- and intra-regional commuting. As a factor, employment has the ability to assign regional housing needs to jurisdictions in a way that provides a better balance between housing and employment. In the Bay Area, as in many metropolitan areas, employment centers have historically not produced enough housing to match job growth. Limited housing production n'ear existing jobs and in areas with continued employment growth has escalated Bay Area housing costs and has triggered increased housing production in outlying Bay Area communities and in surrounding counties, including San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and San Benito. This has led to longer commutes on increasingly congested freeways, inefficient use of public transportation infrastructure and land capacity, and negative impacts on health, equity, air quality, the environment and overall quality of life in the Bay Area. In the allocation methodology, employment can be used in varying degrees of aggressiveness to address regional jobs-housing imbalance. The HMC considered three options: 1) employment growth, 2) existing jobs (2007) and 3) total jobs in the RHNA period (existing jobs in 2007 and growth from 2007 to 2014). Employment growth as a factor would assure that jurisdictions that are planning for employment growth also plan for commensurate housing. However, this would be ineffective in addressing historic regional jobs-housing imbalances, and therefore it is the least aggressive option. Existing jobs as an allocation factor would give relatively higher allocations to existing job centers and would therefore be the most aggressive toward historic jobs-housing imbalances; however it does not take into account future job growth. Total jobs as a factor would give relatively higher allocations to both jurisdictions that are currently job centers and those with planned job growth. Therefore, this is a moderately aggressive approach relative to the other two options. The HMC recommends a balance between the least and most aggressive options by separately weighting employment growth and existing employment. This would attempt to address historic jobs-housing imbalances and would seek to avert future imbalances. While an aggressive approach, it is relatively less aggressive than the use of total jobs as a factor. A total jobs factor would primarily direct growth to existing job centers, which would receive November 2006, Page 8 J3~3\ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision the entire 40 percent weight for employment, as opposed to the 20 percent recommended weight. Existing Employment, 20 Percent The location and amount of existing jobs in the region is estimated by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, existing employment is based on: 1) existing regional and local job data, and 2) regional and local economic trends, attractiveness of commerciallindustriallocations, including labor force costs, housing prices, travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar businesses. The inclusion of existing employment as a RHNA factor ensures that regional housing need is allocated in a manner consistent with regional policies and state RHNA objectives. Planning for more housing in communities with existing jobs can address historic jobs- housing imbalances. More housing in existing job centers may also encourage infill and efficient development patterns through higher densities in existing communities. There is also the potential for reduced inter- and intra-regional vehicle miles traveled and shorter commutes, as more housing would be planned in proximity to existing jobs. More housing near jobs may also encourage alternative modes of travel, including walking and public transportation, as most existing jobs centers in the region are also transit rich. Planning for housing near existing jobs also places less development pressure on outlying areas, especially in rural areas with agricultural lands and protected open space. Employment Growth, 20 Percent The location and amount of employment growth in the region is projected by ABAG's forecasting model, as documented in Projections. Specifically, employment growth is based on: 1) local land use policies and plans; 2) economic trends, such as national and regional industrial assumptions, attractiveness of commercial/industrial locations, including labor force costs, housing prices, travel costs, access to potential employees, markets, and similar businesses; and 3) regional policy. Inclusion of local land use policies and plans and economic trends in ABAG's employment growth forecast ensures that the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent with local policies, plans, and local capacity for job growth. Employment growth in Projections considers all the land protection and growth policies, physical constraints, and the employment-related factors identified by the state and the HMC for inclusion in the allocation methodology, including existing jobs centers, home-based businesses, employed residents, housing prices, household income and employment at private universities, and campuses of the California State University and the University of California. The inclusion of employment growth as a RHNA factor ensures that the regional housing need is allocated to areas where job growth is forecasted to occur during the RHNA period. These areas would have the responsibility of providing housing for the additional jobs that are added to the region. These areas are typically served by the region's transit infrastructure. Matching housing to jobs would still have the potential for reducing vehicle miles traveled and encouraging alternative modes of travel. This employment factor would place housing in existing communities, but would place less of the housing in the most urbanized cities in the regIOn. As with household growth, inclusion of regional policies in ABAG' s Projections ensures that the use of employment growth as a RHNA factor is consistent with both state and regional polices regarding growth, infill development, and efficient use of land. This is because November 2006, Page 9 lt4l)~\ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision regional policies in Projections assume that relatively more job growth will occur in existing urbanized communities and near transit, while less growth is projected in outlying communities with no transit infrastructure, including those with agricultural areas and open space. In addition, regional assumptions would promote greater use of public transportation through increased job development near transit. c. Household Growth near Transit, 10 Percent; Employment Growth near Transit, 10 Percent Each local jurisdiction with an eXlstmg or planned transit station should plan for more housing near such stations. As a factor, "household growth near transit" allocates 10 percent of the regional housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted household growth near existing or planned transit stations. As a factor, "employment growth near transit" allocates 10 percent of the regional housing need to jurisdictions based on their forecasted employment growth near existing or planned transit stations. Transit is defined as areas with fixed-alignment public transit, both existing and planned. The transit services included are: Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Caltrain, San Francisco MUNI light rail, and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VT A) light rail, and ferries. Planned transit stations include all fixed transit stations in the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Regional Transportation Plan, Track One. Growth near transit is defined as household or employment growth within one-half mile of an existing or planned transit station, but eliminating any overlap between statioI;ls located within one mile of each other. Incorporating a transit factor directly into the methodology would, in effect, give extra weight to this state and regional objective. This is because a transit-based policy is already incorporated into ABAG's policy-based Projections. Current regional policy places incrementally more growth along major transportation corridors and at transit stations. Therefore, a housing need allocation that uses regional housing growth and employment as factors would indirectly include "transit" as a policy issue in the allocation methodology. Using transit as a direct factor in the methodology would give transit a greater degree of policy weight. Those jurisdictions with transit stations, existing and planned, would receive a relatively higher proportion of the housing needs allocation than those jurisdictions without existing or planned transit stations. Despite some objections, the HMC recommends that transit be used as a direct factor. This was due, in part, to the expectation that impacts of the policy assumptions in Projections will not begin to take effect until 2010. Directing growth to areas with public transit in the allocation methodology would ensure that this regional policy influences development pattems during the 2007-2014 RHNA period. Use of these factors would address the state RHNA objectives and regional goals of encouraging the use of public transit and the efficient use of transportation infrastructure. Directing housing need to areas near transit would also promote infill development, as existing transit stations are primarily in existing urbanized areas in the region. The effect of the addition of planned transit stations in the allocation methodology is that a relatively higher share of the regional allocation is given to jurisdictions that will receive November 2006, Page 10 lf7an31 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision investments for public transportation. Inclusion of planned stations gives communities that will have new transit stations an opportunity to ensure that they plan sufficient housing to support the extension of transit services. In addition, given the long time-frame for implementation of service extensions, it makes sense to begin the land use planning around proposed stations before the transit stations are put in place. This is in support of both state and regional policies to ensure efficient use of transportation infrastructure and to encourage increased transit use. There is a multitude of data supporting the theory that higher population densities have a net positive impact on transit ridership. The HMC was divided in its support for including a transit, and particularly planned transit, as part of the allocation methodology. Many of the committee members believed that the regional growth policies embedded in Projections sufficiently addressed both state and regional policies promoting transit use and efficient use of transportation infrastructure. It was felt by some members that having transit as a direct factor would give too much weight to transit and would also unfairly burden communities with both existing and planned transit. Planned transit was also contentious because some of the planned transit stations included in MTC's Regional Transportation Plan may not be built, including many of the e-BART stations planned for eastern Contra Costa County. However, others on the HMC felt that if housing is built at appropriate densities before transit is put in place, the transit investment may become more financially feasible, for projected ridership would be higher. D. The Allocation Formula The household growth, employment and transit factors are weighted together to create an allocation formula. Each factor describes a jurisdiction's "share" of a regional total. For example, if the region expects to grow by 100 households, and one city in the region is to grow by 10 households in the same period, then that city's "share" of the region's growth is 10 percent. A jurisdiction's share of the Regional Housing need is assigned according to its percentage share of regional: (Household Growth x .40) + (Employment Growth x .20) + (Existing Employment x .20) + (Household Growth near Transit x .10) + (Employment Growth near Transit x .10) Growth is during the RHNA planning period (2007 - 2014). The transit factors refer to growth that occurs within Y2 mile of planned or existing fixed transit stations in the jurisdiction. Planned stations are those in the RTP 2005 - Track 1. 2. Regional Allocations of Housing Units based on Affordability There are two primary goals of the RHNA process: 1) increase the supply of housing and 2) ensure that local governments consider the housing needs of persons at all income levels. The HMC recommends that each local jurisdiction should plan for income-based housing in the same ratio as the regional average income distribution (as described by the 2000 Census). A methodology that allocates each jurisdiction's regional housing need based on the regional average income distribution would be an "equal share" approach because it applies the same income distribution to each jurisdiction. Although considered an equitable approach, it does not consider existing concentrations of poverty. November 2006, Page 11 1 Gt1b~d San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision The following income allocation of regional housing needs to jurisdictions is recommended: . Very Low, 23 Percent Households with income up to 50 percent of the county's area median income (AMI) Low, 16 Percent Households with income between 50 and 80 percent of the county's AMI Moderate, 19 Percent Households with income between 80 and 120 percent ofthe county's AMI Above-Moderate, 42 Percent Households with income above 120 percent of the county's AMI . . . This recommendation is based on the recognition that the need for affordable housing is a problem shared by the region as a whole, and is not localized to specific jurisdictions. By assigning every community an equal share of the regional need for affordable units, the methodology promotes the idea that every jurisdiction should do its "fair share" to provide housing. During the discussion of the income-based allocation, some HMC members expressed concern that a potential drawback of the proposed "equal share" strategy is that it might allocate affordable housing to jurisdictions that are less likely to build the units. If this were the case, the income allocation would therefore hinder the region's ability to provide enough housing affordable to meet the region's housing needs. However, there was general agreement that the benefits of this approach outweighed the potential negative impact. In addition, the HMC members felt that this issue could be worked out through the provisions in the methodology that allow for voluntary transfer agreements between individual jurisdictions. The HMC discussed the possibility of using the proportion of households with a high housing cost burden in a jurisdiction to adjust the income allocation for each jurisdiction. AB a result, areas with higher numbers of households with a cost burden would receive a larger share of affordable units. This factor is based on the premise that directing more affordable housing units to these jurisdictions would provide more housing options to residents in those areas. However, the HMC was opposed to adjusting allocations based on high housing cost burdens because there was concern that, as noted above, including a factor based on existing conditions in a jurisdiction would ultimately lead to the over-concentration of low-income households in an area. In addition, committee members were committed to the idea that the need for affordable housing is a regional problem that each local government should have an equal share in addressing. 3. Spheres of Influence Every city in the Bay Area has a "sphere of influence (SO!)". A city's SOl can be either contiguous with or beyond the city's boundaries. It is the areas that the city is responsible for planning, as it is the probable future boundary of the city, including areas that may eventually be annexed by the city. The SOl is designated by the county Local Area Formation Commission (LAFCO). The LAFCO influences how government responsibilities are divided among jurisdictions and service districts within a county. If there is planned household or employment growth within the unincorporated portion of an SOl during the RHNA period, the allocation methodology must include a rule for allocating housing needs to the affected city or county. November 2006, Page 12 I,D:?} San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Therefore, the HMC recommends that each local jurisdiction with the land-use permitting authority in a SOl should plan for the housing needed to accommodate housing growth, existing employment and employment growth in such areas. A 100 percent allocation of the housing need to the jurisdiction that has land use control over the area would ensure that the jurisdiction that plans for accommodating the housing units also receives credit for any built units during the RHNA period. There are differences in whether a city or county has jurisdiction over land use and development within unincorporated SOls. In response to these variations, the HMC recommends the following SOl rules: 1. In Napa, Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the cities. 2. In Alameda, Contra Costa, and Marin Counties, the allocation of housing need generated by the unincorporated SOl will be assigned to the county. ] The HMC recognizes that, although these guidelines reflect the general approaches to SOls in each county, adjustments may be needed to better reflect local conditions. Requests for SOl allocation adjustments may arise during the RHNA comment or revision period. Therefore, the HMC recommends that the methodology include the following criteria for handling such requests: 1. Adjustments to SOl allocations shall be consistent with any pre-existing written agreement between the city and county that allocates such units, or 2. In the absence of a written agreement, the requested adjustment would allocate the units to the jurisdiction that has permitting authority over future development in the SOL 4. Transfer of Units After the initial allocation, each local jurisdiction may request that it be allowed to transfer units with willing partner(s), in a way that maintains total need allocation amongst all transfer parties, maintains income distribution of both retained and transferred units, and includes a package of incentives to facilitate production of housing units. This transfer rule would allow the transfer of allocated housing need between willing jurisdictions in conjunction with financial and non-financial resources, while maintaining the integrity of the state's RHNA objectives by preventing any jurisdiction from abdicating its responsibility to plan for housing across all income categories. Transfers done in this manner may facilitate increased housing production in the region. The HMC recommends the following criteria for responding to requests for revisions that transfer units among local jurisdictions: 1. Transfer requests must have at least two willing partners and the total number of units within the group requesting the transfer cannot be reduced. 2. Transfers must include units at all income levels in the same proportion as initially allocated. 1 The County of San Mateo (formed a RHNA subregion) and the City and County of San Francisco (irrelevant) have been omitted. November 2006, Page 13 l~ 31 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision 3. All members of the transfer group must retain some allocation of very low and low income units. 4. The proposed transfer must include a specifically defined package of incentives and/or resources that will enable the jurisdiction(s) receiving an increased allocation to provide more housing choices than would otherwise occur absent the transfer and the accompanying incentives or resources. 5. If the transfer results in a greater concentration of very low or low income units in the receiving jurisdiction, the effect must be offset by findings by the members of the transfer group that address the RHNA objectives. For example, the findings might include (a) there is such an urgent need for more housing choices in those income categories that the opportunity to effect more housing choices in these categories offsets the impacts of over-concentration, or (b) the package of incentives and/or resources are for mixed income projects, or (c) the package of incentives and/or resources are for "transitional" housing for very low or low income households being relocat~d for rehabilitation of existing very low or low income units, or (d) the package of incentives and/or resources are for additional units that avoid displacement or "gentrification" of existing communities. 6. For the transfer of very low and low income units, there are restrictions that ensure the long-term affordability of the transferred units. 7. Transfers must comply with all other statutory constraints and be consistent with the RHNA objectives. In addition to guaranteeing that transfers meet the RHNA statutory objectives, these criteria .promote regional policies to increase housing supply and provide more housing choices. The criteria state that the transfer must include the resources necessary to improve housing choices and, specifically, in a way that would not otherwise be possible without the transfer. The long-term affordability restrictions on very low and low income transferred units ensure that these units will contribute to a fundamental increase in affordable housing choices. The criteria also emphasize development of affordable units and are therefore consistent with the state RHNA objective that every jurisdiction does its "fair share" to provide affordable housing. The requirement that jurisdictions must retain some very low and low income units and the stipulation that transfers must maintain the same income distribution as is initially allocated ensure that a jurisdiction cannot abdicate its responsibility to provide affordable units. The criteria also ensure that the benefits created by the transfer outweigh any possible negative effects of an over-concentration oflower income households. 5. Subregions The County of San Mateo, in partnership with all twenty cities in the county, has formed a subregion, as allowed by state statute. The subregion has designated the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG) as the entity responsible for coordinating and implementing the subregional RHNA process. As required by statute, ABAG will assign a share of the regional need to the San Mateo subregion "in a proportion consistent with the distribution of households" in Projections 2007. The subregion is responsible for completing its own RHNA process that is parallel to, but separate from, the regional RHNA process. The subregion will create its own methodology, issue draft allocations, handle the revision and appeal processes, and then issue final allocations to members of the subregion. November 2006, Page 14 t1 crb7 \ San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision Although the subregion is working independently of the regional RHNA process, ABAG is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all of the region's housing need is allocated. Thus, if the subregion fails at any point in its attempt to develop a final RHNA allocation for the subregion, ABAG must complete the allocation process for the members of the subregion. In the event that the San Mateo subregion fails to complete the RHNA process, the HMC recommends the methodology include the following guidelines for handling the allocation of units to jurisdictions within the subregion: 1. If the members of the subregion adopts a "default allocation," ABAG will allocate using the default allocation. A "default allocation" is the allocation which a member of the San Mateo RHNA subregion receives ifit "opts out" of the subregion. 2. If the subregion fails before ABAG has made any allocation, ABAG combines the subregional share with the rest of the regional need and allocates the total regional need to the entire region using ABAG's RHNA methodology. 3, If the subregion fails after ABAG has made its initial allocation, ABAG separately allocates the subregional share among only the members of the subregion. ABAG uses its RHNA methodology to do so. This approach is recommended by the HMC because it mmlmlzes the extent of any reallocations that could occur as a result of subregional failure and preserves the integrity of the respective efforts of ABAG and C/CAG. Keeping San Mateo separated once ABAG has completed its initial allocation also provides the most certainty to all jurisdictions about what their allocation will be. VI. Regional Projections Every two years, ABAG produces a long-run regional forecast called Projections. The Projections forecast provides specific information for population, households, employment and other related variables. In Projections 2007, values are reported for year 2000, and then for each five year increment to 2035. Several related models are used to perform the forecast. The economic model balances demand for the production of goods and services with the supply of productive capacity. The demographic model uses birth rates, death rates and migration data to forecast future population using a cohort-survival model. A great deal of data is required by the models, including information on economic relationships and trends, population-related information like births, deaths and migration, as well as land use and land use policy data. Since Projections 2003, ABAG has assumed the "Network of Neighborhoods" land use pattern, as developed through the Smart Growth Strategy/Regional Livability Footprint Project. This pattern expects higher levels of housing production. It also assumes that an increasing proportion of regional growth occurs near transit and in existing urban areas. In the Projections 2007 forecast, additional housing production and a shift in the pattern of development primarily occurs in the later part of the forecast. Earlier in the forecast, population growth is generally consistent with the California Department of Finance (DOF) forecast. The distribution of growth is generally consistent with local general plans. November 2006, Page 15 San Francisco Bay Area Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 4th Revision ABAG has continually collected information on local land use as part of its modeling efforts. The forecast is produced for nearly 1400 census tracts in the region and shows the existing land use and the capacity of each tract to support additional population or economic activities. Because the forecast is based on local land use information, forecasted growth occurs in locations that are consistent with local plans. However, even with 1400 census tracts, only so much detailed information can be included. We may know that moderate growth can occur in an area without specifically understanding that a portion of that area is a nature preserve. We may know that growth should not occur in an area, but it may not be clear whether it is due to a physical limitation, or a general plan policy. November 2006, Page 16 ZOrfty 1 Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation: Example Calculation '; I ffb3l Committee PrevIous Proposal RHNA 11/6/0612:21 PM Regional Need ::JU,742 I 230,"'/43 ~ ALAMEDA 2,182 2,162 ALBANY 260 277 BERKELEY 2,983 1,269 DUBLIN 3,326 5,436 EMERYVILLE 1,786 777 FREMONT 5,693 6,708 HAYWARD 3,537 2,835 LIVERMORE 3,564 5,107 NEWARK 928 1,250 OAKLAND 19,698 7,733 PIEDMONT 37 49 PLEASANTON 3,402 5,059 SAN LEANDRO 2,423 870 UNION CITY 2,135 1,951 UNINCORPORATED 1,938 5,310 ALAMEDA COUNTY 43,335 46,793 ANTIOCH 2,334 4,459 BRENTWOOD 2,895 4,073 CLAYTON 162 446 CONCORD 3,474 2,319 DANVILLE 550 1,110 EL CERRITO 626 185 HERCULES 427 792 LAFAYETTE 378 194 MARTINEZ 1,066 1,341 MORAGA 221 214 OAKLEY 749 1,208 ORINDA 233 221 PINOLE 304 288 PITTSBURG 2,237 2,513 PLEASANT HILL 588 714 RICHMOND 2,828 2,603 SAN PABLO 280 494 SAN RAMON 3,263 4,447 WALNUT CREEK 2,660 1,653 UNINCORPORATED 3,209 5,436 CONTRA COSTA CNTY 28,295 34,710 BELVEDERE 24 10 CORTE MADERA 227 179 FAIRFAX 65 64 LARKSPUR 701 303 MILL VALLEY 261 225 NOVATO 1,459 2,582 ROSS 25 21 SAN ANSELMO 137 149 SAN RAFAEL 1,571 2,090 SAUSALlTO 181 207 TIBURON 124 164 UNINCORPORATED 1,001 521 MARIN COUNTY 5,869 6,515 e~rt Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation: Example Calculation 21~)31 Committee PrevIous Proposal RHNA 11/6/0612:21' PM Regional Need 230,74,3 I 230,74:5 I AMERICAN CANYON 685 1,323 CALlSTOGA 89 173 NAPA 1,901 3,369 ST HELENA 115 142 YOUNTVILLE 83 87 UNINCORPORATED 621 1,969 NAPA COUNTY 3,494 7,063 SAN FRANCISCO 43,434 20,372 SAN MATEO COUNTY 18,177 16,305 CAMPBELL 735 777 CUPERTINO 1,104 2,720 GILROY 1,634 3,746 LOS ALTOS 300 261 LOS ALTOS HILLS 77 83 LOS GA TOS 530 402 MILPITAS 2,804 4,348 MONTE SERENO 39 76 MORGAN HILL 1,366 2,484 MOUNTAIN VIEW 2,967 3,423 PALO ALTO 3,836 1,397 SAN JOSE 33,748 26,114 SA NT A CLARA 6,484 6,339 SARATOGA 275 539 SUNNYVALE 4,696 3,836 UNINCORPORATED 179 1,446 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 60,775 57,991 BENICIA 581 413 DIXON 686 1 ,464 FAIRFIELD 3,660 3,812 RIO VISTA 1,149 1,391 SUISUN CITY 657 1,004 VACAVILLE 2,734 4,636 VALLEJO 3,236 3,242 UNINCORPORATED 94 2,719 SOLANO COUNTY 12,796 18,681 CLOVERDALE 528 423 COTATI 438 567 HEALDSBURG 433 573 PET ALUMA 2,085 1,144 ROHNERT PARK 1,835 2,124 SANTA ROSA 6,715 7,654 SEBASTOPOL 167 274 SONOMA 334 684 WINDSOR 721 2,071 UNINCORPORATED 1,314 6,799 SONOMA COUNTY 14,569 22,313 REGION 230,743 230,743 VCui l~ (j , l" 'J;; r/-;31 v ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 13-06 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF A PROPOSED RHNA METHODOLOGY FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND COMMENT WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is a joint powers agency formed pursuant to the agreement of its members and California Government Code SS 6500, et seq., and is the council of governments (COG) for the San Francisco Bay Area; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Housing Element Law ("Act") at California Government Code SS 65580, et seq., each COG and the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) are required to determine the existing and projected housing needs in the COG's region; and WHEREAS, under the Act, ABAG determines each city's and county's share of the regional housing needs through the regional housing need allocation process (RHNA); and WHEREAS, the Executive Board authorized formation of the Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) and charged it, in part, with the responsibility of advising staff on the methodology for allocating the regional housing need among local jurisdictions (RHNA Methodology) ; and WHEREAS, the HMC advised staff to prepare the Draft RHNA Methodology described in the staff memorandum dated October 26, 2006 for consideration by the Executive Board; and WHEREAS, the Act requires that ABAG release the Draft RHNA Methodology for at least a sixty (60) day public review and comment period and conduct a public hearing to receive written and oral comments; and WHEREAS, staff recommends release of the Draft RHNA Methodology for public review and comment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: the Executive Board of the Association of Bay Area Governments hereby: 1. Authorizes staff to release the Draft RHNA Methodology for public review and comment and to provide notification of such release to the general public and to all cities, counties and any city and county in the region; and -1- {:)631 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION NO. 13-06 2. Authorizes staff to conduct a public hearing on the Draft RHNA Methodology at the January 18, 2007 Executive Board meeting; and 3. Directs staff to coordinate receipt and review of all comments for presentation to the Executive Board at its January 18, 2007 meeting. The foregoing adopted by the Executive Board this 16th day of November, 2006. David Cortese President Certification of Executive Board Approval I, the undersigned, the appointed and qualified Secretary-Treasurer of the Association of Bay Area Governments (Association), do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Executive Board of the Association at a duly called meeting held on the 16th day of November, 2006. Henry L. Gardner Secretary-Treasurer Approval as To Legal Form Kenneth K. Moy Legal Counsel -2- ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS o :<31 I Representing City and County Governments of the San Francisco Bay Area A~AG MEMO To: From: Date: Subject: Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) ABAG Staff October 11, 2006 Scenarios for Allocating Units by Income Background There are two primary goals at the heart of the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)proCe~s,. The first is to increase the supply of housing in California by allocating a share of the state'-'wide hOusing need to each city and county. The second is to ensure that local governments consider the hOusing needs of persons at all income levels as they prepare their Housing Elements. To achieve these two goals, the allocation of the regional housing need to local governments occurs in two stages. The first is to allocate housing units to each city and county in the region. The second is to split each jurisdiction's total allocation into the four income categories established by the State. The four income categories defined by the State are: . Very Low: households with income up to 50 percent of the county's area median income (AMI) Low: households with income between 50 and 80 percent of the county's AMI Moderate: households with income between 80 and 120 percent of the couIlty'sAMI Above-Moderate: households with income above 120 percent of the county's AMI . . . The goals and requirements of the allocation of units by income are specifically addressed in the RHNA objectives. The first is that all cities and counties are responsible for doing their "fair share"and planning for at least some of the region's need for very-low- and low-income units.l The second is that the allocation methodology must avoid or mitigate the over-concentration of income groups in ajurisdiction.2 The RHNA allocation methodology must assign the regional need to each jurisdiction ih a way that fully allocates the units in each income category and complies with the two objectives listed above. The HMC requested that ABAG staff generate several possible scenarios for allocating units by income. This memo shows the effects of different strategies for allocating units in each income category.3 Allocation Scenarios When allocating units by income, particularly affordable units, there is an underlying tension between trying to ensure that all communities do their "fair share" and responding to existing needs for housing. For example, allocating more low-income units to a jurisdiction that has a higher proportion of low- income residents would help to meet the community's existing needs. However, this strategy would I Government Code Section 65584(d)( I). Government Code Section 65584(d)(4). 3 The allocation of units by income occurs after jurisdictions receive their share of the regional housing need. Since the methodology for this base allocation has not yet been determined, the scenarios show the percent of units in each income category that a jurisdiction would rect;ive, rather than a number of housing units. Mailing Address: P.O, Box 2050 Oakland, California 94604-2050 (510) 464-7900 Fax: (510) 464-7970 info@abag.ca.gov Joseph P. Bort MetroCenter 101 Eighth Street Oakland, California 94607-4756 Attachment 2 3l Scenarios for Allocating Units by Income 10/11/06 Page 2 promote the further concentration of low-income households in that community and would not move the region toward a more equitable distribution of income. The examples developed by ABAG staff are based on the following possible scenarios (Attached): . Scenario 1: Moving every jurisdiction 50 percent toward the county average income distribution Scenario 2: Moving every jurisdiction 50 percent toward the regional average income distribution Scenario 3: Allocating units to each jurisdiction based on the county's average income distribution Scenario 4: Including a factor to address high housing cost burdens . . . Moving Toward a County or Regional Income Distribution Scenarios 1 and 2 both attempt to balance the existing need for housing with the goal of creating a more equitable income distribution. Both start with a jurisdiction's existing income distribution. In Scenario 1, this existing distribution is moved 50 percent toward the county average income distribution. In Scenario 2, the existing distribution is moved 50 percent toward the regional average. Comparing a jurisdiction to the county takes local differences in income into account. In contrast, using the regional income distribution attempts to overcome county-level differences in income to create a more equitable distribution region-wide. These scenarios start with ajurisdiction's existing income distribution and then move part of the way to either the county or regional household income average. As a result, these methodologies try to assign units to where they are currently needed while also creating a more fair income distribution. However, the fact that the method starts with the existing conditions means that jurisdictions with more households in affordable categories (relative to the regional average) must still plan for disproportionately more affordable housing, and those with less than the regional average must plan for less. It can be argued that this approach balances meeting the existing need in a specific jurisdiction with the goal of having all jurisdictions do their "fair share" to meet the region's housing needs. At the same time, these approaches can be described as perpetuating the over-concentration of the region's lower income populations in certain communities. Using the County Income Distribution In contrast to the first two scenarios, Scenario 3 does not take a jurisdiction's existing income distribution into account. In this case, each jurisdiction is assigned the same distribution as the county-wide distribution. In effect, this "equal share" approach applies the county-wide income distribution to each jurisdiction within the county. A primary benefit of this approach is that it is consistent with the idea that every jurisdiction should do its "fair share" to provide affordable housing. It also promotes a more equitable income distribution by moving every jurisdiction in a county to the same standardized income distribution. This method also avoids over-concentrating an income group in a jurisdiction. However, one potential drawback of this strategy is that by excluding existing conditions, it does not do enough to address the existing needs for affordable housing. Scenarios for Allocating Units by Income 10/11/06 Page 3 'ti ~b? \ High Housing Cost Burdens As part of its discussions, the HMC felt that high housing cost burdens would be most appropriately considered as part of the discussion of housing affordability categories. We typically look at household income to assess affordability. However, many households in the region spend a higher proportion of their income ohnousingthan the standard set in federal and state policies. Those policies call for a household to spend no mor~than 30 percent of its income on housing. In the Bay Area, about 50 percent of all households spend greater than 30 percent of their income on housing and over 25 percent spend more than 50 percent. One way to address the issue of high housing cost burdens is to assign more of the lOwer inc;ome housing to areas where the housing cost burden is the greatest. Assigning more housing withput regard to affordability would not directly address the problem. The last column in the attachmentshowslhe proportion of households in each jurisdiction that are paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing based on 2000 Census data. This information could be used to adjust the incorneallocatiotlfol' each jurisdiction so that areas with higher numbers of households with a cost burden r~ceivea larger share of affordable units. However, it should be noted that most jurisdictions have similar proportions of households that fall into this category. Summary This memo outlines several possible methods for accomplishing the allocation of units by income for RHNA. It also describes some of the advantages and drawbacks of the different strategies. In selecting an allocation methodology, the HMC must consider the extent to which it distributes housing units in a way that: . Provides for the housing needs of persons at all income levels . Ensures that every jurisdiction does its "fair share" to provide affordable housing . Encourages an equitable distribution of incomes throughout the region . A voids over-concentrating an income group in a jurisdiction. Existing Income Allocation 50% Toward Region Average 'County AV~rage Housing Very Very Very Cost Low Low Mod Above Low Low Mod Above LqW Low Mod Above Burden <50% <80% <120% Mod <50% <80% <120% Mod <50% <80% <120% Mod >30% ALAMEDA 22% 17% 20% 42% 23% 17% 19% 42% 24% 1.6% 18% 42% 31% ALBANY 22% 18% 20% 40% 23% 17% 19% 41% "24% 16% 18% 42% 33% BERKELEY 35% 15% 15% 35% 26% 16% 18% 40% 24% 16% 18% 42% 38% DUBLlfli' 9% 12% 19% 60% 20% 15% 19% 46% 24% 16% 18% 42% 32% EMERYVILLE 31% 18% 19% 31% 25% 17% 19% 39% 24% 16% 18% 42% 42% FREMONT 12% 11% 18% 58% 20% 15% 19% 46% 24% 16% 18% 42% 31% HA YW ARD 23% 19% 23% 35% 23% 17% 20% 40% 24% 16% 18% 420/0 35% LIVERMORE 12% 12% 18% 57% 20% 15% 19% 46% 24% 16% 18% 42% 31% NEWAFIK 13% 14% 21% 52% 20% 47~!6 21% 16% 19% 44% 24% 16% 18% 42% 31% OAKLAND 36% 19% 16% 29% 11% 35% 26% 17% 18% 38% 24% 16% 18% 42% 37% PIEDMONT 9% 5% 9% 78% 13% 60% 19% 13% 16% 51% 24% 16% 18% 42% 28% PLEAS/INTON 9% 9% 16% 66% 11% 54% 20% 14% 18% 48% 24% 16% 18% 42% 29% SAN LEANDRO 23% 20% 22% 35% 18%' 200/0 38% 23% 17% 20% 40% 24% 16% 18% 42% 30% UNION CITY 15% 12% 19% 55% 1.4?!o 19%"" 480/6 21% 15% 19% 45% 24% 16% 18% 42% 32% UNINCORPORA TED 20% 17% 20% 42% 17% "19% 42% 22% 17% 19% 42% 24% 16% 18% 42% 32% Alameda County 24% 16% 18% 42% 18% 42% 23% 16% 19% 42% 24% 16% 18% 42% 34% ANTIOCH 23% 19% 23% 36% 22% 180/&< 22% 17% 20% 40% 22% 17% 20% 41% 34% BRENTWOOD 18% 17% 21% 44% 2dOJo 21% 17% 20% 42% 22% 17% 20% 41% 30% CLA YTON 10% 8% 16% 67% 16?/o ' 1 ~'. 19% 15% 19% 48% 22% 17% 20% 41% 25% CONCORD 25% 20% 23% 32% 23%, 18% 23% 17% 20% 39% 22% 17% 20% 41% 33% 9% 12% 72% " 13% 19% 15% 18% 49% 22% 17% 20% 41% 32% DANVILLE 8% 15% EL CERRITO 24% 20% 20% 35% 23% 19% 23% 18% 20% 40% 22% 17% 20% 41% 26% HERCULES 11% 17% 24% 49% 16% 17% 19% 17% 21% 43% 22% 17% 20% 41% 32% LAFAYETTE 11% 10% 16% 63% 17% 13% 20% 15% 19% 47% 22% 17% 20% 41% 26% MARTIf'IEZ 20% 17% 23% 40% 21% 17% 22% 17% 20% 41% 22% 17% 20% 41% 29% MORAGA 11% 11% 16% 62% 11% 14% 20% 15% 19% 46% 22% 17% 20% 41% 26% OAKLEY 15% 18% 30% 37% 1. 17% 21% 17% 22% 40% 22% 17% 20% 41% 36% ORIND/\ 10% 9% 12% 69% 16% , 13iJA' 19% 15% 18% 48% 22% 17% 20% 41% 26% PINOLE 19% 18% 25% 38% 2(J6~ 21% 17% 21% 40% 22% 17% 20% 41% 27% PITTSBURG 29% 22% 23% 27% 24% 18% 20% 38% 22% 17% 20% 41% 34% PLEASANT HILL 19% 16% 23% 42% 22% 17% 20% 42% 22% 17% 20% 41% 31% RICHMOND 35% 22% 20% 23% 25% 18% 20% 37% 22% 17% 20% 41% 36% SAN PABLO 43% 21% 18% 17% 28% 18% 19% 35% 22% 17% 20% 41% 40% SAN RAMON 8% 11% 17% 65% 19% 15% 19% 47% 22% 17% 20% 41% 29% WALNUT CREEK 22% 18% 20% 41% 22% 17% 20% 41% 22% 17% 20% 41% 29% UNINCORPORATED 22% 16% 19% 43% 22% 16% 19% 42% 22% 17% 20% 41% ~ 32% Contra Costa County 22% 17% 20% 41% 22% 17% 20% 41% 22% 17% 20% 41% .J0 32% ~\ v Existing Income Allocation i:~~P,%>'t6Wfrd'~9:yhW,~\I~I. i 50% Toward Region Average .' CciuntyAverage . .. Housing Very . Very Cost Low Low Mod Above Low Low Mbd Above Burden <50% <80% <120% Mod <50% <80% <120% Mod >30% 21% 15% 17% 47% 22% 17%. 18% ..42% 35% 21% 17% 19% 43% 22% 17% 18% 42% 31% 23% 18% 20% 39% 220/<:;" 17% 18% 42% 41% 22% 17% 19% 42% 22%' 17% 18% 42% 34% 22% 16% 18% 45% 22% .17% 18% 42% 33% 23% 18% 19% 40% 22% 17% 18% 42% 38% 21% 15% 19% 46% 22% . 17o/~ 18% 42% 43% 23% 16% 19% 42% 22% 170/0 18% 42% 37% 24% 17% 19% 40% 22% 17% .' 18% 42% 37% 21% 16% 19% 44% 22% .17% 18% 42% 35% 20% 16% 18% 46% .22% 17% 18% 42% 31% 22% 16% 18% 43% 22% 17% 18% 42% 33% 23% 17% 19% 42% 22.% 11% 18% . 42% 35% 22% 17% 19% 42% 21% 18%. 19% 42% 31% 24% 19% 19% 38% 21o/c " . 18% 19% 42% 30% ,,' 0" 22% 17% 19% 41% 210/0 186/6 19% 42% 32% 22% 16% 19% 43% 21%' 180/0 19% '.42% 32% 24% 16% 20% 40% 21% 18% .19% 42% 35% 21% " 18% 19% 42% 26% 21% 16% 19% 44% 22% 17% 19% 42% 21% " .18% 19%' 42% 31% , , 24% 16% 18% 43% ."25% 15% 16% 44% 33% ""'-', " " ":<' ":1/:":"'" ">', 'Nery d'~\6; Very Low <50% '" - . - ~ ". . ....LoW <80% ,. ". :\~~!go/J;~1~tde;~. Low Mod <80% <120% Above Mod ,"" ..' . . .>---,' ,--,_. .- ,,',', ','. " . ,'--,'.' , 640I.f'.'.1'.'no.. )70.' ,:;1:ao.'.'i/o...... 1501: 5301 47~:" '1~% .' "1 70o'19~' ;'4~~': 30% ',ga% . ~Oo;o20%ia~%, 40% :.220/01,8%; ;' 18%1: .~.. ,up;.,: 53% '. ..216~, '. 15%' ..t~% ..' ~~~~ 350/0 '.', ".2~%._; . -.: 't9%.; .<:'<?Q%'" ~::,:. ~~%:: i~~::'i.t.~. !;~:I.!.., ~'~!i,;i, 59% ,.,' '.' "iI:~, ..,..,.. ..' ,. 48% ;~~'~ .:,.J~%.."./;':~';~!::,:;~$~) 42% ..r ?~;k ";11~',1~o/.c>;: ;'~20~, ,,' . :"'-.r,', .' " ~".' ~..". 15% 8% 12% 16% 17% 20% 24% 23% 22% 22% 19% 19% 19% 14% 14% 23% 20% 21% 14% 9% 18% 23% 16% 20% 28% 19% 18% 17% 14% 18% 12% 14% 15% 21% 15% 16% 22% 17% 18% 22% 17% 19% 29% 23% 19% 22% 19% 20% 20% 15% 17% 28% 15% 21% 16% 15% 18% 21% 18% 19% BELVEDERE CORTE MADERA FAIRFAX LARKSPUR MILL VALLEY NOVATO ROSS SAN ANSELMO SAN RAFAEL SAUSALlTO TIBURON UNINCORPORATED Marin County :i!'!c?'~~'~~ 16%. "18%:;.;450/11 li~\I~i;];'1 :': ' '; , :', :i, ~:' ,:,::c; ~ _ .: 42%,,22% 28% '.';','g?%'~ 39%::>.>gao;o '" 48%210/6 ~~~ ':;~~" 42% .2~~!ct. AMERICAN CANYON CALlSTOGA NAPA ST HELENA YOUNTVILLE UNINCORPORATED Napa County : ~' ~';1'~;' " '- ~ ".': /:-, 25% 15% 16% 44% <25~)~' . ",',,, 4% 6% 9% 80% '.' 17% 17% 18% 48%..;:; 23% 21% 17% 39%:,<> 22% 19% 19% 40% 27% 20% 28% 25% 25% 19% 24% 32% 40% 21% 19% 20% 11% 14% 18% 57% 21% 13% 20% 46% 8% 6% 9% 77% 20% 14% 17% 50% 24% 17% 20% 39% 17% 18% 25% 40% "15%.:); 160/6/:'44% San Francisco . ;.... , "." ,'" .... -'.'.' . ,'.-, .-,':.,.: : '..:; .:': .~ --:' " ;' .' . -. ." .P' .. "'.; - .:,",<: .'. -.:.',,",,".".;" . ATHERTON BELMONT BRISBANE BURLINGAME COlMA DALY CITY EAST PALO ALTO FOSTER CITY HALF MOON BAY HILLSBOROUGH MENLO PARK MILLBRAE PACIFICA ~ "" ~ ~ CLOVERDALE COT A TI HEALDSBURG PET ALUMA ROHNEFH PARK SANTA ROSA SEBASTOPOL SONOMA WINDSOR UNINCORPORATED Sonoma County Bay Area 2.f)t'"J() Existing Income Allocation i!"',5q%TO~~J;9g9tir!~AV~, I...: '", .t.;.> . .'."" .'...."'t:r:;, ,-',,- ;:'~ '~;~':;~?'~X>:', ...".' Very Low <50% yery . <~~~ <~2~~0 ~~~e:::.~~~~ 30% 18% 24% 17% 21% 22% 29% 26% 16% 22% 21% 23% 19% 20% 19% 14% 19% 18% 17% 17% 14% 17% 17% 17% 19% 22% 23%' 20% 22% 22% 23% 19% 20% 19% 21% 19% 32% '\":>g~%'> ~1~ :?~r~~~:. 49% . ';'}9,%.. 39% ......... '2.1% ..... 38%"~?1,~ ..... 320/ ";2'501.' /0, "....,< JO' ~~ \:~~I 41 %;,';2l% .... 42% /_: . ':':- '.."" ~", "(',::,,' ',' ", '..:;r::>~.,":y"""':':" :,-'.,;;"<';)::, . ,"~ . ," . '" ,,- "." , , .:<~~~~;:~t~~;:,;:~~~~e.: -.: :,.,,'.'::"; ,\' '" ';:.,'~' . .' ,: :::: " ' :' "" "',', ~. -: :,'-~ , .', .:::' " ': ',-<\,.; .;.' ~ :', " ';, .. - ,-,., .. .:~. ,~~~'".:; .:?', ,'~.-'- ;}~(~: ,\f.~~~;\~~~:;' <:"~ .~ -:;':{',:::~'": ' ~, ~^" > , '. :.'-:. " ',;\;:'};';);~:::::L\); PH ",,,,,,"il.: <',: ,':': <~, ,) ,;. -:," . "," '. . .., .. <', '. . -,', ,.' ,-" .,",' :'::. . ,. I~:,",'" :,. ',. . t . '~: .:l', ,,:~' ,<,,' .' f. \,' ....,.,),." " .,i' ",;' >,', ;.' ,', ';' _ '. ,'; '~ ..' ~ ,;', h:' , " """, ..',.n."., _, "',,:-,,. '" ',< ':,<<-' ~,-"':,,";-""- .. "", '.' ".: ... :':;~"', 50% Toward Region Average .. Co~nty Average. Housing Very Very Cost Low Low Mod Above Low Low Mod Above Burden <50% <80% <120% Mod ...<50% <80% . <:120% MOd >30% 24% 17% 20% 39% .21% 17% ,21% 41% 36% 21% 17% 20% 41% 21% 170/0. . >21% .41% 35% 23% 17% 21% 39% 21%; ,,17% 21% 41% 30% 21% 16% 20% 43% g1% 17%' 21% 41% 31% 22% 17% 20% 41% .. 210/0 17% 21% 41% 38% 22% 17% 20% 40% 21% 17% 21% 41% 33% 24% 17% 21% 39% 21% 17% 21% 41% 35% 23% 17% 19% 41% 21% i 7<Y~ .21% . 41% 36% 21% 16% 20% 43% .21% 17% 21% 41% 34% 22% 17% 20% 41% 21% ..t7% 21% 41% 32% 22% 17% 20% 41% 21% 17% 21% 41% 33% t~ .,..-......... Q ~ \)J