Housing Elements - Workshops and Hype
As a San Rafael Planner recently asked: -
- "Why is ABAG's 'Regional Housing Needs Allocation' (RHNA) for San
Rafael:-
388 for 'Extremely', 'Very'
& 'Low' Income Levels but
438 for above Moderate
Income ? "
|
Sonoma County:
347 for 'Extremely',
'Very' & 'Low' Income but
429 for above Moderate Income
? "
source(page 64) |
This is the State's Planning process that has lost sight of the goal --
which should be to provide LOW INCOME housing.
This is just like Communism's failed 10 years plans!
The high end of the LOW INCOME RANGE
in Marin is $88,000 per year! That is
not "LOW INCOME".
But as the consultant at the SR Planning Meeting said, even at the required
30 units/acre for "supposed low income housing", without coming up with an
impossible amount of $'s SUBSIDY it can never be affordable for low income,
in SR, anyway.!
87% of the 36,000 employed in San Rafael commute from outside the
City.
60% of Marin's workers commute from out of County. (
this might be only 36% )
Its only possible to provide affordable housing to a tiny fraction of
them, with or without SUBSIDIES,
but we can at least help the commuters who live only 12 miles away
where hundreds of thousands of affordable housing already exists
( instead of those who commute 40
miles from Santa Rosa or 24 from Petaluma clogging up the 101 freeway)
RICHMOND BUS SERVICE
http://marincounty.info/EBay_Commuting.htm
WORKSHOPS
I attended the 4th of 5 "workshops" on May 6th 2014 in Mill Valley on the
Unincorporated HOUSING ELEMENT.
It wasn't that well attended and there were at least 10 rowdy reactionaries
that would make my usual grumpiness seem like a pussy cat's!
They were shouting about the flawed "workshop" process, and rightly so, as
the "facilitators" were selling this housing as affordable. I should have
counted the number of times they used the word "affordable" - it was like
every other sentence .
They showed a video of some LOW INCOME, needy people who could never afford
what they have planned for development, unless it were heavily SUBSIDIZED.
These 185 282 units (Alt. 3) at MARKET RATE would be way
above LOW INCOME reach without huge subsidy .
In their SURVEY they had a nice big space for text in OTHER COMMENTS here:
http://www.marincounty.org/openmarin...
but its now closed and there is no link to the reported "OUTCOME".
See opposite table to see how the "workshop results" get presented to the
Supervisors ( I left the meeting before they shuffled the postits around the
map on the 8 tables of workshoppers -- to prioritise the 17 development
sites )
The "Facilitators" have created from these
workshops a
1,525 page document called "Outreach Background Materials" (with no
table of contents). Good luck with it !
Available Housing, 52 sites, as of
2012 2012 17 Sites
Sites with HEALTH RISK from Hwy101
40% lives near major roads
FY 2014 Marin County Affordable Income Limits
|
Household size |
Extremely Low
(30% of Median) |
Very low
50% |
Low
80% |
Moderate
120% |
|
Median |
Mill Valley Planners
thinks property priced
for Marin's "MODERATE_INCOME" is AFFORDABLE! |
|
1 |
23,000 |
38,750 |
62,050 |
81,600 |
|
72,100 |
|
2 |
27,000 |
44,300 |
70,900 |
93,250 |
|
82,400 |
|
3 |
30,000 |
49,850 |
79,750 |
104,900 |
|
92,700 |
|
4 |
33,000 |
55,350 |
88,600 |
116,500 |
|
103,000 |
|
5 |
36,000 |
59,800 |
95,700 |
125,900 |
|
111,250 |
|
6 |
39,000 |
64,250 |
102,800 |
135,200 |
|
|
|
7 |
42,000 |
68,650 |
109,900 |
144,500 |
|
2015 source |
|
8 |
44,000 |
73,100 |
117,000 |
153,850 |
|
2014 Source |
|
June 2024: New
research from the University of Kansas finds that most of the nation's
HOUSING markets have ample housing in total, but nearly all lack enough units affordable for
very low-income households.
They examined U.S. Census Bureau data from 2000 to 2020 to compare the
number of households formed to the number of housing units added to
determine if there were more households needing homes than units available.
The researchers found that only four of the nation's
19 of the country's 526 "micropolitan"
areas—those with 10,000-50,000 residents.
The findings suggest that addressing housing
prices and low incomes is more urgently
needed to address housing affordability issues than simply building more
homes, the authors wrote.
research from the University of Kansas - a
study published in the journal Housing Policy Debate.
"But the data shows that the majority of American markets have adequate supplies of housing available.
Unfortunately, not enough of it is affordable,
especially for low-income and very low-income families and individuals."
I have to admire ( and laugh) at the meticulous detail the
County Planners went into discussing this on July 28th 2014.
San Rafael's Planners ( who had 1,007 housing units to find compared to 185
of the Unincorporated County) summed up their brief
meeting Apr 29th with "Well its in our General Plan, we have the
housing identified already -- that's all folks, goodnight". (housing locations)
On the other hand the County Planners deliberated for 6 hours over removing
the 2 TAM developments and including St.Vincent/Silveira - putting them way
over ABAG's RHNA requirements - but its all moot. It's just a matter of
showing ABAG that we got their (illogical) numbers covered. - Development on
these sites may or may not happen, regardless,
and as you know, no "DEVELOPMENT or ReZoning is required by ABAG". (
tho see the LITIGATION below)
|
Unincorporated County Housing 2014
ALLOCATIONS
source page 26 |
| Sites to accommodate the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) |
Lower Income Units (subtotal)
|
Moderate
Income Units |
Above Moderate
Income Units |
|
ALTERNATIVE |
final |
1 |
2 |
3 |
final |
1 |
2 |
3 |
final |
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
100 Marinwood Ave, San Rafael (Marinwood
Village) |
72 |
72 |
72 |
72 |
|
|
5 |
|
10 |
10 |
5 |
10 |
2400 Sir Francis Drake Blvd, Fairfax
(Oak Manor) |
|
|
10 |
|
10 |
10 |
|
10 |
|
|
|
|
Woodland at Auburn, San Rafael
(California Park) |
|
50 |
50 |
36 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
204 Flamingo Road, Mill Valley
(Old Chevron) |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
|
St. Vincent’s Drive, San Rafael (St
Vincent's/Silveira) |
100 |
100 |
|
|
50 |
|
|
|
71 |
121 |
|
|
Paradise Drive, Tiburon
(Easton Point) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
43 |
43 |
43 |
|
12 Tamarin Lane,
Novato |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
1970 Indian Valley Road,
Novato
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
|
5 |
3 |
5 |
5 |
|
150 Shoreline
Hwy, Mill Valley (Manzanita Mixed-Use) |
|
1 |
|
|
3* |
2 |
3 |
3 |
|
|
|
|
11101 State Route 1, Point Reyes Station
(Grandi Building) |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seminary Drive, Mill Valley
(Golden Gate Seminary) |
20* |
25 |
60 |
40 |
20* |
|
|
|
|
20 |
|
|
441 Drake Ave, Sausalito
(Marin City CDC) |
15 |
15 |
15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
15 |
|
|
217 Shoreline Highway, Mill Valley
(Armstrong) |
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
10 |
10 |
|
|
|
|
Lucas Valley Road, San Rafael
(Grady Ranch) |
|
240 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 Roosevelt Street, San Rafael |
|
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grandi building in
Point Reyes
*
Station |
2*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second units |
21 |
21 |
21 |
21 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
10 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
9 |
|
Total UNITS ALLOCATED |
210
228 |
528 |
228 |
169 |
70 93 |
44 |
38 |
43 |
98 |
224 |
65 |
70 |
RHNA minimum requirement for
2015-2023 |
87 |
37 |
61 |
|
Units allocated above RHNA |
123 141 |
441 |
141 |
82 |
33 56 |
7 |
1 |
6 |
37 |
154 |
4 |
9 |
* After the BOS
changed the Planning Commission numbers
This is what the "WORKSHOP SURVEYERS" say:
Alternative 1 carries
forward the sites from the 2007- 2014 Housing Element Inventory, and provides the greatest flexibility of all proposed alternatives.
Alternative
2 relies on the maximum potential at five sites to address the County’s need for low income housing, and provides
greater flexibility than the Staff Recommendation.
Alternative 3
would meet the County’s low income RHNA requirement assuming a reduced default density of
20 dwelling units per acre. STAFF Recommendation
(except for 40 at Woodland instead of 36) No one has been able to explain: "Alternative 3 would meet the RHNA for unincorporated
Marin assuming a reduced default density of 20 dwelling units per acre" |
SOURCE The “30% of Median,” “Very Low
Income” and “Low Income” schedules shown
opposite were published by the U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), effective 12/18/2013.
The “Median Income” is based on the FY2014
median family income for Marin County, CA of $97,100
for a four-person household, issued by HUD
effective 12/18/2013, with adjustments for smaller and
larger household sizes.
The “Moderate Income” schedule
represents 120% of median income.
For additional information, you may consult the HUD website
at
www.huduser.org/datasets/il.html
What is DENSITY BONUS ? |
|
Re: The Spring 2014 Public Workshops
pertaining to the Marin County Housing Element Update (2015 to 2023)
Dear Marin County Board of Supervisors,
We are greatly dismayed with the process and format of the
public workshops held in Spring 2014 pertaining to the Marin County Housing
Element Update 2015 to 2023. We request that this letter be included in the
public record regarding the Housing Element Update and hope that the
upcoming Housing Element public hearings will provide a better opportunity
for more thorough consideration of public input.
We believe there are constructive solutions for meeting the
housing needs of all Marin’s constituents, including lower-income
households, in a manner that upholds community character; respects the
limits of our infrastructure, public services, financial capabilities, and
natural resources (E.g. water); protects the environment and public health
and safety; and enhances quality of life. Unfortunately, the format of the
Housing Element workshops did not allow such constructive solutions to be
discovered or even discussed. On the contrary, the workshops failed to
provide vital information for intelligent decision-making and only offered
one predetermined housing solution - a forced choice of preselected housing
sites.
Our specific concerns regarding the Spring 2014 Housing
Element workshops are:
General Format
-
We are concerned
that the workshop format did not
give Marin residents an opportunity to have questions answered and to
offer constructive solutions;
-
We are concerned
that the County hired a very
expensive outside consultant to chair the workshops, which was entirely
unnecessary;
-
We are concerned
that the only solution discussed for
meeting Marin’s Housing Needs was new housing development (much of it
high-density multifamily units) on preselected sites. There was no mention
of alternative approaches to meeting Marin’s housing needs, such as:
-
Conversion of existing
market-rate units to affordable units;
-
Second units;
-
Rent vouchers;
-
A living wage;
-
Low interest loans, etc.
|
Presentation
-
We are concerned
that the presentation lacked vital
information and that comments by facilitators were misleading, such as:
-
The presentation focused on
affordable housing but did not point out that the Housing Element sites
could be developed with mostly market- rate housing;
-
The presentation talked about
Marin’s strong environmental protections but failed to mention the
Countywide Plan Amendment that allows for more potential high-density
housing in the Baylands Corridor, the Ridge and Upland Greenbelt, and
other environmentally sensitive areas;
-
The presentation indicated that future
proposed development would receive thorough review but failed to mention
the State laws that allow for streamlining and exemption of
environmental review;
4. The presentation indicated that future proposed development would
need to adhere to local design guidelines and development standards but
failed to mention the State Density Law that supersedes County
regulations and allows for greater densities and exceptions to height
restrictions, setbacks, and parking regulations. The presentation
also failed to mention County regulations and development codes that
allow exceptions for affordable housing;
5. Facilitators stated that housing should be placed near transportation
but failed to mention that many studies by respected institutions prove
that living near busy roads emitting large amounts of Toxic Air
Contaminants over large periods of time significantly increase the risk
of developing serious and life-threatening illnesses (E.g.
Cardiovascular mortality, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer,
miscarriages, asthma, autism, etc.);
|
Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA): Marin County
| |
Very Low |
Low |
Moderate |
Above
Moderate |
Total |
|
Belvedere |
4 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
16 |
|
Corte Madera |
22 |
13 |
13 |
24 |
72 |
|
Fairfax |
16 |
11 |
11 |
23 |
61 |
|
Larkspur |
40 |
20 |
21 |
51 |
132 |
|
Mill Valley |
41 |
24 |
26 |
38 |
129 |
|
Novato |
111 |
65 |
72 |
167 |
415 |
|
Ross |
6 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
18 |
|
San Anselmo |
33 |
17 |
19 |
37 |
106 |
|
San Rafael |
240 |
148 |
181 |
438 |
1,007 |
|
Sausalito |
26 |
14 |
16 |
23 |
79 |
|
Tiburon |
24 |
16 |
19 |
19 |
78 |
|
Unincorporated County |
55 |
32 |
37 |
61 |
185 |
|
TOTAL |
618 |
367 |
423 |
890 |
2,298 |
|
Selection of Sites
-
We are concerned
that participants were asked to
select sites for housing from a pre-selected list of sites but were not
provided critical information about the proposed housing sites, such as
the maximum potential buildout at each site and how development at each
site would impact:
-
The environment;
-
Public health and safety;
-
Traffic;
-
Public services (E.g.
schools);
-
Public infrastructure;
-
Water supply;
-
Traditional neighborhood
character, etc.
-
We are concerned
that participants were asked to
"vote" about neighborhoods where they did not reside.
We DID appreciate the fact that the comments from the
audience were recorded as they were made. That helps to build trust, and
trust needs to be restored.
Moving Forward
As previously described, each Housing Element workshop was
orchestrated to rush participants to a pre-determined conclusion, rather
than allow for an open discussion, an exchange of information and ideas,
intelligent decision making, and the discovery of innovative solutions
about how to provide for Unincorporated Marin’s Housing Need in a manner
that would be more acceptable to all interested parties.
In order to prevent similar unproductive and financially
wasteful workshops, we urge you to direct the Community Development Agency
to revise the process and format of future workshops.
Moreover, the County Planners stated that public input from
the Housing Element workshops would be conveyed to the Marin County
Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Therefore, we request that
this letter be included in the public record regarding the Marin County
Housing Element Update (2015 to 2023).
Most importantly, we ask you to ensure that the upcoming
Housing Element public hearings provide a better opportunity for more
thorough consideration of public input.
Very truly yours, /s/ Sharon
Rushton Chairperson Sustainable TamAlmonte
|
San Rafael Housing Locations
Source & Maps:
http://www.cityofsanrafael.org/commdev-planning-proj-update
Appendix B3
Table B3.4:
Historic Approvals of Sites Zoned Residential, 2000 – 2014
http://docs.cityofsanrafael.org/CommDev/planning/housing-element-update/AppendixB07312014.pdf
|
Address |
Maximum Potential Units
|
Approved Units |
% Approved of Maximum Potential
|
|
111 Merrydale Rd |
31 |
56 |
100% |
|
440 Canal Street |
5 |
3 |
60% |
|
Marin Lofts, 50 Cresta Dr.
|
32 |
15 |
47% |
|
157 Woodland |
17 |
10 |
59% |
|
Northview (Sterling Way)
|
28 |
28 |
100% |
| 262-268
Channing Way |
8
|
4
|
50%
|
| 119 Laurel
Place |
5
|
3
|
60%
|
| 110 North
Ave. |
49
|
50
|
100%
|
| Redwood
Village |
102
|
134
|
100%
|
| 1203-1211
Lincoln |
30
|
36
|
100%
|
| 1867 Lincoln
Ave. |
12
|
16
|
133%100%
|
| 524 Mission
Ave. |
13
|
15
|
100%
|
| Live Oak
|
5
|
5
|
100%
|
| 1515 Lincoln
|
30
|
24
|
80%
|
| 56 San Pablo
|
3
|
3
|
100%
|
| 21 G St.
|
13
|
8
|
62%
|
| 1203-1211
Lincoln |
30
|
36
|
100%
|
| 1144 Mission
|
4
|
3
|
75%
|
| 1867 Lincoln
Ave |
21
|
16
|
76%
|
| 6-18 Live Oak
|
2
|
2
|
100%
|
|
Average potential achieved
|
|
86%
83% |
|
Figure B3.1: Housing Opportunity Sites
Map (Overview)
|
Table B3.5: Vacant Residential Sites
Available for Development
|
APN |
Address |
General Plan |
Zoning |
Density |
Lot Size (acres) |
Max Zoning Capacity |
Total Realistic Potential Units
|
Site Description |
Constraints |
| 011-193-06 |
1628 Fifth Ave |
HDR |
HR1.5 |
29 |
0.3 |
9 |
7 |
Vacant |
None |
| 009-330-01 |
104 Windward Way |
MDR |
MR2 |
21 |
2.3 |
48 |
42 |
Vacant. Former San Rafael Sanitation District Site |
Traffic capacity; geotech |
| 013-101-07 |
225 Picnic Ave |
MDR |
MR3 |
15 |
3 |
45 |
39 |
Vacant. Ready access to all essential public facilities and
services. |
Hillside |
| 185-020-02 |
Glenwood School (Vacant Lot) |
LDR |
R7.5 |
5 |
9 |
45 |
26 |
Vacant. Level lot adjacent to Glenwood School. Unit estimate
based on CEQA constraints. |
Limited access; wetlands; archaeology |
| 011-031-07, 011-031-43 to 011-031-50 |
Coleman Dr |
LDR |
R10 |
4 |
2.1 |
9 |
9 |
Vacant. Nine single-family homes on nine lots. |
Hillside; wooded; access |
| 011-022-02 to 011-022-27 |
Fair Dr |
LDR |
R5/R7.5/R10 |
2 |
5.3 |
10 |
6 |
Vacant. Owners have indicated an interest to develop.
|
Hillside; wooded; access; parcels under separate ownership
|
| 016-213-12 |
Point San Pedro Rd |
LDR |
PD |
3 |
6.2 |
18 |
9 |
Vacant hillside site that was part of a larger subdivision but
never developed. There have been 2 different applications for
development of 6- 9 units on this site, but due to economy, were not
pursued through completion. |
Hillside; traffic; drainage; geotech; wooded |
| 015-163-03
|
Dominican
University |
Hillside
Residential |
PD |
2 |
18.7 |
37 |
32 |
Dominican
University has indicated an interest in building affordable staff
housing. |
Requires master
plan |
| 165-240-02 to
165-240-05 |
Jaleh Estates
(previously Look Out Mountain) |
Hillside
Residential |
PD |
1 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
Vacant. Four
single-family homes on four lots. |
Hillside;
wooded; access |
| 015-250-44
|
Dominican
University (end of Domican Dr) |
Hillside
Residential |
PD-H |
0.5 |
18 |
9 |
8 |
Vacant
|
Hillside
|
| 165-220-06,
165-220-07 |
End of Los Gamos
Dr |
Hillside
Residential Resource |
PD-H |
0.3 |
11 |
3 |
3 |
Vacant. Parcel
-06 is approximately three acres, with potential for one unit. Parcel -
07 is approximately eight acres with potential for two units. Lots are
under same ownership. |
Hillside;
geotech; site access |
| 155-101-03,
155-101-04 |
280 Channing Way
|
LDR, Hillside
Residential |
PD |
2 |
6.6 |
11 |
15 |
Vacant hillside
site and never developed. There have been very preliminary inquiries for
development, but no formal applications submitted to city. |
Hillside;
traffic; drainage; geotech; wooded |
|
Total
|
248 |
200 |
|
|
Table B3.6: Residential Sites
Underutilized Available for Development
|
APN |
Address |
General Plan |
Zoning |
Density |
Lot Size (acres) |
Max Zoning Capacity |
Total Realistic Potential Units
|
Site Description |
Constraints |
| 011-141-46 |
Lincoln Hill Community Church 1411 Lincoln Ave |
HDR |
HR1 |
43 |
1.4 |
60 |
52 |
Underutilized. Owned by non-profit; surrounded by residential.
The only structure on the parcel is a church, occupying just 14% of
total lot area. Eligible for Tax Credit Financing. |
Partial hillside |
| 011-245-38 |
220 Shaver St |
HDR |
HR1 |
43 |
0.9 |
39 |
33 |
Underutilized. On residential street; potential for residential
use if disbanded. Tax Credit Financing. |
Utility Service |
| 011-076-11 |
Villa Inn & Restaurant 1600 Lincoln Ave |
HDR |
HR1 |
43 |
1.2 |
51 |
44 |
Underutilized. Level, near public transit and freeway;
surrounded by residential use. Had proposal for housing in early 2000s.
|
Currently generating Transient Occupancy Tax for City.
|
| 177-240-21, 177-240-22 |
Camgros 2416 to 2432 Fifth Ave |
Unincorporated (HR) |
PDUnincorporated |
5 |
53 |
28 |
15 |
Underutilized site that was formerly a dairy and currently
hosts a variety of small rental units. Site is located in unincorporated
Marin County, but is surrounded by City of San Rafael. Would need to be
annexed into San Rafael. A creek bisects the front of the property, the
front portion is relatively flat, while the rear 1/2 of the site is
hillside. |
Hillside; geotech |
| 011-131-04
|
Elks Club 1312
Mission Ave |
HR |
PD |
43 |
10.5 |
45
180 |
67 |
Large site
currently developed with a few buildings used as a private club (Elks
Club). Site is a hillside, with a large bowl area that is used as
surface parking that could accommodate development. A proposal for 67
units was submitted and under review by the City until the member of the
blub terminated the lease option with the development for their own
reasons. |
Hillside;
historic; biological; geotech |
| 011-064-06
|
Colonial Motel
1735 Lincoln Ave |
HDR |
HR1 |
43 |
0.6 |
26 |
33 |
Underutilized
site currently developed with a one story motel, containing 20 motel
units. Site is small, but has a graded potion of the site that could
accommodate development. |
None
|
|
Total
|
655 284 |
244 |
|
|
Table B3.10:
Vacant
Mixed-Use Sites, Available for
Development
|
APN |
Address |
General Plan |
Zoning |
Density (u/a) |
Lot Size (acres) |
Max Zoning Capacity |
Total Realistic Potential Units
|
Site Description |
Constraints |
| 011-275-13 |
901 Tamalpais/ 706 3rd St |
Heatherton Office |
HO |
72 |
0.311 |
232 |
30 |
Vacant site that used to host a two story restaurant, that was
demolished in mid-2000's. Site is one block from downtown transit center
and has received interest in a variety of development, including retail,
banks and housing. Site has one of the most development potential of all
zoning classifications in the City. |
parking, access; traffic
capacity |
| 011-263-22 |
Third St. & Lootens |
Second/Third Mixed Use |
2/3 MUE |
72 |
0.8 |
60 |
51 |
Vacant; no structures, level site; in Downtown; suitable for
missed use. Within ¼ mile of transit, market and services. Eligible for
tax credit financing. PDA site.
|
Traffic capacityPDA site
|
| 009-191-09 |
Former Dodge/Chrysler Dealership 1075 Francisco Blvd. East
|
General Commercial |
GC |
43 |
1.59 |
68 |
63 |
Vacant. Former auto dealership Housing developers have
expressed interest in site; Eligible for Tax Credit Financing.
|
Traffic Capacity; noise; air quality |
011-023-02 |
Park and Ride 1867 Lincoln Ave |
Public- Quasi- Public |
P/QP |
24 |
0.9 |
22 |
19 |
Vacant. Surface parking lot; no structures. Caltrans
ownership. |
Parking; steep slopes; noise; air quality
|
| 011-162-17 |
Menzes Parking Lot 1429 Mission |
Public- Quasi- Public |
P/QP |
24 |
0.8 |
18 |
16 |
Vacant. Surface parking lot; no structures. City ownership.
|
Loss of City parking |
|
Total |
190
169 |
179
160 |
|
|
Table B3.11: Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites
Available for Development
|
APN |
Address |
General Plan |
Zoning |
Density (u/a) |
Lot Size (acres) |
Max Zoning Capacity |
Total Realistic Potential Units
|
Site Description |
Constraints |
| 011-256-12
011-256-14
011-256-15
011-256-32 |
809/815 B St |
Second/Third Mixed Use |
CSMU/ MUW |
72 |
0.5 |
36 |
33 |
Under review since 2005 in various forms. There is a current
application filed and under review. An EIR is needed since the project
involves the demolition of a historic resource. Will not be built until
2016 at the earliest |
Historic Preservation |
| 011-277-01 |
930 Tamalpais (Whistlestop) |
Hetherton Office |
HO |
62 |
0.35 |
25 |
30 |
Whistlestop is considering applying to tear down existing
senior center and building new senior center with 50 senior age
restricted units above. Site is right next to the SMART rail station in
downtown San Rafael. No formal application has yet been submitted.
|
Traffic capacity; parking |
| 011-263-21 |
First Federal
1030 Third St. |
Second/Third Mixed Use |
CSMU |
72 |
0.7 |
50 |
43 |
Underutilized. Level site, suitable for mixed use, close to
transit. Eligible for tax credit level parking structure. PDA site.
|
None |
| 011-278-01 |
898 Lincoln Ave. |
Second/Third Mixed Use |
2/3 MUE |
72 |
0.5 |
36 |
31 |
Underutilized. Level site, suitable for mixed use.
Single-story/surface parking. One block from transit station. Eligible
for tax-credit financing. PDA site. |
Parking (outside of downtown parking district) |
| 011-192-07 |
1700 4th St |
West End Village |
WEV |
32 |
0.17 |
7 |
10 |
Site is currently underdeveloped, with a one story restaurant.
Site is flat, and has the ability to be developed with a mixed use
project. |
None
|
| 010-291-49
|
1826 4th St.
|
West End Village
|
WEV |
43 |
0.5 |
22 |
20 |
Underutilized.
Single story building. Built in 1925, currently unoccupied, former
retail use. |
Narrow site
|
| 011-231-16
|
1800 2nd St.
|
West End Village
|
WEV |
43 |
0.6 |
26 |
24 |
Underutilized.
Site consists of one single-story building and parking lot. Former
retail use. Eligible for Tax Credit Financing. |
None
|
| 011-231-21
|
1801 4th St
|
West End Village
|
WEV |
43 |
1.1 |
47 |
43 |
Underutilized.
Site consists of one single-story building and parking lot. Former
retail use. Eligible for Tax Credit Financing. |
None
|
| 175-250-14
|
Northgate 3
400 Las Gallinas Ave. |
General
Commercial |
GC |
43 |
5.5 |
237 |
203 |
Underutilized.
Single-story shopping center with large surface parking lot, built in
1968. Within ½ mile of planned SMART station. Eligible for tax credit
financing. PDA site |
Freeway noise; air quality |
| 175-060-60,
175-060-67 |
Northgate Mall
1500 Northgate Mall |
General
Commercial |
GC |
43 |
31 |
1,333
|
200 |
Underutilized.
Unit potential based on General Plan 2020 site estimate. Commitment to
potential housing scenarios (rezoning not required). Eligible for Tax
Credit Financing. PDA site.
|
Cross Easements
|
| 018-051-20
|
Marin Square 55
Bellam Blvd |
General
Commercial |
GC |
43 |
6.2 |
267 |
202 |
Underutilized.
One-story mostly large surface parking lot. |
Traffic; access
|
| 179-064-01
|
Hudson Street Design (Former Bruener’s |
General
Commercial |
GC |
43 |
1.2 |
52 |
45 |
Underutilized.
Large single-story retail with large surface parking lot, within a half
mile of the future Civic Center SMART rail station and within ¼ mile
|
Freeway noise; air quality |
|
Furniture Store)
3773 Redwood Hwy. |
of
neighborhood market. PDA site |
| 179-041-27 |
3833 Redwood (Marin Ventures) |
Deleted per changes to the Civic Center Station Area
Plan. |
| 155-141-28
155-141-29
155-141-30
155-141-31 |
12 Mitchell Blvd.
|
Office
|
O
|
43 |
3.6
|
155
|
133 |
Underutilized.
Currently a single story office building on three parcels, constructed
in 1966 on a level site with freeway access. Parcels under same
ownership; lot -31 is parking for the building on parcels -28 to -30.
|
Freeway noise; air quality |
| 155-141-26
|
4380 Redwood
|
Office
|
O
|
43 |
5.1
|
219
|
189 |
Underutilized.
Single story level site with freeway access. |
Freeway noise; air quality |
| 165-220-11
|
Marin Commons
1600 Los Gamos Dr. |
Office
|
PD
|
32 |
16.7
|
585
|
400 |
Underutilized.
Large mostly vacant office complex under the site could accommodate 400
units; housing developers have expressed interest in the site.
|
Freeway nose; requires master plan
|
| 175-060-32
|
555 Northgate Dr.
|
Office
|
O
|
43 |
2.2
|
95
|
81 |
Underutilized.
Level site, close to Civic Center SMART station. |
None
|
| 175-321-34
|
820 Las Gallinas
Ave |
Office
|
O
|
43 |
1.0
|
43
|
37 |
Underutilized.
Level site, only 25% developed. Across from residential. Adjacent to
Safeway, major transit stop. Eligible for Tax Credit Financing.
|
None
|
| 175-331-13
|
670 Las Gallinas
Ave. |
Office
|
O
|
43 |
0.6
|
26
|
24 |
Underutilized.
One-Story building and adjacent parking. Eligible for Tax Credit
Financing. PDA site |
Freeway noise |
| 175-331-20
|
550 Las Gallinas
|
Office
|
O |
43 |
0.57 |
25 |
23 |
Underutilized.
One-story building and adjacent parking. Eligible for Tax Credit
Financing. PDA site. |
Freeway noise |
| 175-331-21
|
550 Las Gallinas
|
Office
|
O |
43 |
0.58 |
25 |
23 |
Underutilized.
One-story building and adjacent parking. Eligible for Tax Credit
Financing. PDA site. |
Freeway noise |
| 175-331-24
|
600 Las Gallinas
|
Office
|
O |
43 |
1.3 |
56 |
52 |
Underutilized.
One-story building and adjacent parking. Eligible for Tax Credit
Financing. PDA site. |
Freeway noise |
| 010-277-12
|
2114 4th St.
|
Retail Office
|
C/O |
43 |
0.6 |
26 |
24 |
Underutilized.
Level site. One story fast food restaurant with surface parking.
Eligible for Tax Credit Financing. |
Traffic
|
| 014-092-26
|
Salvation Army
350 4th St. |
Retail Office
|
C/O |
43 |
1.0 |
47 |
41 |
Underutilized.
Owned by a non-profit; level lot, near transit. Eligible for Tax Credit
Financing. PDA site. |
Traffic
|
| 008-092-02
|
Country Club Bowl
145 Belvedere St. |
Neighborhood
Commercial |
NC |
24 |
2.4 |
58 |
53 |
Significant
amount of pavement and surface parking area. One story; built in 1959.
|
Traffic
|
| 014-12-28
|
Harbor Center 555
Francisco Blvd. East |
Marine
|
M-C |
15 |
2.2 |
33 |
30 |
Underutilized.
One story shopping center. Level lot with Canal frontage |
Freeway noise; air quality; flood zone
|
|
Total
|
3,531 |
1,994 |
|
|
|
Publicly Assisted Affordable Rental Housing in San
Rafael (
at risk within 10
years )
|
Project Name/
Address |
Housing Type |
Owner Name |
# Units |
Deed Restriction
Source |
Potential Conversion Date |
|
Carmel Hotel
831 B St |
Mental
Health |
Homeward Bound
(Non-profit) |
29 |
RDA,
CDBG |
2028 |
|
St. Vincent’s
822 B St |
Supportive
Housing |
St. Vincent de Paul
(Non-profit) |
6 |
RDA |
2041 |
|
Belvedere Place
162
Belvedere St |
Family |
BRIDGE Housing
(Non-profit) |
26 |
RDA, TCAC, HOME,
Marin
Comm. Fndtn |
2057 |
|
Casa Vista Apts
55 Fairfax |
Family |
BRIDGE Housing
(Non-profit) |
40 |
RDA, CDBG, HOME
Marin Comm. Fndtn |
2057 |
|
Lone Palm Apts
840 C St |
Family |
Continuum Housing Assoc (Non-profit) |
60 -24
low incm |
RDA, TCAC |
2047 |
|
Centertown Apts 855 C St |
Family |
Centertown
Assoc. (Non-profit partnership) |
60 |
Former RDA owns land -75-year lease. TCAC, CDBG, RDA |
2064 |
|
Riviera Apts
455 Canal
St |
Family |
EAH
(Non-profit) |
28 |
CDBG, Tax
Credits |
2059 |
|
Ecology House 375 Catalina Blvd |
Disabled |
Ecology House, Inc. (Non-profit) |
11 |
Section 811, CDBG,
HOME
Section 8 contract |
2029
2014 |
|
Lifehouse
626 Del
Ganado |
Developmenta
l Disabled |
Lifehouse
(Non-profit) |
12 |
FHA, Section 202
Section 8
contract |
2022
2032 |
|
Rotary Manor
1851 Fifth Ave |
Senior/
Disabled |
Rotary Valley/ABHOW
(Non-profit) |
99 |
RDA |
2017 |
|
Marin Hotel
1111 Fourth
St |
SRO |
Homeward Bound
(Non-profit) |
19 |
RDA |
2015 |
|
Marin Center for Independent Living 710 Fourth St |
Disabled |
MCIL/Buckelew
(Non-profit) |
5 |
RDA, CDBG |
2027 |
|
Rafael Town Center
988 Fourth
St |
General |
JB
Matteson, Inc. |
38 |
RDA |
2025 |
|
San Rafael Commons 302 Fourth St |
Senior |
Danville
Senior Housing |
83 - 50
low inc |
RDA, Tax Credits Section 236 (J)
Section 8 contract |
2056
2031 |
|
Gordon’s Opera
House
1337 Fourth
St |
General |
Art Works Downtown (Non-profit) |
17 |
RDA |
2039 |
|
Project Name/
Address |
Housing Type |
Owner Name |
# Units |
Deed Restriction
Source |
Potential
Conversion Date |
|
5 Golden Hinde |
Senior/
Disabled |
Marin
Housing Authority |
40 |
Public
Housing |
Perpetuity |
|
One H St
Apts |
Family |
Continuum Housing Assoc (Non-profit) |
20 |
RDA |
2028 |
|
1103
Lincoln Ave |
Disabled |
Buckelew
(Non-profit) |
12 |
RDA |
2058 |
|
Lincoln Avenue Apts
1351
Lincoln |
Developmental
Disabled |
EAH
(Non-profit) |
13 |
Section 811
Section 8
contract |
2016
2016 |
|
Martinelli House 1327 Lincoln |
Senior/ Disabled |
Martinelli
House, Inc. |
66 - 28
low incm |
FHA,
Sec 236(J),
CDBG
LMSA Sec 8
contract |
2062
2027 |
|
Rogers Greene Apts
7 Mariposa Rd |
Disabled |
Buckelew
(Non-profit) |
10 |
HOME, RDA |
2040 |
|
39 Mary St. |
Transitional Housing |
Centerpoint (Non-profit) |
8 |
RDA , CDBG,
HOME |
Perpetuity |
|
Sundance
95 Medway |
Family |
Marin
Housing Authority |
28 |
Public
Housing, RDA |
Perpetuity |
|
Mills St. Shelter
29 Mill |
Emergency
Shelter |
Homeward Bound
(Non-profit) |
40 |
CDBG, RDA |
Perpetuity |
|
Duncan Greene Court
410 Mission |
Disabled |
Buckelew
(Non-profit) |
11 |
RDA |
2057 |
|
Nova House
393 Nova
Albion Way |
Disabled |
Lifehouse (Non-profit) |
6 |
Sec 202, CDBG, HOME Section 8 contract |
2032
2015 |
|
Novato Street
153,161,165
Novato |
Family |
Canal Community Alliance
(Non-profit) |
12 |
RDA,
Marin Comm.
Fndtn |
2040 |
|
Pilgrim Park Apts. 96 Pilgrim Way |
Family |
Pilgrim Park, Inc. (Non-profit - church) |
61 - 36
low incm |
FHA, Section 236 LMSA Sec 8 contract |
2025
2025 |
|
Maria B. Freitas
455 M.
Freitas Pkwy |
Senior |
Mercy Charities (Non-profit) |
60 |
Sec 202, HOME
Section 8
contract |
2040
2017 |
|
Sommerhill
Townhomes 30 Novato |
Family |
Foundation for Affordable Housing (Non-profit) |
38 |
TCAC |
2054 |
|
Turina House
10 Labrea
Way |
Family |
EAH
(Non-profit) |
28 |
TCAC |
2059 |
|
Parnow Friendship House
164 N. San Pedro Rd |
Senior/ Disabled |
Center Interfaith Housing (Non-profit) |
71 |
Section 202
Section 8 contract |
2024
2024 |
|
Total |
|
|
950 low income units |
|
Sources: San Rafael Community Development and Economic
Development Departments, 2014.
California Housing
Partnership Corporation - TCAC and HUD Section 8
database, March 2014.
Review of housing provider websites (BRIDGE, Buckelew,
Centerpoint,
Continuum Housing Assoc, EAH,
Foundation for Affordable Housing,
Homeward Bound,
Lifehouse, Marin
Housing Authority,
St. Vincent DePaul Society).
Table A.30: Annual Rent Subsidies Required to Preserve At-Risk Units
|
# Bdrms |
#
Units |
2013 Fair Market Rents |
Hhld Size |
Hhld Income (50%AMI) |
Max. Afford Rent |
Per Unit Subsidy |
Total Monthly Subsidy |
Total Annual Subsidy |
|
0 bdrm |
74 |
$1,093 |
1 person |
$39,600 |
$990 |
$103 |
$7,600 |
$91,200 |
|
1 bdrm |
205 |
$1,423 |
2 person |
$45,250 |
$1,131 |
$292 |
$59,900 |
$718,800 |
|
2 bdrm |
12 |
$1,795 |
3 person |
$50,900 |
$1,272 |
$523 |
$6,300 |
$75,600 |
|
Total |
291 |
|
|
|
|
|
$73,800 |
$885,600 |
Source: Marin Housing Authority 2013 Fair Market Rents; State
HCD 2013 Income Limits.
Table calculated by Karen Warner Associates, Inc.
|
Assisted Housing Units at Risk
As
highlighted in Table opposite, eight assisted rental projects in San Rafael
are potentially at- risk of conversion to market rate during the ensuing ten
year period. However, all these projects are owned and managed by non-profit
organizations that have a public purpose to develop and maintain affordable
housing for low income and special needs populations. According to the
California Housing
Partnership Corporation (CHPC), seven of these projects are
considered at low risk of conversion, with the six unit Nova House
identified as "high risk" (3/2014).
Nova House is owned by Lifehouse, a Bay Area non-profit formed in 1954 to
provide various support services and housing for the developmentally
disabled population. Nova House is a single- family home serving six
disabled clients. The property was purchased with
Section 202 funding and Lifehouse receives rental subsidies for the
residents. Lifehouse has a contract with the US Department of Housing and
Urban Development (“HUD”) for the Section 8 Housing Assistance
Payment Program. The current HUD Section 8 contract expires in 2015. The
property meets the current HUD guidelines for contract renewal and Lifehouse
anticipates renewing the contract with HUD for an additional twenty years.
Preservation and Replacement
Options
As all
eight at-risk projects in San Rafael are already owned by non-profit
entities, their conversion to market rents is highly unlikely. Nonetheless,
as the HUD Section 8 contracts and/or capital subsidies have the potential
to expire within the next ten years, for purposes of the Housing Element,
these projects are technically considered at potential risk of conversion.
Preservation or replacement of San Rafael's at-risk projects can be achieved
in two primary ways:
1) provision of rental assistance using other sources of funds; or 2)
replacement or development of new affordable rental units. These options are
discussed below, along with a general cost estimate for each.
Rental
Assistance: The long-term availability of funding at the
federal level for Section 8 contract renewal is uncertain. If terminated,
rent subsidies using alternative State or local funding sources could be
used to maintain affordability. Subsides could be structured similar to the
Section 8 program, whereby HUD pays the owners the difference between what
tenants can afford to pay (30% household income) and what HUD establishes as
the Fair Market Rent (FMR).
The
feasibility of this alternative, in the case of the property owners, depends
on their willingness to continue to accept rental vouchers and limit rents
to fair market levels. Non-profit owners are more likely to be willing to
accept other rent subsidies, while for-profit owners will compare the
negotiated rents to market rents.
As
depicted in Table A.30, the cost of providing rent subsidies to all 291
at-risk units in San Rafael (the difference between HUD Fair market Rents
and maximum affordable rents for very low income households) is generally
estimated at $885,000 per year, translating to roughly $18 million in
subsidies over a 20-year period.
Construction or Purchase of
Replacement Units
The
construction or purchase of a replacement building is another option to
replace at-risk units should they convert to market rates. The cost of
developing housing depends on a variety of factors, including density, size
of the units, location, land costs and type of construction. Using a
conservative estimate of total development costs of $300,000 per affordable
housing unit, the cost to replace San Rafael's 291 at-risk units can
generally be estimated at $87 million.
Cost Comparison
In terms
of cost effectiveness for preservation of the 291 at-risk units, 20 years'
worth of rent subsidies ($18 million) are less expensive than construction
or purchase of replacement units ($87 million). However, as described in the
beginning of this section, while technically at-risk, all eight at-risk
projects are owned by non-profits, rendering their conversion unlikely.
Should
units become at risk, several local organizations have the capacity to
acquire the units. For example, the West Bay
Housing Corp. and Lifehouse have experience managing supportive housing for
the disabled. Regional affordable housing companies such as BRIDGE,
EAH and
Mercy Housing all own and manage affordable housing properties in
San Rafael and would be logical successors if West Bay
or Lifehouse could not acquire the units.
Various HUD Housing Options
Section 8 Rules
a rent a cap, "Fair Market Rent", was $1,522 in
San Francisco 2012 , in New York $1,280 while in many other places it is
less than $500.
Habitat for Humanity sets fine model for workforce housing:
Habitat will provided mortgage assistance for resident
families earning between $41,200 and $82,400 annually.
Those wishing to buy the units must contribute 500 hours of hand-on work
during the construction phase. Prospective residents not willing to devote
three months of their lives toward making the project a success need not
apply. Anyone putting in that effort will likely be a good future neighbor.
Dick Spotswood, IJ
Tiny Homes For People Making Less Than $15,000 A Year - in Portland
Proposed Marin Building Code Promotes Sustainability -- Alternative ‘green’
codes
|
|
County Homeless
Housing |
|
-
HOUSING ELEMENT LITIGATIONS SUMMARY (2013)
City of Alameda City of Benicia
City of Calexico City of Carlsbad City of
Folsom City of Fremont City of Healdsburg
City of Lincoln City of Menlo Park
City of Monte Sereno City of Murrieta City
of Pasadena City of Pittsburgh City of Pleasanton
City of Rohnert Park City of Santa Rosa
City of Solano Beach City of Winters
County of Humboldt County of Madera
County of Mendocino County of Napa
County of Sacramento County of Santa Cruz
County of Sonoma County of Sutter
County of Yuba Town of Corte Madera
CITY OF ALAMEDA
-
SUED
IN FEBRUARY 2007: COLLINS V. CITY
OF ALAMEDA.
-
PLAINTIFF
OWNS 9 ACRES ALONG THE WATER AND WISHES TO DEVELOP
HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON A PORTION ZONED INDUSTRIAL AND DESIGNATED AS
POTENTIAL PUBLIC PARK SPACE.
-
PLAINTIFF
IS ARGUING THAT THE CITY’S
HOUSING ELEMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH ITS GENERAL PLAN,
I.E., THE
ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH PROHIBITS PLAINTIFF FROM DEVELOPING HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON HIS PARCEL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT THE
PROVISIONS OF THEIR HOUSING ELEMENT.
CITY OF BENICIA
-
SUED
BY CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW PROJECT.
-
STATE
HCD CERTIFIED THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT “BASED ON PAPER.”
CAHLP TOOK PICTURES OF SITES THE CITY
IDENTIFIED. SOME WERE UNDER WATER;
OTHER WERE ALREADY DEVELOPED. HCD
RESCINDED THEIR CERTIFICATION.
-
CITY
SETTLED AFTER 6 MONTHS OF LITIGATION. THE CITY WAS ORDERED TO PAY
$90,000 IN ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
-
A NEW
CITY COUNCIL RENEGED ON THE
AGREEMENT, APPEALED THE COURT’S JUDGMENT THREE TIMES, AND LOST ON EVERY
APPEAL. ALL IN ALL, THE
CITY EXPENDED
$500,000 IN ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
-
SETTLEMENT
EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENTS OF STATE LAW.
CITY OF CALEXICO
CITY OF CARLSBAD
-
FRIENDS OF
AVIARA V. CITY OF CARLSBAD (2012) 210 CAL. APP. 4TH 1103.
-
RESIDENTS SUED THE CITY ALLEGING
THAT THE REZONING PROGRAM IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT WAS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S GENERAL PLAN. THE COURT HELD THAT THE
HOUSING ELEMENT STATUTE ANTICIPATED THAT THERE COULD BE INCONSISTENCIES
BETWEEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND GENERAL PLAN, SO LONG AS THE HOUSING ELEMENT
CONTAINED A TIMELINE FOR RESOLVING THE INCONSISTENCIES.
CITY OF FREMONT
CITY OF HEALDSBURG
-
SUED
BY SONOMA COUNTY HOUSING ADVOCACY
GROUP.
-
SETTLEMENT
AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE CITY TO REZONE PARCELS,
ANNEX OTHERS, AND ENACT ZONING
ORDINANCES TO ENCOURAGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
-
THE
CITY WAS ORDERED TO PAY
ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
CITY OF LINCOLN
CITY OF PASADENA
CITY OF PITTSBURGH
-
SUED
BY CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW PROJECT
AND PUBLIC ADVOCATES, INC.
-
SETTLEMENT
COMMITTED THE CITY TO PRODUCE 990
UNITS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING OVER 9
YEARS. 396 OF THESE UNITS MUST BE AFFORDABLE TO VERY
LOW INCOME RESIDENTS. 200 OF THESE MUST BE
BUILT WITHIN 4 YEARS.
-
CITY
ALSO AGREED TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LARGER UNITS,
AND UNITS AFFORDABLE TO EXTREMELY LOW INCOME RESIDENTS,
AND TO PROVIDE A PREFERENCE THAT ENSURES PEOPLE WHO LIVE OR
WORK IN THE CITY WILL BENEFIT FROM NEW UNITS.
CITY OF ROHNERT PARK
-
SUED
BY SONOMA COUNTY HOUSING ADVOCACY
GROUP.
-
COURT
ORDERED ROHNERT PARK TO
REVISE ITS HOUSING ELEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE SUBMISSION TO HCD.
-
THE
CITY WAS ORDERED TO PAY
ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
CITY OF SANTA ROSA
-
SUED
BY CAHLP AND
SONOMA COUNTY
HOUSING ADVOCACY GROUP.
-
MOST
OF THE HOUSING BUILT PRIOR TO LITIGATION WAS FOR UPPER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS.
LOW AND MODERATE INCOME FAMILIES (70%
OF THE POPULATION) SAW ONLY
7% OF THE HOUSING BUILT.
-
COURT
ORDERED SANTA ROSA TO REVISE
ITS HOUSING ELEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE SUBMISSION TO HCD.
-
UNDER
THE TERMS OF THEIR SETTLEMENT, SANTA ROSA IS COMMITTED TO SIMPLIFYING THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR HIGHER
DENSITY HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS (E.G., DEVELOPERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR
CUPS), TO SPECIFYING A SITE
FOR A 40+ BED HOMELESS SHELTER AND
ASSISTING WITH ITS ACQUISITION, TO ESTABLISHING AN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND, AND TO IMPOSING A FEE
ON NEW COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT OF
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR THE FACILITIES’ WORKERS.
CITY OF WINTERS
-
SUED
BY LEGAL SERVICES FOR NOT SETTING ASIDE A
SUFFICIENT PERCENTAGE OF UNITS IN NEW DEVELOPMENTS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
-
PARTIES
SETTLED PURSUANT TO A STIPULATED JUDGMENT.
-
THE
CITY MUST REPORT TO PLAINTIFF
EACH YEAR, AND PLAINTIFF MAY
APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF THE CITY’S HOUSING ELEMENT.
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT
-
SUED BY
HUMBOLDT SUNSHINE, INC., A COALITION OF DEVELOPERS, BECAUSE THE HOUSING
ELEMENT WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE. HOUSING ADVOCACY GROUP
HOUSING FOR ALL INTERVENED.
-
THE COUNTY SETTLED WITH
HOUSING FOR ALL IN 2011. THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDED
A TIMELINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE MULTIFAMILY REZONING EFFORT IN ORDER TO AVOID
A COURT-IMPOSED BUILDING MORATORIUM. THE COUNTY
DID NOT OBTAIN ITS RECERTIFICATION FOR ITS HOUSING ELEMENT BY AUG. 15, 2011,
SO THE HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT IMPOSED A BUILDING
MORATORIUM THAT TOOK EFFECT IN OCTOBER 2011.
CITY OF MENLO PARK
-
LAWSUIT BROUGHT IN 2012 BY
PUBLIC ADVOCATES, INC. AND THE
PUBLIC INTEREST LAW PROJECT REPRESENTING
PENINSULA INTERFAITH ACTION,
UNITED HABITAT PROGRAM, AND
YOUTH UNITED FOR COMMUNITY ACTION FOR NOT ADOPTING HOUSING ELEMENT
SINCE 1992.
-
THE CITY AGREED TO A SETTLEMENT IN
MAY 2012, INCLUDING ADOPTION OF A VALID HOUSING ELEMENT BY MARCH 2013,
IMPLEMENTING ANY REQUIRED REZONING, AND GIVING PRIORITY TO NON-PROFIT HOUSING
DEVELOPERS IN ALLOCATING LOCAL FUNDS.
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
CITY OF MURRIETA
CITY OF PLEASANTON
-
URBAN HABITAT
PROGRAM V. CITY OF PLEASANTON (2008) 164 CAL. APP. 4TH 1561.
-
LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY
PUBLIC ADVOCATES, INC.
-
COURT OF APPEALS DISMISSED THE
HOUSING ELEMENT CHALLENGE AS UNTIMELY. HOWEVER, CLAIMS WERE ALLOWED TO PROCEED
ALLEGING THAT, AFTER ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THE CITY'S GROWTH
MANAGEMENT LAWS PREVENTED COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSING ELEMENT LAW.
-
CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS
ALLOWED TO INTERVENE. SUPERIOR COURT FOUND IN MARCH 2010 THAT THE GROWTH
CONTROL MEASURES WERE INCONSISTENT WITH HOUSING ELEMENT LAW. IN A SETTLEMENT,
THE CITY AGREED TO:
-
1) ELIMINATE GROWTH CAP;
-
2) PREPARE AN ADEQUATE HOUSING
ELEMENT;
-
3) ADOPT A CLIMATE ACTION PLAN;
-
4) ADOPT A NONDISCRIMINATION
RESOLUTION; AND
-
5) APPROVE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT OF AT LEAST 30 UNITS/ACRE AT THE HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK,
INCLUDING 15% OR MINIMUM 130 UNITS OF VERY LOW INCOME FAMILY HOUSING.
$1.9 MILLION IN ATTORNEYS FEES, PLUS
$600,000 IN DEFENSE COSTS.
CITY OF SOLANA BEACH
-
HARO
V. CITY OF SOLANA BEACH (2011) 195 CAL. APP. 4TH 542.
-
LAWSUIT BROUGHT BY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVOCATES IN 2008 ON BEHALF OF
AN INDIVIDUAL FOR FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT. COURT OF APPEAL FOUND
CASE TO HAVE BEEN UNTIMELY FILED.
COUNTY OF MADERA
-
SUED
BY CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
-
COUNTY
CHALLENGED HOUSING ELEMENT
LAW AS AN “UNFUNDED MANDATE,”
A DEFENSE WHICH COUNTY COUNSEL DESCRIBED AS HANDING A
“SLAM DUNK” WIN TO PLAINTIFFS.
-
COURT
ORDERED COUNTY TO PAY
ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
COUNTY OF MENDOCINO
-
SUED
BY LEGAL SERVICES AND
CALIFORNIA AFFORDABLE
HOUSING LAW PROJECT.
-
STATE
HCD REQUIRED COUNTY TO
REZONE 40 ACRES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. COUNTY SITES WERE NOT PHYSICALLY OR REALISTICALLY CAPABLE OF
ACCOMMODATING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
-
SETTLEMENT IMPLEMENTED A DEVELOPMENT
MORATORIUM IF HCD DID NOT CERTIFY THE
COUNTY’S HOUSING ELEMENT.
-
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AWARDED FOR PRE-LITIGATION WORK BASED ON PUBLIC BENEFIT
THEORY.
-
HCD
HAS CONDITIONALLY CERTIFIED THE COUNTY’S CURRENT HOUSING ELEMENT, BUT THE COURT
MONITORS ONGOING COUNTY COMPLIANCE.
COUNTY OF NAPA
-
SUED
BY CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND
PUBLIC ADVOCATES,
INC.
-
COURT
ORDERED STIPULATION: THE COUNTY AGREED TO
-
(1)
MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR LOW INCOME AND FARMWORKER HOUSING IN ITS GENERAL
PLAN,
-
(2)
IDENTIFY AND REZONE SITES TO ACCOMMODATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
-
(3)
ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM ITS TRUST FUND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING,
AND
-
(4)
PROHIBIT MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT FROM SITES “RESTRAINED”
TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING – AS
DETERMINED BY PLAINTIFF.
-
COURT ORDERED MORATORIA ON
DEVELOPMENT.
-
THE
COUNTY WAS ORDERED TO PAY
ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
-
SUED
BY LEGAL SERVICES.
-
COUNTY
FAILED TO IMPLEMENT ITS HOUSING ELEMENT.
-
COURT RULED AGAINST COUNTY IN SEVERAL
PROCEEDINGS, RESULTING IN STIPULATED JUDGMENT TO
IMPLEMENT HOUSING ELEMENT. SUBSTANTIAL
ATTORNEYS’ FEES
AWARDED.
-
COURT
ORDERED COUNTY TO ADOPT UPGRADED DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS AND ENACT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE TO ENSURE THAT MULTIFAMILY
PROJECTS ARE REVIEWED THROUGH A SIMPLIFIED PROCESS.
-
COUNTY IMPOSED MORATORIA
PROHIBITING BUILDING EXCEPT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES ON LANDS ZONED
LIMITED COMMERCIAL OR
SHOPPING CENTER. COUNTY ADOPTED AN INCLUSIONARY ZONING ORDINANCE.
-
LEGAL SERVICES
LAWSUIT REMAINS ACTIVE BASED ON CLAIMS COUNTY STILL
HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ
-
SUED
BY CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
-
CIVIL GRAND JURY RECOMMENDED THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY SUE COUNTY SUPERVISORS TO FORCE THEM TO COMPLY
WITH HOUSING MANDATE.
-
COUNTY’S HOUSING ELEMENT CONTAINS AN “AFFORDABLE
HOUSING COMBINING DISTRICT PROGRAM,”
WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE REZONING OF 44
ACRES AT 20 UNITS PER ACRE,
WITH 40% OF THE UNITS PERMANENTLY
AFFORDABLE THROUGH DEED RESTRICTIONS.
-
WHEN
PLAINTIFF SUED, THE PROGRAM
HAD NOT GONE INTO EFFECT, AND THE 44
ACRES HAD NOT BEEN DESIGNATED.
-
THE
PROGRAM REQUIRED THE COUNTY
TO APPLY DESIGN REVIEW,
SUBDIVISION MAP ACT AND CEQA REVIEW.
BUT STATE LAW SAYS “THE USE AND DENSITY SHALL BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT.”
THE COURT RULED THE PROGRAM GAVE
THE COUNTY DISCRETION TO APPLY CEQA
CONTRARY TO STATE LAW.
-
COUNTY
COUNSEL ANTICIPATES THEY WILL BE WRITING PLAINTIFF
“A BIG [ATTORNEYS’ FEES]
CHECK .”
-
COURT
ORDERED THE COUNTY TO REZONE 30
ACRES FOR HIGH DENSITY PROJECTS BY JUNE 30, 2007. THE COUNTY WILL NOT MEET THE DEADLINE, AND
EXPECTS PLAINTIFF WILL TAKE THEM BACK TO COURT.
COUNTY OF SONOMA
-
SUED
BY SONOMA COUNTY HOUSING ADVOCACY
GROUP.
-
COURT ORDERED MORATORIA ON ALL
DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE COUNTY ATTAINED A STATE
CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT.
-
THE
COUNTY WAS ORDERED TO PAY OVER
$300,000 IN ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
COUNTY OF SUTTER
COUNTY OF YUBA
-
SUED
BY CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE.
-
COURT ORDERED MORATORIA ON ALL
DEVELOPMENT UNTIL THE COUNTY ATTAINED A STATE
CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT.
-
COUNTY WAS ORDERED TO PAY SUBSTANTIAL
ATTORNEYS’ FEES.
TOWN OF CORTE MADERA
-
SUED
BY LEGAL AID AND PUBLIC ADVOCATES,
INC.
-
COURT ISSUED AN INJUNCTION AGAINST CORTE
MADERA, WHICH SETTLED THE
LAWSUIT ON THE CONDITION THAT THE CITY MEET A SERIES
OF STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING ATTAINING A
STATE CERTIFIED HOUSING ELEMENT AND IMPOSING A FEE ON COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
TO FUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
-
COURT
PROHIBITED THE CITY FROM APPROVING ANYTHING BUT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ON 10 KEY SITES UNTIL
IT ATTAINED CERTIFICATION.
-
THE
CITY WAS ORDERED TO PAY
ATTORNEYS’
FEES.
CALL TO ACTION: Marin County Housing
Element Plan
Dear Friends and Neighbors:
Make an impact on the Marin County Housing Element
(which impacts you even in you don't live in the
unincorporated area). Please see CVP's message below and
endorse its Request to the County (and please cc
communityventurepartners@comcast.net and
marinagainstdensity@gmail.com on your emails).
Also, please attend and speak at the Board of
Supervisors meeting on this matter on Tuesday, August
19, 10:00 a.m. in the open comment period, and the
Planning Commission meeting on Monday, August 25, 5:00
p.m., both at the Marin Civic Center, Room 328 (Board of
Supervisors' chambers). Demand delay of approval of the
Housing Element until it is thoroughly reviewed. WEAR
RED!
We need to mount the same winning challenge with the
County as we did against Larkspur Landing Station Area
Plan!
Make a big impact in a little time! Don't put it
off. Do it today!
MAD
One more thing: Forward this to your list of
neighborhood, homeowner, and community groups!
FROM CVP:
Community Venture Partners has been reviewing the Marin
County's new "Housing Element" plan and the public
process for its approval. The Housing Element (HE) is
the key component of Marin County's General Plan that
lays out where growth and high density housing will be
located over the next 8 years. This plan will impact us
all and particularly if you live in unincorporated
areas.
CVP and community groups are requesting that the HE be
changed to better reflect the planning needs of Marin,
and its approval process be extended to allow time for
more residents and elected officials to review and
comment on it.
We are writing to ask for your help.
1 - Please CONTACT Your County Supervisor and County
Planners: Below is a letter we are sending to the
County Board of Supervisors and the County Planning
Department, requesting that they amend the current plan
and extend the public outreach period. If you agree,
please add your comments of support and cut and paste
the letter below to the Marin County Board of
Supervisors and the Planning Department BEFORE AUGUST
25TH.
Supervisors:
Steve Kinsey:
SKinsey@marincounty.org
Susan Adams:
SAdams@marincounty.org
Katie Rice:
KRice@marincounty.org
Judy Arnold:
JArnold@marincounty.org
Kate Sears:
KSears@marincounty.org
Marin County Planning:
Brian Crawford:
BCrawford@marincounty.org
2 - Please DONATE to CVP to Support Our Monitoring and
Legal Costs: CVP has retained legal counsel to review
the HE for legal compliance, to attend public hearings
as needed, to submit legal commentary about the plan and
its impacts, and to monitor the County's ongoing
decision-making process through certification by the
State. Our funding goal is $15,000 for this campaign.
To donate go to:
http://MarinAgainstDensity.us8.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=8fbb41de902eb338ae24e4981&id=2272630802&e=0771457a4f
(Specify “Marin County Housing Element”)
3 - Please FORWARD this email to others who you feel
would have an interest in supporting this effort.
Thank you for your continued support!
Bob Silvestri
Community Venture Partners
A Catalyst for Sustainable Solutions
73 Surrey Avenue
Mill Valley, CA 94941
http://MarinAgainstDensity.us8.list-manage.com/track/click?u=8fbb41de902eb338ae24e4981&id=efdfd9e111&e=0771457a4f
...............................................................................................................................................................................
REQUEST TO AMEND THE MARIN COUNTY HOUSING ELEMENT
& EXTEND THE PUBLIC REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
August 12, 2014
On Monday, August 25th, the Draft of the Marin County
“Housing Element” (HE) for the 2015-2023 planning cycle
will have its final review by the Planning Commission
before being sent to the Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD) in Sacramento.
The County Housing Element plan will have significant
impacts on all residents of Marin County. It is
important that the public and our elected
representatives on the Board of Supervisors have
adequate time to review and comment on the plan prior to
submission to HCD.
For the reasons noted below, we find that the proposed
HE and its approval process schedule is unresponsive to
community needs and unacceptable. We believe the
submission should be HCD delayed and the review process
extended to allow for greater public participation and
comments by our Marin County Supervisors.
1. Public Workshops Failed: The County
workshops that were held to solicit public input were
biased toward predetermined outcomes. Its participants
were not provided with sufficient facts about potential
housing project site conditions or impacts to make
reasonable, informed decisions.
2. Site and Density Decisions Lack
Sufficient Logic: The methodologies and criteria used by
the County to designate development sites and unit
densities are generally inconsistent, inequitable and
illogical. No reasonable feasibility analysis has been
conducted to evaluate potential negative or unforeseen
outcomes.
3. Fast-Track Schedule is Unnecessary: The County is
fast-tracking the review, submittal and approval of the
HE unnecessarily. The County has until May 31st of 2015
to gain final certification of the HE from HCD, without
risk of penalty of any kind.
4. The Fast-Track Schedule Denies Sufficient Public
Participation: The fast-track timetable for submittal of
the Draft HE to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) is unreasonable and fails to
adequately involve the participation of the general
public. The final document has not been made available
to the public yet. Once the Draft HE is sent to HCD, the
opportunity for public input is over, for all practical
purposes. And many residents are out of town this month,
so are unable to either respond to the draft HE or
attend the August 25th public hearing.
5. The Fast-Track Schedule Denies Sufficient
Participation by Our Elected Officials: The fast-track
timetable for submittal of the Draft HE to the
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)
fails to adequately provide for preliminary review and
comment by our elected representatives on the County
Board of Supervisors. Once the Draft HE is sent to HCD,
the opportunity for significant input or changes by the
BOS is over for all practical purposes.
6. Housing Density Far Exceeds Our Legal Requirements:
The HE’s site and density designations are in excess of
the state mandated Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
quota requirements (the so-called “buffer”) and are
unprecedented and potentially damaging to the character
and economic and environmental sustainability of our
County. The HE and its Alternatives propose to increase
the number of mostly market rate housing units to
approximately 422 percent of the RHNA requirement (781
units planned for instead of 185 required), and the
number of high density affordable units to approximately
242 percent of the RHNA requirement (148 units instead
of 61 required). There is no logical reason or legal
requirement to do this.
7. The State Density Bonus Adds 35 Percent More Units
But Is Not Considered: The HE fails to account for
additional units that will result from the State Density
Bonus law, which can automatically add up to 35 percent
more units for projects providing minimal affordable
housing. This could potentially increase the overall
number of mostly market rate housing units approvable
under this HE to approximately 470 percent (870 units
planned for instead of 185 required) of the RHNA
requirement.
8. Failure to Ensure Affordable Housing: Many of
the HE policies and programs are untested and unlikely
to result in the construction of any truly affordable
housing for those most in need in Marin County. More
than half the “affordable” units noted in the HE are for
families making more than $97,100 a year.
9. Significant Community and Environmental Impacts: The
housing locations and densities proposed in the HE will
overly impact our local roads, schools, water resources,
infrastructure, and public services, and dramatically
alter the character of our communities, and require
further investigation.
We are strong supporters of realistic affordable housing
solutions. However, based on the findings noted above,
we hereby respectfully request that the County:
I.
Delay the submission of the Draft Housing Element to HCD
until such time as the public has had adequate
opportunity to review it and comment on it, and until
such time as the Board of Supervisors can schedule a
public hearing to review it and comment on it prior to
submission to HCD.
II. Reduce the
number of designated building sites and units that are
in excess of our legal requirements (the “buffer”) to a
number which more realistically addresses our RHNA
obligations under the law, and which is more reasonable
and consistent with what other cities and counties have
done.
III. Refocus on how to create
affordable housing in ways that protect public health
and safety, are more equitably distributed throughout
the County, and are more appropriate for the small-scale
character of our towns and the infill development
opportunities in our communities, and that do not place
unsustainable burdens on the capacity of our roads,
schools, water resources, utilities, infrastructure, and
public services.
Community Venture Partners, Inc.
Marin Against Density
Organized Residents of Marinwood
==============================================
Encourage your friends to send an email to
MarinAgainstDensity@gmail.com asking to be put onto
our email distribution list.
Unsubscribe alanscotch@yahoo.com
from this list:
http://MarinAgainstDensity.us8.list-manage1.com/unsubscribe?u=8fbb41de902eb338ae24e4981&id=6b24bdea17&e=0771457a4f&c=ede076c001
Our mailing address is:
MarinAgainstDensity.org
P. O. Box 684
Kentfield CA 94914
|
|
The meeting March 30th 2015 in Corte Madera is
for the Marin cities' ABAG representatives
only, not the regional ABAG. These meeting of the Marin cities' ABAG reps
are organized by Pat Eklund of Novato, who
represents Marin cities at the regional ABAG meetings
(Katie Rice used to represent the county at regional ABAG, but I believe it
may now be Damon Connolly).
At these Marin-only ABAG meetings, the city representatives are discussing
things that are happening at ABAG such as the next Plan Bay Area update and
its schedule, outreach plans, and methodology. They also help inform Pat
about issues of concern that she can take back to regional ABAG, such as
what went right/wrong with the last Plan Bay Area process. There is no
actual ABAG decision making done at these Marin rep-only meetings. As most
of you know, it is at the ABAG subcommittee meetings such as the ABAG
Executive Board or Administrative Committee where the ABAG policy decisions
are made.
By the way, the Marin ABAG reps for each city do sit on the ABAG General
Assembly, which ABAG claims is responsible for developing policy. In
reality, the General Assembly meets only once per year, usually for less
than 15 minutes, and votes on exactly two things: the annual budget (which
includes a brief "work plan") and the minutes from the previous year's
meeting. For anyone who wants to see this excitement firsthand, the annual
General Assembly meeting is on April 23. A keynote and panel discussion will
precede the business meeting, and a dinner will follow. But under the Brown
Act, the public should be allowed into the business meeting at no charge. It
is scheduled for 6:00. More info here:
http://abag.ca.gov/events/ga/2015/
And yes,
Corte Madera did withdraw from ABAG. So alas, we will not be able
to vote on ABAG's annual budget or to adopt last year's General Assembly
minutes. And as far as I can tell, those are the ONLY downsides to dropping
out.
Back when Corte Madera was in the midst of the 14-month
process to withdraw from ABAG, we researched several alternatives to ABAG,
including:
1. Creating a subregion - Like in San
Mateo County. They receive from ABAG a total RHNA for their
county, and the divvy it up themselves among cities and the unincorporated
areas.
2. Creating a Council of Governments (COG)
- either in Marin or the North Bay. This is how Mendocino and San Benito
counties handle it. It is like a mini-ABAG, with its own staff to manage
RHNA allocations and other regional planning tasks. But the total RHNA
would, I believe, still come from ABAG. But there was the opportunity for
greater input in population projections with this options, I believe,
although I don't have a lot of information about precisely what is allowed
in this respect.
3. Go it alone - which is what the
council ultimately voted to do.
4. And, of course, we could have remained in ABAG.
As Corte Madera was going through the process of withdrawing
from ABAG, a couple of our council members (Bob Ravasio and Carla Condon)
were reaching out to other Marin cities to see if there was interest in
joining with Corte Madera in either a subregion or a COG. What we found was
that there was essentially ZERO interest on the part of other cities
(although some individual council members expressed interest, there was
never enough votes to pursue this in other cities). And the county would not
have gone along with it either. Some of the comments received included that
it would simply lead to bickering over quotas among the cities, or that
Novato and San Rafael would be unfairly burdened with high RHNAs to the
benefit of the other cities. However, I still hear occasional interest in
exploring a North Bay COG. That, to my mind, would probably be the most
feasible option, though I'm not sure trading large regional ABAG for a
mid-sized North Bay COG would give us the level of local control most of us
would really like to see. Especially since the COG would need to abide by
the same state regulations that ABAG does. Before gong down that path, I
think we would need a lot more information about COGs than we currently
have.
They are two completely separate meetings. The one today in
Corte Madera is a discussion by Marin representatives of issues related to
ABAG. It is sort of a small, round-table discussion. In my limited
experience, most Marin
reps do try to attend to stay on top of the issues and provide feedback. But
we're talking 11 cities, and maybe the county. On occasion, there have been
a couple of other interested people who attend,
The Oakland meeting on April 23 is put on by ABAG for all 100 Bay Area
cities who are members of ABAG, plus the 9 counties. It is a big, slick
affair, which I'm guessing is probably professionally produced. It's hard to
say how many Marin reps will want to attend. And for anyone who wants to
attend the whole program, there is a fee (dinner is included in that fee).
But like I said earlier, the business meeting portion should be open to the
public at no charge under the Brown Act.
And regarding Kevin's question about Belvedere and Ross: I
once looked at Ross' Housing Element, and found out the following: Total
RHNA of 18 is largely met with second units and "caretaker cottages", with a
sprinkling of single family sites, apartments over commercial, and a few
others. Interestingly, they include 3 units at the Branson School and 3 at
the Marin Art and Garden Center. I haven't looked at Belvedere's. |
|
The following is a summary of housing permits issued for
all Bay Area jurisdictions for the period between 2007 and 2014.
This data was compiled primarily from Annual Housing Element
Progress Reports (APRs) filed by jurisdictions with the California Department of
Housing and Community Development.
In certain instances when APR data was not available but could be found through
other sources ABAG made use of the data sources below (whose use is noted in the
spreadsheet):
-
Adopted and certified housing
elements for the period between 2007 and 2014
-
Draft housing elements for the
period between 2014-2022
-
Permitting information sent to ABAG
directly by local planning staff
-
Asterisks (*) are used to signify that
no residential permitting data was available from a jurisdiction.
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
Bay Area |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent
of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent
of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent
of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent
of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent
of RHNA Met |
|
Alameda |
10,017 |
2,907 |
29% |
7,616 |
1,695 |
22% |
9,078 |
1,081 |
12% |
18,226 |
11,845 |
65% |
44,937 |
17,528 |
39% |
|
Contra Costa |
6,512 |
1,295 |
20% |
4,325 |
1,031 |
24% |
4,996 |
3,357 |
67% |
11,239 |
9,354 |
83% |
27,072 |
15,037 |
56% |
|
Marin |
1,095 |
232 |
21% |
754 |
223 |
30% |
977 |
211 |
22% |
2,056 |
721 |
35% |
4,882 |
1,387 |
28% |
|
Napa |
879 |
101 |
11% |
574 |
58 |
10% |
713 |
264 |
37% |
1,539 |
907 |
59% |
3,705 |
1,330 |
36% |
|
San Francisco |
6,589 |
3,771 |
57% |
5,535 |
1,031 |
19% |
6,754 |
1,075 |
16% |
12,315 |
10,572 |
86% |
31,193 |
16,449 |
53% |
|
San Mateo |
3,588 |
624 |
17% |
2,581 |
632 |
24% |
3,038 |
662 |
22% |
6,531 |
4,620 |
71% |
15,738 |
6,538 |
42% |
|
Santa Clara |
13,878 |
3,594 |
26% |
9,567 |
2,622 |
27% |
11,007 |
2,292 |
21% |
25,886 |
31,001 |
120% |
60,338 |
39,509 |
65% |
|
Solano |
3,038 |
281 |
9% |
1,996 |
422 |
21% |
2,308 |
999 |
43% |
5,643 |
2,780 |
49% |
12,985 |
4,482 |
35% |
|
Sonoma |
3,244 |
703 |
22% |
2,154 |
726 |
34% |
2,445 |
985 |
40% |
5,807 |
2,828 |
49% |
13,650 |
5,242 |
38% |
|
Bay Area Totals |
48,840 |
13,508 |
28% |
35,102 |
8,440 |
24% |
41,316 |
10,926 |
26% |
89,242 |
74,628 |
84% |
214,500 |
107,502 |
50% |
|
Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
as of 3/27/15 |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
|
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
|
Total |
|
|
ALAMEDA COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
|
Permits Issued |
|
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
|
Alameda * |
482 |
80 |
17% |
329 |
2 |
|
1% |
392 |
3 |
1% |
843 |
40 |
5% |
2,046 |
125 |
6% |
|
Albany 1 |
64 |
0 |
|
0% |
43 |
6 |
|
14% |
52 |
176 |
338% |
117 |
13 |
11% |
276 |
195 |
71% |
|
Berkeley |
328 |
72 |
22% |
424 |
87 |
|
21% |
549 |
19 |
3% |
1,130 |
868 |
77% |
2,431 |
1,046 |
43% |
|
Dublin |
1,092 |
189 |
17% |
661 |
85 |
|
13% |
653 |
44 |
7% |
924 |
2,326 |
252% |
3,330 |
2,644 |
79% |
|
Emeryville |
186 |
110 |
59% |
174 |
3 |
|
2% |
219 |
28 |
13% |
558 |
588 |
105% |
1,137 |
729 |
64% |
|
Fremont * |
1,348 |
198 |
15% |
887 |
54 |
|
6% |
876 |
240 |
27% |
1,269 |
1,924 |
152% |
4,380 |
2,416 |
55% |
|
Hayward |
768 |
96 |
13% |
483 |
0 |
|
0% |
569 |
49 |
9% |
1,573 |
1,572 |
100% |
3,393 |
1,717 |
51% |
|
Livermore |
1,038 |
72 |
|
7% |
660 |
49 |
|
7% |
683 |
181 |
27% |
1,013 |
557 |
55% |
3,394 |
859 |
25% |
|
Newark |
257 |
0 |
|
0% |
160 |
0 |
|
0% |
155 |
0 |
0% |
291 |
|
0 |
3% |
863 |
10 |
1% |
|
Oakland |
1,900 |
1,257 |
66% |
2,098 |
385 |
|
18% |
3,142 |
22 |
1% |
7,489 |
2,188 |
29% |
14,629 |
3,852 |
26% |
|
Piedmont |
13 |
14 |
108% |
10 |
2 |
|
20% |
11 |
15 |
136% |
|
6 |
|
8 |
133% |
40 |
39 |
98% |
|
|
Pleasanton * |
1,076 |
59 |
|
5% |
728 |
29 |
|
4% |
720 |
79 |
11% |
753 |
794 |
105% |
3,277 |
961 |
29% |
|
San Leandro |
368 |
195 |
53% |
228 |
759 |
|
333% |
277 |
19 |
7% |
757 |
83 |
11% |
1,630 |
1,056 |
65% |
|
Union City |
561 |
177 |
32% |
391 |
50 |
|
13% |
380 |
32 |
8% |
612 |
690 |
113% |
1,944 |
949 |
49% |
|
Alameda
County |
536 |
388 |
72% |
340 |
184 |
|
54% |
400 |
174 |
44% |
891 |
184 |
21% |
2,167 |
930 |
43% |
|
County Totals |
10,017 |
2,907 |
29% |
7,616 |
1,695 |
|
22% |
9,078 |
1,081 |
12% |
18,226 |
11,845 |
65% |
44,937 |
17,528 |
39% |
|
Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
as of 3/27/15 |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
|
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
|
Total |
|
|
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
|
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
Antioch |
516 |
8 |
|
2% |
339 |
20 |
|
6% |
381 |
820 |
215% |
1,046 |
282 |
27% |
2,282 |
1,130 |
50% |
|
Brentwood |
717 |
191 |
27% |
435 |
56 |
|
13% |
480 |
170 |
35% |
1,073 |
1,193 |
111% |
2,705 |
1,610 |
60% |
|
Clayton |
49 |
0 |
|
0% |
35 |
1 |
|
3% |
33 |
2 |
6% |
34 |
46 |
135% |
151 |
49 |
32% |
|
Concord |
639 |
2 |
|
0% |
426 |
0 |
|
0% |
498 |
8 |
2% |
1,480 |
216 |
15% |
3,043 |
226 |
7% |
|
Danville 2 |
196 |
2 |
|
1% |
130 |
82 |
|
63% |
146 |
96 |
66% |
111 |
235 |
212% |
583 |
415 |
71% |
|
El Cerrito |
93 |
86 |
92% |
59 |
38 |
|
64% |
80 |
13 |
16% |
199 |
157 |
79% |
431 |
294 |
68% |
|
Hercules 3 |
143 |
0 |
|
0% |
74 |
0 |
|
0% |
73 |
0 |
0% |
163 |
153 |
94% |
453 |
153 |
34% |
|
Lafayette 2 |
113 |
47 |
42% |
77 |
8 |
|
10% |
80 |
8 |
10% |
91 |
170 |
187% |
361 |
233 |
65% |
|
Martinez |
261 |
48 |
18% |
166 |
0 |
|
0% |
179 |
3 |
2% |
454 |
65 |
14% |
1,060 |
116 |
11% |
|
Moraga |
73 |
0 |
|
0% |
47 |
0 |
|
0% |
52 |
0 |
0% |
62 |
|
9 |
15% |
234 |
9 |
4% |
|
Oakley |
219 |
242 |
111% |
120 |
191 |
|
159% |
88 |
874 |
993% |
348 |
331 |
95% |
775 |
1,638 |
211% |
|
Orinda |
70 |
72 |
103% |
48 |
20 |
|
42% |
55 |
8 |
15% |
45 |
96 |
213% |
218 |
196 |
90% |
|
Pinole |
83 |
2 |
|
2% |
49 |
1 |
|
2% |
48 |
10 |
21% |
143 |
59 |
41% |
323 |
72 |
22% |
|
Pittsburg
* |
322 |
79 |
25% |
223 |
126 |
|
57% |
296 |
450 |
152% |
931 |
839 |
90% |
1,772 |
1,494 |
84% |
|
Pleasant Hill |
160 |
8 |
|
5% |
105 |
1 |
|
1% |
106 |
4 |
4% |
257 |
167 |
65% |
628 |
180 |
29% |
|
Richmond 7 |
391 |
74 |
19% |
339 |
153 |
|
45% |
540 |
243 |
45% |
1,556 |
752 |
48% |
2,826 |
1,222 |
43% |
|
San Pablo |
22 |
0 |
|
0% |
38 |
1 |
|
3% |
60 |
3 |
5% |
178 |
|
0 |
0% |
298 |
4 |
1% |
|
San Ramon |
1,174 |
196 |
17% |
715 |
255 |
|
36% |
740 |
297 |
40% |
834 |
2,031 |
244% |
3,463 |
2,779 |
80% |
|
Walnut Creek |
456 |
150 |
33% |
302 |
25 |
|
8% |
374 |
18 |
5% |
826 |
881 |
107% |
1,958 |
1,074 |
55% |
|
Contra Costa County |
815 |
88 |
11% |
598 |
53 |
|
9% |
687 |
330 |
48% |
1,408 |
1,672 |
119% |
3,508 |
2,143 |
61% |
|
County Totals |
6,512 |
1,295 |
20% |
4,325 |
1,031 |
|
24% |
4,996 |
3,357 |
67% |
11,239 |
9,354 |
83% |
27,072 |
15,037 |
56% |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
MARIN COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
Belvedere |
5 |
2 |
40% |
4 |
5 |
125% |
4 |
2 |
50% |
4 |
11 |
275% |
17 |
20 |
118% |
|
Corte Madera
* |
68 |
64 |
94% |
38 |
30 |
79% |
46 |
4 |
9% |
92 |
163 |
177% |
244 |
261 |
107% |
|
Fairfax |
23 |
0 |
0% |
12 |
0 |
0% |
19 |
2 |
11% |
54 |
6 |
11% |
108 |
8 |
7% |
|
Larkspur 1 |
90 |
24 |
27% |
55 |
8 |
15% |
75 |
7 |
9% |
162 |
41 |
25% |
382 |
80 |
21% |
|
Mill Valley |
74 |
23 |
31% |
54 |
50 |
93% |
68 |
23 |
34% |
96 |
67 |
70% |
292 |
163 |
56% |
|
Novato |
275 |
71 |
26% |
171 |
3 |
2% |
221 |
117 |
53% |
574 |
100 |
17% |
1,241 |
291 |
23% |
|
Ross |
8 |
1 |
13% |
6 |
3 |
50% |
5 |
3 |
60% |
8 |
1 |
13% |
27 |
8 |
30% |
|
San Anselmo 4 |
26 |
0* |
0% |
19 |
0* |
0% |
21 |
0* |
0% |
47 |
0* |
0% |
113 |
0* |
0% |
|
San Rafael |
262 |
31 |
12% |
207 |
25 |
12% |
288 |
0 |
0% |
646 |
94 |
15% |
1,403 |
150 |
11% |
|
Sausalito |
45 |
5 |
11% |
30 |
12 |
40% |
34 |
2 |
6% |
56 |
20 |
36% |
165 |
39 |
24% |
|
Tiburon |
36 |
0 |
0% |
21 |
3 |
14% |
27 |
0 |
0% |
33 |
9 |
27% |
117 |
12 |
10% |
|
Marin County |
183 |
11 |
6% |
137 |
84 |
61% |
169 |
51 |
30% |
284 |
209 |
74% |
773 |
355 |
46% |
|
County Totals |
1,095 |
232 |
21% |
754 |
223 |
30% |
977 |
211 |
22% |
2,056 |
721 |
35% |
4,882 |
1,387 |
28% |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
NAPA COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
American Canyon |
169 |
0 |
0% |
116 |
0 |
0% |
143 |
2 |
1% |
300 |
86 |
29% |
728 |
88 |
12% |
|
Calistoga |
17 |
14 |
82% |
11 |
9 |
82% |
18 |
2 |
11% |
48 |
8 |
17% |
94 |
33 |
35% |
|
Napa |
466 |
54 |
12% |
295 |
13 |
4% |
381 |
158 |
41% |
882 |
466 |
53% |
2,024 |
691 |
34% |
|
St. Helena |
30 |
2 |
7% |
21 |
8 |
38% |
25 |
16 |
64% |
45 |
25 |
56% |
121 |
51 |
42% |
|
Yountville 2 |
16 |
20 |
125% |
15 |
22 |
147% |
16 |
12 |
75% |
40 |
16 |
40% |
87 |
70 |
80% |
|
Napa County * |
181 |
11 |
6% |
116 |
6 |
5% |
130 |
74 |
57% |
224 |
306 |
137% |
651 |
397 |
61% |
|
County Totals |
879 |
101 |
11% |
574 |
58 |
10% |
713 |
264 |
37% |
1,539 |
907 |
59% |
3,705 |
1,330 |
36% |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
San Francisco 5 |
6,589 |
3,771 |
57% |
5,535 |
1,031 |
19% |
6,754 |
1,075 |
16% |
12,315 |
10,572 |
86% |
31,193 |
16,449 |
53% |
|
County Totals |
6,589 |
3,771 |
57% |
5,535 |
1,031 |
19% |
6,754 |
1,075 |
16% |
12,315 |
10,572 |
86% |
31,193 |
16,449 |
53% |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
SAN MATEO COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
Atherton |
19 |
14 |
74% |
14 |
0 |
0% |
16 |
0 |
0% |
34 |
-13 |
-38% |
83 |
1 |
1% |
|
Belmont |
91 |
0 |
0% |
65 |
0 |
0% |
77 |
4 |
5% |
166 |
27 |
16% |
399 |
31 |
8% |
|
Brisbane 5 |
91 |
0 |
0% |
66 |
0 |
0% |
77 |
6 |
8% |
167 |
100 |
60% |
401 |
106 |
26% |
|
Burlingame |
148 |
0 |
0% |
107 |
0 |
0% |
125 |
8 |
6% |
270 |
69 |
26% |
650 |
77 |
12% |
|
Colma |
15 |
0 |
0% |
11 |
0 |
0% |
13 |
0 |
0% |
26 |
2 |
8% |
65 |
2 |
3% |
|
Daly City 2 |
275 |
76 |
28% |
198 |
51 |
26% |
233 |
33 |
14% |
501 |
375 |
75% |
1,207 |
535 |
44% |
|
East Palo Alto |
144 |
4 |
3% |
103 |
0 |
0% |
122 |
74 |
61% |
261 |
116 |
44% |
630 |
194 |
31% |
|
Foster City |
111 |
15 |
14% |
80 |
40 |
50% |
94 |
5 |
5% |
201 |
248 |
123% |
486 |
308 |
63% |
|
Half Moon Bay 4 |
63 |
0* |
0% |
45 |
0* |
0% |
53 |
0* |
0% |
115 |
0* |
0% |
276 |
0* |
0% |
|
Hillsborough |
20 |
66 |
330% |
14 |
7 |
50% |
17 |
8 |
47% |
35 |
17 |
49% |
86 |
98 |
114% |
|
Menlo Park * |
226 |
6 |
3% |
163 |
9 |
6% |
192 |
24 |
13% |
412 |
179 |
43% |
993 |
218 |
22% |
|
Millbrae |
103 |
1 |
1% |
74 |
2 |
3% |
87 |
18 |
21% |
188 |
407 |
216% |
452 |
428 |
95% |
|
Pacifica |
63 |
5 |
8% |
45 |
1 |
2% |
53 |
44 |
83% |
114 |
154 |
135% |
275 |
204 |
74% |
|
Portola Valley 4 |
17 |
0* |
0% |
12 |
0* |
0% |
14 |
0* |
0% |
31 |
0* |
0% |
74 |
0* |
0% |
|
Redwood City |
422 |
82 |
19% |
304 |
82 |
27% |
358 |
94 |
26% |
772 |
1,316 |
170% |
1,856 |
1,574 |
85% |
|
San Bruno |
222 |
16 |
7% |
160 |
299 |
187% |
188 |
281 |
149% |
403 |
168 |
42% |
973 |
764 |
79% |
|
San Carlos |
137 |
2 |
1% |
98 |
5 |
5% |
116 |
14 |
12% |
248 |
117 |
47% |
599 |
138 |
23% |
|
San Mateo |
695 |
163 |
23% |
500 |
56 |
11% |
589 |
35 |
6% |
1,267 |
744 |
59% |
3,051 |
998 |
33% |
|
South San Francisco |
373 |
108 |
29% |
268 |
7 |
3% |
315 |
8 |
3% |
679 |
128 |
19% |
1,635 |
251 |
15% |
|
Woodside |
10 |
4 |
40% |
7 |
4 |
57% |
8 |
5 |
63% |
16 |
39 |
244% |
41 |
52 |
127% |
|
San Mateo County 2 |
343 |
62 |
18% |
247 |
69 |
28% |
291 |
1 |
0% |
625 |
427 |
68% |
1,506 |
559 |
37% |
|
County Totals |
3,588 |
624 |
17% |
2,581 |
632 |
24% |
3,038 |
662 |
22% |
6,531 |
4,620 |
71% |
15,738 |
6,538 |
42% |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
SANTA CLARA COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
Campbell |
199 |
32 |
16% |
122 |
300 |
246% |
158 |
67 |
42% |
413 |
149 |
36% |
892 |
548 |
61% |
|
Cupertino |
341 |
38 |
11% |
229 |
31 |
14% |
243 |
58 |
24% |
357 |
615 |
172% |
1,170 |
742 |
63% |
|
Gilroy |
319 |
29 |
9% |
217 |
67 |
31% |
271 |
51 |
19% |
808 |
1,044 |
129% |
1,615 |
1,191 |
74% |
|
Los Altos |
98 |
22 |
22% |
66 |
5 |
8% |
79 |
11 |
14% |
74 |
584 |
789% |
317 |
622 |
196% |
|
Los Altos Hills |
27 |
25 |
93% |
19 |
10 |
53% |
22 |
5 |
23% |
13 |
47 |
362% |
81 |
87 |
107% |
|
Los Gatos |
154 |
2 |
1% |
100 |
41 |
41% |
122 |
5 |
4% |
186 |
180 |
97% |
562 |
228 |
41% |
|
Milpitas |
689 |
336 |
49% |
421 |
109 |
26% |
441 |
264 |
60% |
936 |
5,601 |
598% |
2,487 |
6,310 |
254% |
|
Monte Sereno |
13 |
6 |
46% |
9 |
11 |
122% |
11 |
3 |
27% |
8 |
10 |
125% |
41 |
30 |
73% |
|
Morgan Hill |
317 |
98 |
31% |
249 |
100 |
40% |
246 |
36 |
15% |
500 |
1,027 |
205% |
1,312 |
1,261 |
96% |
|
Mountain View |
571 |
211 |
37% |
388 |
9 |
2% |
488 |
4 |
1% |
1,152 |
1,789 |
155% |
2,599 |
2,013 |
77% |
|
Palo Alto |
690 |
156 |
23% |
543 |
9 |
2% |
641 |
125 |
20% |
986 |
773 |
78% |
2,860 |
1,063 |
37% |
|
San Jose |
7,751 |
1,774 |
23% |
5,322 |
1,038 |
20% |
6,198 |
144 |
2% |
15,450 |
13,073 |
85% |
34,721 |
16,029 |
46% |
|
Santa Clara 7 |
1,293 |
385 |
30% |
914 |
83 |
9% |
1,002 |
165 |
16% |
2,664 |
3,941 |
148% |
5,873 |
4,574 |
78% |
|
Saratoga |
90 |
0 |
0% |
68 |
13 |
19% |
77 |
5 |
6% |
57 |
20 |
35% |
292 |
38 |
13% |
|
Sunnyvale |
1,073 |
438 |
41% |
708 |
400 |
56% |
776 |
1,183 |
152% |
1,869 |
1,773 |
95% |
4,426 |
3,794 |
86% |
|
Santa Clara County |
253 |
42 |
17% |
192 |
396 |
206% |
232 |
166 |
72% |
413 |
375 |
91% |
1,090 |
979 |
90% |
|
County Totals |
13,878 |
3,594 |
26% |
9,567 |
2,622 |
27% |
11,007 |
2,292 |
21% |
25,886 |
31,001 |
120% |
60,338 |
39,509 |
65% |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
SOLANO COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
Benicia * |
147 |
0 |
0% |
99 |
3 |
3% |
108 |
0 |
0% |
178 |
94 |
53% |
532 |
97 |
18% |
|
Dixon |
197 |
117 |
59% |
98 |
4 |
4% |
123 |
2 |
2% |
310 |
1 |
0% |
728 |
124 |
17% |
|
Fairfield |
873 |
0 |
0% |
562 |
0 |
0% |
675 |
33 |
5% |
1,686 |
1,210 |
72% |
3,796 |
1,243 |
33% |
|
Rio Vista |
213 |
22 |
10% |
176 |
167 |
95% |
207 |
360 |
174% |
623 |
427 |
69% |
1,219 |
976 |
80% |
|
Suisun City |
173 |
112 |
65% |
109 |
81 |
74% |
94 |
21 |
22% |
234 |
206 |
88% |
610 |
420 |
69% |
|
Vacaville |
754 |
14 |
2% |
468 |
150 |
32% |
515 |
582 |
113% |
1,164 |
644 |
55% |
2,901 |
1,390 |
48% |
|
Vallejo |
655 |
16 |
2% |
468 |
13 |
3% |
568 |
0 |
0% |
1,409 |
194 |
14% |
3,100 |
223 |
7% |
|
Solano County 5,6,7 |
26 |
0 |
0% |
16 |
4 |
25% |
18 |
1 |
6% |
39 |
4 |
10% |
99 |
9 |
9% |
|
County Totals |
3,038 |
281 |
9% |
1,996 |
422 |
21% |
2,308 |
999 |
43% |
5,643 |
2,780 |
49% |
12,985 |
4,482 |
35% |
| |
Very Low (0-50% AMI) |
Low (50-80% AMI) |
Moderate (80-120% AMI) |
Above Moderate (120%+ AMI) |
Total |
|
SONOMA COUNTY |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
RHNA |
Permits Issued |
Percent of RHNA Met |
|
Cloverdale |
71 |
2 |
3% |
61 |
1 |
2% |
81 |
39 |
48% |
204 |
0 |
0% |
417 |
42 |
10% |
|
Cotati |
67 |
0 |
0% |
36 |
2 |
6% |
45 |
5 |
11% |
109 |
7 |
6% |
257 |
14 |
5% |
|
Healdsburg |
71 |
60 |
85% |
48 |
23 |
48% |
55 |
8 |
15% |
157 |
82 |
52% |
331 |
173 |
52% |
|
Petaluma |
522 |
136 |
26% |
352 |
53 |
15% |
370 |
28 |
8% |
701 |
645 |
92% |
1,945 |
862 |
44% |
|
Rohnert Park 3
* |
371 |
24 |
6% |
231 |
0 |
0% |
273 |
1 |
0% |
679 |
6 |
1% |
1,554 |
31 |
2% |
|
Santa Rosa
* |
1,520 |
312 |
21% |
996 |
391 |
39% |
1,122 |
636 |
57% |
2,896 |
959 |
33% |
6,534 |
2,298 |
35% |
|
Sebastopol |
32 |
37 |
116% |
28 |
62 |
221% |
29 |
9 |
31% |
87 |
35 |
40% |
176 |
143 |
81% |
|
Sonoma |
73 |
40 |
55% |
55 |
31 |
56% |
69 |
24 |
35% |
156 |
61 |
39% |
353 |
156 |
44% |
|
Windsor |
198 |
52 |
26% |
130 |
36 |
28% |
137 |
27 |
20% |
254 |
44 |
17% |
719 |
159 |
22% |
|
Sonoma County * |
319 |
40 |
13% |
217 |
127 |
59% |
264 |
208 |
79% |
564 |
989 |
175% |
1,364 |
1,364 |
100% |
|
County Totals |
3,244 |
703 |
22% |
2,154 |
726 |
34% |
2,445 |
985 |
40% |
5,807 |
2,828 |
49% |
13,650 |
5,242 |
38% |
-
No data available permits issued in 2013.
-
Data provided by local staff. Building permits
finalized.
-
Data from RHNA 4 (2007-2014) Housing Element.
-
No data available for the jurisdiction.
-
Data is for Certificates of Occupancy issued.
-
Jurisdiction did not provide breakdown of low and
very low income units; ABAG counted units as low
-
Data from RHNA 5 Housing Element (2014-2022).
* see Litigation
source
|
