You are on page 1of 28

June 2002 Key Findings

San Francisco Bay Area 72% of Bay Area governments are failing

Housing
to take the most basic steps to address
the affordable housing shortage.

Crisis
Three local actions could double the
production of affordable homes: allowing
more apartments to be built, dedicating

Report
local funds to affordable housing, and
adopting inclusionary zoning.

Card
Local governments helped cause our
affordable housing shortage but also have
the means to turn failure into success.

Desperate for housing
A crowd gathers at San Francisco Housing Authority
after the waiting list for low income housing vouchers
was reopened for the first time in three years.

The Voice of Affordable Housing

San Francisco Bay Area
Housing Crisis Report Card
Table Of Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Grades on the Housing Crisis Report Card ............................................................................... 3
How Cities Prolong The Bay Area Housing Crisis ................................................................. 4
What the Grades Mean ............................................................................................................... 6
Who Needs Affordable Housing in the Bay Area? .................................................................. 7
The Status Quo Is Failing To Provide Housing Choices ........................................................... 8
Housing Element Results Fall Short: New Affordable Housing 1988—1998 ........................ 9
How Cities Can Make The Grade .............................................................................................. 10
Housing 101: Zoning for Housing Choices and Smart Growth ........................................... 10
Dedicated Funds for Affordable Housing .............................................................................. 12
Jobs-Housing Linkage Programs ..................................................................................... 12
Increasing Redevelopment Funds for Affordable Housing .............................................. 14
Housing Trust Funds & Bonds ....................................................................................... 15
Inclusionary Policies .............................................................................................................. 16
The Bay Area’s Homework: Housing Reform ............................................................................ 18
Appendix A: Report Card Grading System ................................................................................... 20
Appendix B: Regional Housing Needs Determination .................................................................. 21
Notes ............................................................................................................................................ 24
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................ 25

Copyright Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, Greenbelt Alliance 2002

The Voice of Affordable Housing

The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern Greenbelt Alliance
California (NPH) 530 Bush St., Suite 303,
369 Pine St., Suite 350, San Francisco, CA 94104 San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 989-8160 • www.nonprofithousing.org (415) 398-3730 • www.greenbelt.org

Nine County Housing Advocacy Network
East Bay Housing Organizations
Association of Homeless & Housing Service Providers of Contra Costa County
Marin Housing Council
Napa Valley Nonprofit Housing Coalition
Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County
Council of Community Housing Organizations, San Francisco
Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Housing and Homeless Issues
Sonoma County Housing Advocacy Group
California Affordable Housing Law Project

Low wage workers—who are disproportionately people of color— will be unable to live near their jobs. and commutes will only get longer. from young 2. The Housing Crisis Report Card new housing include at least 15% of all homes examines the extent to which cities and counties are as affordable to lower income residents. to house its growing population this comprehensive look at housing elements in the Bay nine-county region will need to add over 230.Executive Summary Local Government Inaction is Worsening The Housing Crisis Can be Solved the Bay Area’s Housing Crisis Three straightforward local government actions This Report Card reveals why the San Francisco Bay could double the creation of affordable homes in Area continues to have a housing crisis. housing trust funds. Adopting Inclusionary Zoning: Require that adopt them. these policies are counties. quarters earned unsatisfactory marks. local governments can help end it. Of those. and how our existing cities and towns across the Bay Area. yet all too many local governments have declined to 3. selected because they are among the already in place and effective in some Bay Area largest and fastest growing places in the Bay Area. It takes a closer look at 40 key cities and As the examples that follow show. California law requires each city and new homes from 1999-2006. range of housing choices for everyone. These solutions can increase the overall supply of and additional revenues from Redevelopment housing. while nearly three. at least county to plan for its “fair share” of housing for 72. of the Bay Area’s 109 jurisdictions.000 per year—must be people of all income levels. cities and counties that are serious about solving the Of these 40 cities and counties. homelessness will rise and young families with children will continue to be priced out of the region. Creating Housing Choices: In order to Bay Area’s affordable housing shortage. including permanently affordable housing. allow apartments and condominiums to be built There is a set of proven solutions that can provide a where they are now prohibited. which also incorporates an historic home. Photo: Tom Jones/California Futures Network. Strobridge Court Apartments in Castro Valley was built by BRIDGE Housing as a mixed- use development adjacent to BART. increase the overall supply of housing. Dedicating Local Funds to Housing: Use working families to grandparents on fixed incomes. 1 . Planning for Failure According to the Association of Bay Area The Housing Crisis Report Card is the first Governments.000—nearly 10. Failing to Plan. jobs-housing linkage fees. adopting common sense strategies for affordable housing. The housing element affordable to lower-income families.000 Area. A major cause They are: of the crisis is that 72% of the region’s cities and counties are failing to take basic steps to address the 1. Areas to create new affordable housing. If local is the state-mandated plan for meeting housing governments do not act. They should be in effect in every one the housing Honor Roll. only seven made housing crisis.

39% is not doing its part. everyone from our children to our grandparents. is choices for all of us. year after year. The third leg is our cities and counties. 89% of Bay Area cities and counties are not complying with our state’s “fair share” housing law. One important development that will start us toward solutions is recent action by the California legislature. At the end of the 1990s. removing homes has been introduced in Congress.5 million affordable accommodate a range of housing choices. Because California’s “fair of Bay Area cities were out of compliance with the share” housing law has no teeth.. cities must provide for a broad spectrum of Washington D. and carrying out programs to assist in the development of But as this Report Card shows. Bay Area housing elements were due to be placed a $2. 2 . Investing to solve the housing crisis makes sense Building more housing overall—and investing in affordable housing in particular—strengthens our economy by ensuring that businesses have access to high quality workers. refuse to provide housing housing types. and that leg’s weakness could collapse the whole stool if stronger action is not taken soon. Today. And this Report Card’s leaders continue to shirk their responsibilities.C. a National Housing Trust Fund housing by using their zoning power to to produce and preserve 1. local government obstacles to housing. The Governor and legislators have needs. And in By law. and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2002— before voters in November 2002.1 billion housing bond—the Housing updated in 2001 for the first time in ten years. cities and counties that are doing their “fair share” to meet housing needs—and real consequences for The problem of failing to plan for a diversity of those that. And it protects our environment by guiding new growth toward our existing cities and towns and away from our beautiful rolling hills and rich farmlands. local government affordable housing. Solving the housing crisis will take all levels of government The federal and state government are two legs of a three-legged stool that supports the creation of affordable housing. It strengthens our communities by ensuring that the full diversity of Bay Area residents has decent housing. including affordable housing. The findings show that less than one-third of the needed alternative is a new state law with real rewards for affordable housing was actually built. 1 This report puts Bay Area leaders on alert that the region’s housing crisis will worsen unless they act to adopt needed solutions. far too many city “fair share” housing law. getting worse.

Good Mountain View Napa (City) Honor Roll Sonoma County Berkeley Vacaville Needs East Palo Alto Improvement Palo Alto Concord Petaluma Contra Costa County San Jose Cupertino Santa Clara (City) San Mateo Sunnyvale Milpitas San Ramon Good 10% Honor Roll Needs 18% Improvement 15% Incomplete Fail 28% 29% Incomplete* Antioch Fail Dublin Alameda (City) Livermore Alameda County2 Mountain View Brentwood Novato Daly City Oakland Fairfield Pleasanton Fremont Richmond Hayward San Francisco Pittsburg San Leandro Redwood City San Rafael Santa Rosa Solano County Vallejo Walnut Creek *Housing element not available as of 5/1/02 Chart has been updated 3 since report publish date. Later sections give specific examples of local housing policies and programs that aid—or prevent—cities and counties from meeting their goals. the factors making up each city’s grade are described below. Grades of 40 Key Cities on the Housing Crisis Report Card These grades were developed by scoring housing elements on the 105- point report card shown in the Appendix. . In the next section.

(See Appendix B for the status local residents and workers. It is the first comprehensive look at failing to take basic steps to end the crisis. Photo: Burbank Housing. for the poor to Their housing elements are far from visionary. with some of the least This Housing Crisis Report Card examines how well affordable rents and home prices in the nation. and where it is built. and counties can play a key role in encouraging more housing to be built. They have vision of housing choices for all. That is the vision that city leaders should strive to make a reality. is the site of this attractive new community.How Cities Prolong the Bay Area Housing Crisis There is broad awareness that the San Francisco Bay The Housing Elements: Planning for Failure Area has a housing crisis. and determining what kind of When local housing elements were compared with the housing is built. they can make it easier for young would double affordable housing production. Called Old Elm Village. the majority of Bay Area cities often built by nonprofit developers. families to find homes they can afford. 4 . they 1999-2006 period. Families at Old Elm Village earn between 30% and 80% of area median income. What Bay Area cities and counties are working to achieve is less well known is that most cities and counties are that vision.3 Our cities update in 2001 for the first time in ten years. housing elements in the Bay Area. and for rolling hills and farmlands cities have not even finished a housing element for the to be free from development pressures. housing. it was developed by Burbank Housing Development Corporation to provide 87 apartments and townhouses near downtown Petaluma. while protecting the of every Bay Area jurisdiction’s housing element. despite the statutory deadline of can plan for a diversity of housing choices for all December 31. infill development. and local dollars in housing. it was clear that some responsibility for land use and zoning. The housing element is a part of each locality’s General Plan. Petaluma. However. If elected officials and counties are declining to take simple steps that exercise leadership. which is below. Other avoid homelessness. The City of Petaluma provided part of the financing for this mixed-use. In short. its The Role of Local Government in Providing constitution for growth.) environment. 2001. so that our region can prosper. state. a small city which earned a place in the Honor Roll on the Housing Crisis Report Card. they must create an environment where housing housing which Bay Area jurisdictions were due to can be built for people of all income levels. It represents an opportunity Housing Choices for All for cities to rezone and change policies to favor Cities and counties are not responsible for building housing for residents and local workers of all incomes. And local communities are leading the way out of the crisis with governments fund affordable housing by investing common sense approaches described in the sections federal. but under California’s “fair share” housing The housing element is a state-mandated plan for law.

This Housing Crisis Report Card shows that our region’s analysis of why the region is not meeting its housing housing crisis will worsen without a major change of needs as a whole.36 $18. And only 18% while preventing sprawl. or Incomplete for their efforts to housing—by investing in our existing cities and towns meet local affordable housing needs. direction. which have jurisdiction over neighbors’ children. common sense strategies of others in order 72% earned an unsatisfactory grade of Needs to increase the supply of housing—especially affordable Improvement. the successful.87 U. where 80% of new Bay Area households are residents about the many strategies they can use to offer expected to settle. The grades in this Housing Crisis Report Card are offered to give an honest assessment of local housing performance and plans.33 $13. Of these 40 cities and counties. It takes a close look at and citizens understand how their community’s efforts 40 key cities and counties. The Report Card provides an What a Full Time Worker Must Earn to Afford a 2 Bedroom Apartment. The Report Card examines the extent to which Bay Area cities and counties are adopting common sense Equally important. selected because they are measure up to those of their neighbors. Average California Average San Francisco Bay Area Source: "Out of Reach 2001. It is hoped that among the largest and fastest growing places in the this report will inform local officials and concerned region. They include incorporated cities and more choices in housing for their children and their also counties. many local housing elements are still in draft form. And those already adopted can be amended at any time." National Low Income Housing Coalition 5 . Cities that fall short should replicate unincorporated land. 2001 $27. Fail.S. it is designed to help local officials strategies for affordable housing. Fortunately. The good news is that the proven strategies described in this Report Card can ensure that housing is available and within reach for many more Bay Area residents. made the housing Honor Roll.

4 About half of the need 230. The other half of the need B). The down by income: localities studied include incorporated cities and also • Above moderate incomes are at least 120% of area counties. development of affordable housing locally.) sector and faith community. and representatives of the public low income households. To develop the Report Card. ABAG divides up the needed housing among region. Report Card grades can help need affordable rental housing. and need different types of help to access it. (The comes from current residents. nearly a quarter of a million new homes are The Bay Area as a whole is expected to grow by needed in the Bay Area by 2006.743 households from 1999 to 2006. These were Many families below median income need financial used as a yardstick to grade housing elements from the assistance to buy their own home. income advocates. including single people living and working in the community. smart growth (The term “lower income” includes both low and very environmentalists. These 40 localities are where 184. • Moderate incomes are from 80% to 120% of area median income How Cities were Scored • Low incomes are from 50% to 80% of area median The housing element grading system was developed by income the Nine County Housing Advocacy Network. legal professionals. such as young adults breakdown by city and income is given in Appendix starting families of their own. The Carroll St. Network members examined what policies and People of different incomes seek different types of approaches either encouraged or hindered the housing. Financial assistance from the City of Sunnyvale—which made the Housing Crisis Report Card Honor Roll—helped make the Carroll Inn a reality. Its 119 mini-studios were developed by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition. lower incomes (up to 80% of median income) often Therefore. which have jurisdiction over unincorporated median income land.000 (or its member local governments—and further breaks it 80%) of those households are expected to settle. Photo: Tom Jones/California Futures Network 6 .What the Grades Mean According to the Association of Bay Area Governments Putting Forty Key Cities to the Test (ABAG). while those with Bay Area’s most important housing markets. This report examines housing elements from 40 of stems from new arrivals moving into the region to fill the largest and fastest growing communities in the jobs here. Inn near Sunnyvale's town center offers affordable housing to people with very modest incomes. a • Very low incomes are below 50% of area median unique grouping of housing service providers. and single parents with one child. seniors on fixed incomes.

...000 Retail Salesperson ................ $50........................ 1 wage earner) ...........................citizens and local officials understand how their • solicited input from the public in developing its community’s efforts measure up to those of their housing element and commits to annually neighbors.......... which include measurable outcomes..... $56.................200 Landscape Architect ................ zoning for higher densities near transit. reporting to the public on progress in implementation................. $27......200 Very Low Income (less than 50% of median) Child Care Worker . compact housing types....100 Police Patrol Officer....................................................................... $55........80% of median) Emergency Dispatcher ......... mixed use zoning............................... such as Redevelopment funds...600 Registered Nurse .........................................900 Low Income (50% .... section........ $41.................. housing development.....................500 Delivery Truck Driver . to low and/or moderate income housing....................800 Median Income (80% . $63............... More information about the grading • uses “smart growth” strategies—including infill methodology can be found in Appendix A.......... Incomes are calculated as the simple mean of the five Bay Area primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs)............................................. $20............................ California Department of Housing and Community Development & California Employment Development Department..................... a responsible agency or official........................100% of median) Computer Support Specialist .... and Report Card grades reflect whether a community: • has developed unique initiatives to meet local • has results-oriented housing production programs affordable housing needs........... Data from Bay Area Economics....................... $50..... • has programs to preserve and stabilize existing affordable housing... which is discussed in the next income groups................... $48. Grades are a measure of cities’ plans for the future.......................... $63.............. timelines.... zoned appropriately for all affordable housing............” 2002..... • has enough land to meet all of its housing need they do not reflect past performance in building identified by ABAG.................... Who needs affordable housing in the Bay Area? Median Household Income (3 people............... as required by law.....300 Loan Officer ....................... $27. $23.............................................................. • has adopted “inclusionary zoning” requiring all new housing to include homes affordable to low and/or moderate income families...800 Elementary School Teacher ................600 Medical Assistant .......................................................................800 Source: Smart Growth Strategy Regional Livability Footprint Project “Alternatives Report.. 7 ........................................ and decreased parking requirements........................... • commits local funding...........000 Firefighter .................... and source of funds.................. $64.........................

Santa Rosa. health Northern California and the California Affordable care. cities and counties can meet their goals by housing element certified by the state Department of creating an environment where housing can be Housing and Community Development (HCD). effective policies such as inclusionary zoning. Photo credit: disabled renter. moratorium on 600 acres of land until a court 8 . such in downtown Berkeley cities do risk being sued and being ordered to halt house seniors earning development of lucrative commercial projects until less than half of area affordable housing programs are in place. Fairfield. Brentwood. and typically jurisdictions’ past success or failure in producing equal the projected housing needs calculated by the affordable housing. For instance. Housing Law Project on behalf of a low income. while not meeting their affordable housing goals. From 1988-1998. which is close to homes. even though they are legally required housing needed. close. The developer. current state law doesn’t require city affordable only to those families earning over 120% of housing plans and programs to address all of the factors median income. many localities fall far short of their certified housing elements built 34% of needed affordablehousing goals. 40 key Bay Area needed to build affordable housing. and Walnut Creek all uses a broader set of criteria than does HCD to evaluate surpassed their goals for above moderate income housing elements. while Brentwood and Petaluma came to do so. However. and services. section.) Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). One recent example of such a case involves the was able to provide Sacramento suburb of Folsom. Most local governments don't directly build housing.) For this reason. For instance. still fell far short of meeting their affordable housing goals. As shown in the table. Fremont. Pleasanton. At the same time. cities produced 117% of the above moderate income housing element compliance doesn’t require that cities housing needed. both for-profit and non-profit. Many cities neglect to in 40 key Bay Area cities and counties. most cities and counties had a Instead. There are few automatic consequences for a local government that does not adopt a housing element meeting the minimum legal standard—or does not implement the These 27 apartments programs and policies called for therein. Vacaville. From 1988-1998. approaches and others are described in the next Napa. Folsom lost a suit brought by Legal Services of BART. those with Year after year. Only implement the programs they commit to in their Richmond succeeded in building all of the affordable housing elements. but only 32% of the affordable fund affordable housing development. San Jose. In addition. shops. housing. The judge imposed a development East Bay Housing Organizations.Status Quo Failing To Provide Housing Choices Every city and county sets goals for building housing (Note that Report Card grades evaluate city and county for families of all income levels. Livermore. After adopting a four more apartments housing element in 1992. by not including any Folsom proceeded to build thousands of market rate parking in the build- ing. median income. the Housing Crisis Report Card Solano County. Affordable Housing Associates. only 32% affordable housing while those without certified of the planned affordable housing was actually built elements built a mere 9%. or adopt housing needed. and do not take into account goals are stated in every housing element. yet built by developers. Of the 40 key cities and counties. (These Contra Costa County. which HCD rejected. the state has not taken a strong role in enforcing its own housing element law. The numerical housing plans for the future. many communities exceeded their goals for "above moderate" income housing. Santa Clara. Cities ignoring state law may have to answer in court Unfortunately. Antioch.

2002. Any private attorney representing a Redwood City 24% NO resident—or would-be resident—of a locality can Richmond 310% YES bring such a suit against that locality if it has not San Francisco 25% YES complied with California’s “fair share” housing law.settlement was reached. Bay Area Economics. Period covered is typically 1988-1998.10 per square Dublin 2% NO foot on commercial and industrial development. Cupertino 15% YES • Create a housing trust fund. San Jose 42% YES State law gives lawyers the right to collect San Leandro no data NO attorney’s fees if they prevail in such public benefit San Mateo 16% YES cases. 9 . Antioch 65% YES • Increase its Redevelopment Low & Moderate Berkeley 64% YES Income Housing set-aside above the state Brentwood 84% YES minimum of 20%.abag. Milpitas 26% YES These bold steps forward should better allow Folsom Mountain View 15% YES to reach its projected housing goals of 2.ca.1998 Compliance? land currently zoned for single family housing as Alameda (City) 51% YES well as commercial sites. East Palo Alto 5% YES Fairfield 30% YES • Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance Fremont 27% YES requiring new residential developments to Hayward 7% YES include 10% very low income units plus 5% low Livermore 48% YES income units. with a new jobs. ABAG website. housing. as Vacaville 17% YES evidenced by the fact that only 11% of the Bay Area’s Vallejo 68% YES 109 localities have adopted a housing element that Walnut Creek 39% YES meets the requirements of state law. the City of Folsom agreed to: New Affordable Housing 1988—1998 • Rezone 128 acres of land for compact housing at densities feasible for 2.900 low and very low Affordable Housing Was Last Housing income multifamily homes. San Rafael 17% YES San Ramon 6% NO A far stronger “fair share” housing law is Santa Clara (City) 12% YES Santa Rosa 16% YES needed Solano County 2% NO The threat of such suits ought to spur recalcitrant Sonoma County 7% NO jurisdictions into coming up with effective housing Sunnyvale 68% YES plans. Concord 37% YES Folsom’s 25% set-aside will amount to one Contra Costa County 16% YES million dollars.gov/planning/housingneeds/ were tied to localities actually meeting—not just pastproduction.889 new Napa City 24% YES homes that are affordable to lower income families Novato 15% NO by 2006. but may vary depending on planning for—their need for a full spectrum of availability of data. www. Element in 1988 . more such lawsuits can Pleasanton 51% YES be expected. Folsom also named Alameda County 19% YES zones where shelters are allowed. California’s Average 32% 83% “fair share” housing law would be far more Sources: Housing Element from each locality (updated in 2001/2002) effective if targeted incentives and consequences and city staff. Bay Area Council 1999. Oakland 49% YES Palo Alto 40% YES Given the many incomplete or inadequate housing Petaluma 81% YES Pittsburg 51% YES elements in the Bay Area. Over the next five years. or pay in-lieu fees. Sites will include City/County Need Met. Yet that threat alone has not been enough. Affordable housing refers to low and very low income housing. In the recently announced Housing Element Results Fall Short: settlement.htm. Daly City 73% YES housing linkage fee of at least $1.

traffic. New housing should be built in existing cities Action Coalition. commercial uses than for residential development. that are encouraging and supporting the development prevent many people of color from leaving distressed of all kinds of housing. yet the lack Growth of appropriately zoned land prevents the market from Each local government in California has control over making more efficient use of developable sites. This means city leaders have the power to decide where housing. Housing element law requires that enough land must be zoned appropriately—usually for apartments—to accommodate all of a city’s need for lower income housing. Because cities condominiums are even greater. Barriers to affordable apartments and shops. smart growth environmentalists. Many places around the Bay Community Housing Organizations. especially affordable housing. along transit routes. Many local governments have burdensome regulations. Putting housing strategies described below. or an incomplete on the Housing Crisis Report Card do have individual policies that are effective and This Report Card found that many communities worthy of replication around the region. whose housing downtowns. Their effective policies and programs are often the result of both leadership by local government. This section describes the seniors needing more affordable. and in elements omit the results-oriented housing neighborhood shopping areas. offices and other uses will go.How Cities Can Make The Grade It takes land. smaller. especially that built with an investment of public funds. “Reform School” cities. Racial inequities in income and challenge. and many others. it is more difficult and costly to build need to take additional steps. Yet few cities have actually made concrete plans to zone much land in just such areas to allow apartments and condominiums. The fact are failing to zone enough land to encourage that some Bay Area governments are making the enough apartments and condominiums. such as Housing 101: Zoning for requiring each apartment to have more parking spaces Housing Choices & Smart than is required for a single family home. Cities at the “Head of the Class” are those wealth. city and county leaders a few areas. have lessons to learn conveniently near stores and public transit can reduce from the approaches of their peers. apartments and condominiums in all but income workers and seniors. (Many jurisdictions are receiving lower grades on the Report Card because they did not . They need to zone land them. some vacant and underutilized commercial sites represent opportunities for new homes and Even some cities that received a poor overall grade neighborhoods. and in already developed areas of Advocacy Group. the Sonoma County Housing and towns. The result is a chronic undersupply of housing. money. lower basic steps local governments can take to meet the maintenance homes. the Santa Clara County Housing hills. To encourage and counties zone land to forbid or discourage affordable housing. such as apartments for lower townhouses. and Zoning for housing does not have to mean paving efforts by local advocates such as East Bay Housing over the Bay Area’s remaining farmlands and rolling Organizations. combined with exclusionary zoning practices. for densities that accommodate the particular needs of affordable housing. Such grade shows that all Bay Area governments compact housing can fit nicely within and near most could.5 Land prices are extremely high throughout the region. land use decisions within its boundaries. urban areas. the San Francisco Council of unincorporated land. faith-based Area have far more available land designated for housing advocates. 10 . and pro-housing policies to get and fewer housing choices for young people and affordable housing built.

The City of Santa Rosa has also failed to and establishes a minimum density threshold for zone enough land for apartments and condominiums. Some cities—like Walnut Creek and Santa Rosa— • The City of Santa Clara has identified over 330 require more parking for each two bedroom acres as appropriate for new higher density apartment than for a single family home. income families needing housing in the 2. and recently refused to approve a worthy affordable • The City of Napa is providing incentives for infill housing proposal that faced unreasonable opposition residential development. bonuses up to six stories downtown and four stories elsewhere for well-designed mixed-use projects. Alameda County is an interesting example of the best Napa will also allow for increased densities in some and worst of smart growth zoning. the City of financially difficult if not impossible for more Milpitas has just zoned a large. Head of the Class Reform School Some cities are making significant progress in An all-too-common finding was that the combined addressing the major barriers to housing choices and effect of density restrictions. Rental housing is allowed to develop at the housing element does not identify nearly enough sites next highest density range. Alameda with its Discretionary Alternate Use policies. The bad news is that the mechanisms together with increased funding. in order to to accommodate the nearly 4. County has fallen woefully short on zoning enough • The City of San Jose provides for flexible zoning sites for compact. infill development. Such neighborhood opposition often delays and even derails the development of greatly needed affordable housing. schools in a pedestrian-friendly design. 4. 11 . if certain standards are met. These County has hundreds of acres zoned at low densities include: that are feasible for more expensive housing. 3. and local officials must help educate any neighbors who have unwarranted fears about affordable housing proposals.000 lower and moderate encourage the production of rental housing.complete this basic task. residential development with at least 20% of the units affordable to low income households or 10% affordable to very low income. Fremont and single family housing together with shops. areas so that multifamily units can be created in a County voters recently passed an urban growth cost-effective way. A 50% density bonus is allowed in a unincorporated areas of the County through 2006. 2-3 story height limits. 100% affordable projects may be located on any site designated for nonopen space use and without a density limit. housing near mass transit and shops. parks and Brentwood are examples of cities with these barriers. such as height limit from nearby businesses. centrally located area affordably priced apartments and condominiums to be of the city to encourage a mix of apartments and built in almost any part of town.) Contemporary affordable housing is well designed and managed. The City is actively encouraging boundary designed to limit sprawl development in the affordable housing construction through zoning eastern part of the county. a residential development. Surplus properties owned by the City may be used for the development of affordable housing at any density if certain criteria are met. and excessive parking requirements often make it • Through a “specific plan” process. automobiles. On the one hand. Their housing are more likely to have smaller families and fewer element promotes a mix of housing with other uses. Yet its 1. smarter growth. most of which would be requirement which is illogical since apartment dwellers along a major transit corridor. For example.

Community contemporary affordable housing in the region over Development Block Grants (CDBG) funds are awarded the last decade. That leaves a local funding “gap” of called “affordable housing mitigation” or “commercial $40. warehouse. and so well as compete for state and federal dollars. developers as operating revenue. local funds are the first funds committed to a project and enable a developer to purchase land or develop Local governments can adopt linkage fees after architectural plans. the cost to build a two bedroom apartment affordable to lower income households is created averages about $200. While local public linkage fees. nearly all new housing However. The resulting through partnerships between government funding financial feasibility “gap” of $150. Once operating costs are deducted. The public funding housing crisis. This housing is mostly targeted by San Francisco and other cities to nonprofit housing towards families and seniors in greatest need. retail.S. and some use these financing—to produce over 25.Dedicated Funds for Affordable Housing How affordable housing is created rent can only support around $55. Legal different local sources. hotel. major financial challenge of solving the affordable that actually build the housing. general obligation affordable housing. but restrictions that accompany this public investment cities that are serious about addressing housing needs ensure that this housing will remain affordable to often set aside a dedicated stream of ongoing revenue for lower income people for generations to come. Jobs-housing linkage programs are also development cost. businesses are required to mitigate the new development. Local governments then paying 30% of their income to rent an apartment in use the linkage fees collected to support the creation of Alameda County can afford to pay about $750 for rent affordable homes. In the sections that follow. The sources are described in more detail—as well as which Bay Area is fortunate to have a very sophisticated Bay Area cities are using them. Nowadays in the U. These talented developers.000 per home.000-60. a very low-income 3 person household usually assessed per square foot. and more. Fees currently in place in the region plus utilities. sales taxes. Very often housing needs created by their new job creation. retail. affordable housing.” Just as local governments require residential investment may be a relatively small portion of the developers to offset the school impacts caused by their overall financing in an affordable housing development. For instance. and are For example.000-200. jobs-housing In order to address the longstanding shortage of linkage fees. Affordable housing funds can come from Redevelopment tax increment funds. investment is leveraged to secure private financing as Fees for each use—office. role is crucial because building housing is not financially feasible at the rents or mortgage payments Cities can invest in affordable housing from a variety of that lower income households can afford to pay.000. cities and counties and tools that do exist—especially the low income control federal block grant funds that aid in the housing tax credit program and tax exempt bond production of affordable housing. can affordable rental and ownership housing. In this way a relatively small local conducting a study demonstrating the need for them. Some use general fund dollars. hotel taxes.000-250. it can be the most crucial.000 units of excellent funds very effectively. federal and state investment in affordable to offset the increased housing need created by new housing has been able to fund only 40-60% of the employment.000 in debt. however. that average over $4 per square foot for office. on—are set on the basis of the number of lower income jobs created by a given type of development. these developers have stepped forward to fill the need. network for providing affordable housing. And federal HOME characterized by incomes below half of the area dollars can be invested directly in creating and preserving median. and 12 . often non-profits.000 is the agencies and private developers. Nonprofit housing developers have used the limited resources In addition to locally generated funds. nonprofit and for-profit bonds. produce only so much housing with the limited resources available. Jobs-Housing Linkage Programs Jobs-housing linkage programs are typically one-time fees Filling the gap that local governments place on commercial development Historically.

SONOMA (CITY) over the next ten SONOMA COUNTY VALLEJO years.. a variation on a jobs-housing MOUNTAIN VIEW NAPA (CITY) afford to live near where linkage program is the recent Farmworker Housing PLEASANTON they work spend less Initiative in Napa. 20 more 13 . they help for retail.5 million Linkage Programs in create a better “jobs. Increasingly.15 for industrial. But this has not been the generated for San Francisco’s Affordable Housing Fund is case in cities that have enacted linkage fees including San estimated at $18 million a year. program. Linkage Sonoma County and cities within the County are taking fees represent a relatively small cost factor in a business the first steps toward adopting a countywide linkage decision on where to locate.000 both have fees below $1. and about $3 per square foot for hotel. and warehouse. This could generate as much $35. businesses look at multiple seniors—to a greater extent than most cities of their size. and $3. has the highest linkage fees at $14. This the provision of would amount to a per square foot fee of $2. Assemblymember Pat Wiggins and the SAN FRANCISCO SUNNYVALE time commuting and Napa Valley Vintners Association sponsored a bill to PALO ALTO have more time for their allow Napa County to levy a tax on planted vineyards to MENLO PARK families and their provide housing for their employees. a few of the cities with linkage OAKLAND PETALUMA $5 per square foot on programs in place have fees set too low to address the ROHNERT PARK new office new housing demand created by commercial SAN MATEO SAN RAFAEL development.08 for office/ appropriate work force commercial development. Milpitas. Redwood City. to enabled Palo Alto and Berkeley to invest in affordable create a jobs-housing linkage program—Palo Alto. For instance. are proposing them.59 Jobs-Housing housing. Economic Area cities already have & Planning Systems (EPS) Sonoma linkage fees.180 affordable units. CLOVERDALE COTATI Reform School EAST PALO ALTO If 40 key Bay Area Some cities with significant job growth have not yet FREMONT HEALDSBURG cities and counties proposed jobs-housing linkage programs. strong commercial real estate market. LINKAGE FEE IN EFFECT (11) the resulting benefits of This is an excellent example of sorely needed regional ALAMEDA (CITY) less traffic congestion cooperation. encouraging. The total revenue competitiveness for business. and housing—most for very low income families and many others.50 per square foot of new SANTA ROSA SEBASTOPOL new affordable homes office development. with an historically industrial. San Francisco. it could development. Inc. And linkage fees have Francisco—which was the first major city in the U. These include MARIN COUNTY adopted a jobs. LINKAGE FEE PROPOSED (20) community.96 per square foot for office. factors in deciding where to build a new office or factory. and Some may fear that linkage programs reduce a city’s somewhat lower fees for other uses. City staff and housing elements. The Sonoma nexus study recommends adopting a fee that would contribute 10% of the subsidy Because linkage fees directly link new job creation with needed to provide affordable work force housing. LIVERMORE Employees who can Also in the North Bay. which could be combined with the Bay Area housing balance” with other funding sources to build 1.6 WALNUT CREEK WINDSOR TOTAL 31 Head of the Class Nearly a dozen Bay Sources: Keyser Marston. over the next five years.entertainment. Even more County study. Livermore and Pleasanton SANTA CLARA (CITY) result in at least 2. BERKELEY CUPERTINO and reduced smog. Dublin. San Jose. In addition.S. including the availability of affordable housing. $2. San Ramon NOVATO housing linkage fee of and Hayward.

000 per home. and has issued a challenge to its a policy of investing 30% of its tax increment neighbors to do the same. San Jose. While no one Percent of the Region’s 70 Redevelopment Areas 13% doubts that infrastructure is a crucial need. In addition. The cities next ten years. Head of the Class Reform School For years.000 affordable homes in Finally. in the East Bay. Since 1989.000 more homes in the increased investment in affordable housing. in the last decade and a half.000 affordable Increased Redevelopment Believe it or not. redevelopment agencies must new construction and rehabilitation/preservation. San Francisco. Recently San Jose has increased its Cities and counties that want to address the housing commitment by setting a goal of creating 6. Santa Clara (City) That City devotes more of its Redevelopment Agency housing funds to sidewalk repair than to new TOTAL 9 construction of affordable housing. both Under state law. East Palo Alto. Concord is INCREASE PROPOSED (6) another city in need of a lesson on housing priorities. raising their affordable housing set-asides to 30%. The key financing mechanism for redevelopment agencies is tax increment funding. City/county staff and housing elements preserve affordable housing. this commitment has room for improvement throughout the region. there are some cities in the Bay Area Set–Asides in the Bay Area that don’t even meet the state minimum requirement. or even 50%. redevelopment agency to create more than 10. it could mean an additional 9. Redevelopment agencies retain the tax increment. Mountain View.” Seventy cities and counties in the Bay Area have established local redevelopment agencies. or increase in property taxes which occurs over time. Santa Clara. Mountain View. San Jose’s funds in affordable housing it could boost neighbors are already well aware of the need for production by nearly 8. within a redevelopment project area.000 affordable homes. there is a great deal of was $39 million. spend at least 20% of their tax increment to fund the construction and rehabilitation of low and San Jose. Clearly.000 crisis sooner rather than later have increased this affordable homes by 2004. has used its moderate income housing. Cupertino. agencies in the Bay Area adopted a policy of investing Cupertino. If each of the 70 redevelopment of East Palo Alto.Increasing Redevelopment Funds for Affordable Housing Redevelopment agencies have special funding and land use powers under state law to revitalize areas with economic or physical “blight. This assumes a public investment recently committed to a 25% set-aside for affordable of $50. 2000. Milpitas. Pittsburg in Contra Costa County devoted a mere 3% INCREASE IN EFFECT (3) of its tax increment to affordable housing in 1999- Oakland. apartments and homes with tax increment funds. the Oakland City Council has the next ten years. housing. Palo Alto. enabled the Agency to invest in over 7. San Francisco has demonstrated its Despite all the rhetoric about trying to address the extraordinary commitment to affordable housing housing crisis. recently dedicated 30% of its tax increment to If each of the 40 jurisdictions in this study adopted affordable housing. affordable Source: California Department of Housing and Community housing funds should be used exclusively to create or Development. At a time when every dollar is needed. next to none is to be found for affordable housing. The San Francisco minimum—just 20% of their tax increment funds—to Redevelopment Agency’s 1999-2000 housing budget affordable housing. Fortunately. Milpitas and Palo Alto have all proposed 30% of its tax increment funds in affordable housing. 91% of Bay Area localities with development by dedicating 50% or more of its tax redevelopment agencies plan to devote only the state increment to affordable housing. the City has percentage to higher rates such as 30%. 14 .

unique public/private partnership which has raised homes. plans are over $20 million. The single family homes include both market rate and affordable homes.400 affordable apartments.000 households— • Provide first-time homebuyers assistance for 800 families with children. Currently. Almaden Lakes Homes is close to a light rail station. The initial $20 million will achieve the towards home ownership.Housing Trust Funds & Bonds The Trust will leverage over $190 million in additional housing development funds through grants and loans Housing Trust Funds to developers. A variety of public General Obligation Bonds revenues can be dedicated to affordable housing. • Create affordable rental housing for 3. 15 . with three-quarters of the the County of Santa Clara and each of the 15 cities in funds going towards rental housing and one-quarter the County. two-thirds of it from the private underway to place a $250 million bond on the sector. In 1996. and additional funding typically benefit from a dedicated source of ongoing is secured. the City of San add significantly to locally generated funds. • Provide incentive loans to build transitional and permanent housing for the homeless or persons at- risk of homelessness. And it will replenish itself as an ongoing Housing trust funds are an innovative model for funding source as first-time homebuyer and affordable funding critically needed affordable housing. revenue which is committed to producing and preserving affordable housing. They rental home loans are repaid. and shelter beds. people with disabilities. and the remainder from public funds including November 2002 ballot. This housing in the desirable Almaden Lakes area of San Jose incorporates 144 low and very low in- come rental apartments (at left) developed by BRIDGE Housing and 84 single family homes. San Francisco commits a portion of its hotel tax revenues Francisco has supplemented its affordable housing to affordable housing development. offices and shopping. seniors. Completed in 1995. homeless people. and families.000 Silicon Valley families. Photo: Jeff Peters. San Franciscans passed a $100 million bond The Housing Trust of Santa Clara County is a to create and preserve 2. they can general fund priorities. funds using voter-approved general obligation bonds. For instance. so While bonds do not provide a permanent source of that it does not have to compete every year with other revenue for investing in affordable housing. This will provide much- following objectives: needed affordable housing for 4.

20 have an CONTRA COSTA COUNTY None inclusionary policy. this one policy could provide nearly one.600 DUBLIN 12. RICHMOND 10-25% fifth of the regional housing needs for low and very low SAN FRANCISCO 10-17% income households in that time period. SONOMA UNINC. CONCORD Proposed Of 40 key Bay Area cities and counties. over 125 ALAMEDA COUNTY Limited (a) California cities and counties have adopted inclusionary ANTIOCH None programs that have resulted in tens of thousands of new BERKELEY 20% affordable units. approximately 13. over two dozen BRENTWOOD Proposed . creating ALAMEDA CITY None economically diverse neighborhoods. Petaluma has succeeded (b) Proposed to be increased to 15% in creating 1. Working with developers.7 In the Bay Area. not enough of these policies benefit primarily SAN RAMON 25% lower income households. Those homes are generally dispersed City/County Existing Policy throughout new housing developments. some Bay Area SAN MATEO 10% (b) cities already have inclusionary policies of 15% or more. EAST PALO ALTO 20% FAIRFIELD Proposed FREMONT Proposed HAYWARD Propodsed LIVERMORE 10% MILPITAS goal of 20% MOUNTAIN VIEW 10% NAPA CITY 10% Another eleven of the 40 key cities and counties NOVATO 10-15% examined in the Report Card are now considering OAKLAND Proposed adopting inclusionary policies.10% communities already have inclusionary policies in place. current inclusionary policies in DALY CITY Proposed these communities will produce approximately 3. Statewide. Based on historic market-rate CUPERTINO 10% (b) housing production.400 affordable homes for lower and (c) Proposed to be increased to 15 . If all 40 of these key PALO ALTO 10-15% (c) jurisdictions adopted an inclusionary policy of at least PETALUMA 10-15% 15%.8 In fact.20% moderate income households since 1984. Proposed SUNNYVALE 10% Head of the Class VACAVILLE Proposed The City of Petaluma has an exemplary inclusionary VALLEJO Proposed program requiring 10-15% affordable homes in both WALNUT CREEK Proposed rental and for-sale housing developments of 5 homes or (a) Proposed to be extended countywide more. Requiring that 15% of new SANTA CLARA CITY 10% housing be affordable to those with lower incomes would SANTA ROSA 20% allow the Bay Area to better address its greatest unmet SOLANO COUNTY None housing need. 16 . if those PLEASANTON 15-20% homes were targeted to serve low and very low income REDWOOD CITY None households. SAN JOSE Proposed SAN LEANDRO None As can be seen in the accompanying table.Inclusionary Policies Inclusionary policies require or encourage market-rate Inclusionary Policies in housing to include a percentage (usually 10-20%) of 40 Bay Area Cities homes that are affordable to lower and/or moderate income households. SAN RAFAEL 10% However.5% affordable homes in the next five years.000 more affordable homes PITTSBURG None would be created in the next ten years.

For example in Santa Rosa a developer can condominiums. Fremont has squandered a golden edges of the region that exacerbates congestion and air opportunity. developers can satisfy their Situated near the heart of Silicon Valley. and one quarter at low incomes. Low “in-lieu” fees undermine some inclusionary policies. they for lower income households.000 per affordable home.The City of Sunnyvale provides a 15% density bonus 1988 . quality problems. was built in 1991 by non-profit developer EAH as a result of the local inclusionary zoning policy. Shut out of policy. the City adopted income targets desired percentage of affordable housing is not well below the regional norm. one quarter serve households at extremely low less than $20. For instance.1998.00-125. East Palo Alto requires that of this “opt out” of the inclusionary requirement by paying 20%. But with much less land available to reduce the need for the low-density housing on the for development. The fees model for addressing local needs. This was 143% of the housing needed to developments that fall under the City’s inclusionary for above moderate income households. many of the cities with the most have in-lieu fees of approximately $150. and was nominated by the Sierra Club as one of the 50 best examples of smart growth in the US. Edgewater Place received a design award from the American Institute of Architects. East Palo Alto inclusionary obligations by paying “in-lieu” fees recently adopted a 20% inclusionary policy that sets a instead of developing the units themselves. 756 families applied to live in the complex. in-lieu fees generate so little revenue that the and Redwood City. in Larkspur (Marin County). such as a nonprofit.000 per affordable home respectively. comprised of affordable apartments. Photo: Tom Jones.000 and housing production have no inclusionary policy or $125. Every unit of compact from local residents. Fremont approved almost 5. Fremont is now considering an housing developed within existing communities helps inclusionary policy. But if set too surrounding communities of Palo Alto.000.000 units of market rate housing affordable only to those with above moderate incomes from Edgewater Place. Sunnyvale’s policy has resulted in over 774 affordable homes since its inception in 1980.9 This permits 15% more units than would town were people on fixed incomes and the working otherwise be allowed under local zoning. In many cities.10 Compare this Reform School with policies in San Francisco and East Palo Alto that Unfortunately. only a weak one. home affordable to a lower income household in Sonoma County of $100. This contrasts incomes (below 35% of median income). For apartments and achieved. As a result of pressure help the region address sprawl. Menlo Park low. 17 . The “extra” poor—as the City met only 14% of its housing need units not only help the developer’s bottom line. half at very with the actual financing gap for producing a new low incomes. Since household are then used to subsidize affordable housing built by incomes in East Palo Alto are much lower than the another developer.

.000 mortgage interest deduction for homeowners.......000 housing for lower income households is woefully of $5 per sq...” some are doing agricultural land is fueled by a desperate search for far more than others to invest in housing and create decent and affordable housing. 8................ is rapidly becoming a could be produced over ten years.. which would for the future of our regions.........000 more affordable homes and apartments commuting nightmares.... development in most areas. Although every local curb sprawl....... 13.. affordable housing communities... Strategies that Get Results The region as a whole can learn much from the • The housing crisis is bad for business and “Heads of the Class... local governments must increase their commitment to • Affordable housing is smart growth and helps creating affordable housing.............. The 30% Redevelopment Set-Aside .... air and land will quickly A Recipe for Success: Local Housing become unlivable....... Over the next year.. 18 ............1 billion in new funding for affordable of the California economy.. its first three years of operation.. The extraordinary cost of housing in increased their investment in affordable housing using California. The explosion of growth and government in the Bay Area knows how much development in outlying areas. the state and federal governments’ most significant contributions have Proposed Policy New Affordable Homes been funding programs such as the Low Income Over 10 Years Housing Tax Credit for rental housing and the Inclusionary Policy ... At the federal level. 23. degradation of the Bay Area cities and counties are falling short...... there is a great chance to increase state and federal funding for affordable housing The Implications of Ignoring the Housing development..... must play a more active role. Largely hidden from view is how powerfully affordable housing impacts these very issues: In order to take full advantage of these opportunities.......... This children—these are pressing social issues at the top of could provide an additional $1 billion to California in the agenda of decision makers and the general public.. The result: an environment that encourages it...........5 million affordable homes over ten years.. Targeted towards major impediment to business expansion.... In November 2002. Unless we create more high quality urban Report Card... ft.......... urban sprawl..000 inadequate and needs to be increased.. this would Corporate leaders such as the Bay Area Council double affordable housing construction from the and the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group are inadequate rate of production seen over the past alerting us that the housing crisis is a serious decade in these same cities.. and economy. water.. But 72% of key transportation gridlock. together with the resulting need for Redevelopment revenues and jobs-housing linkage employees to reside far from jobs and endure fees....” If all 40 key Bay Area cities and threatens the continued growth of California’s counties adopted an inclusionary policy of 15%... health care for families and 1.. and environment....... the condition of our highways. Historically....... racial inequalities. 2. open spaces and affordable housing is its “fair share... 23.. and reduce their parking the private market and all levels of government requirements where appropriate..... and all the social ills associated with earned unsatisfactory grades on this Housing Crisis sprawl...... Congress is considering transportation gridlock.. housing..The Bay Area’s Homework: Housing Reform A More Active Role for All Levels of made if localities also remove the needless regulations Government that prohibit apartments and condominiums In order to solve the housing crisis in the Bay Area.. The continued strength provide $2............... very low and low income households.. Neither the chronic undersupply of housing nor the urgent need for Results of Adopting 3 Effective new permanently affordable housing can be Policies in 40 Key Cities neglected.. voters in Crisis California will be voting on the Affordable Housing The Bay Area’s housing crisis has serious implications and Emergency Trust Fund Act of 2002. TOTAL .. Even greater strides can be threat to our economy..... the performance of our passage of the National Housing Trust Fund to fund schools.000 state and federal funding commitment to support Jobs-Housing Linkage Fee ...

have demonstrated the strong link between frequent moves caused by inadequate and • The housing crisis contributes to the continuing unaffordable housing and poor school problem of homelessness. The State of California has the power to enact housing • The lack of affordable housing limits the ability of element reform—real rewards for cities that are those on welfare and the working poor to move creating their fair share of housing. Numerous studies prospects. often segregated schools. mobility in public schools. Many believe that poor families overdue. Making adding to the cost of living. These region will produce more racially inclusive facts alone should act as motivation for local communities. California Futures Network. Photo: Tom Jones. Poor housing has been However. • School performance is impacted by the lack of before they can focus fully on their employment decent affordable housing. 19 . While many factors performance. shown to cause stunted growth. They provide housing close to CalTrain for people with developmental disabili- ties. need a stable and affordable housing situation These affordable apartments were built by Mid- Peninsula Housing Coalition in the City of Palo Alto which made the Honor Roll on the Housing Crisis Report Card. The findings recipients indicate that housing problems pose substantial barriers to finding and retaining of this Report Card suggest that such reform is employment. and making it harder for businesses to find qualified employees. coping with poor The housing crisis has lessened our quality of life by quality. decreasing affordable housing available throughout the school performance and public health. • The housing crisis exacts a great toll on the health and well being of families. governments to adopt the strategies outlined in this Report Card. and lead poisoning. increasing traffic. affordable housing is at the heart of what is needed to both prevent individuals and families from • Providing for every city’s fair share of affordable becoming homeless. opportunity. severe asthma. lacking decent and The Solution safe housing they can afford. completed a housing element that was due last year. destroying life have housing elements that rated Good or made the opportunities for children and fueling society’s Honor Roll. Surveys of welfare consequences for those refusing to act. these facts have not been motivation enough. California’s severe affordability including substance abuse. And almost a third have not even health care costs. Only 28% of the 40 key cities and counties analyzed here anemia. mental illness and lack of problem contributes to its very high rate of employable skills contribute to homelessness. and real up the economic ladder. Far too many blacks and Latinos still live in pockets of poverty. and move people out of shelters housing can help address racial disparities in and off the streets.

Housing Crisis Report Card HOUSING ELEMENT FOR: (city/county) A.Increase Densities & Adopt Appropriate Parking Requirements _____ points out of 9 7. Report Card Grading System The forty cities and counties graded were selected based on a composite ranking of current population and total housing need number for 1999 .Smart Growth: Mixed use and transit-oriented development _____ points out of 10 SUBTOTAL: ____ points out of 35 C. Zoning – 35 points 5.Inclusionary Housing _____ points out of 10 9.Removal of Constraints on Housing _____ points out of 6 SUBTOTAL: ____ points out of 25 B.Housing Element Analyzes Housing Needs Accurately _____ points out of 7 3.Funding for Affordable Housing _____ points out of 20 10. Process and Analysis – 25 points 1.Appendix A. Local Initiatives – 5 bonus points SUBTOTAL: ____ points out of 5 TOTAL _____ points out of 105 Honor Roll 80 or more OVERALL GRADE: Good 70-79 Comments: Needs Improvement 60-69 Fail 59 or less 20 .Identification of Sites for Affordable Housing Development _____ points out of 16 6. Affordable Housing Production and Preservation – 40 points 8.Stabilizing and Preserving Existing Affordable Housing _____ points out of 10 SUBTOTAL: ____ points out of 40 D.Opportunities for Public Participation in Housing Element Process _____ points out of 6 2. They account for 80% of the region’s housing need.2006.Revision of past Housing Element & Monitoring _____ points out of 6 4.

835 625 344 834 1.447 599 372 984 2.481 3.951 338 189 559 865 IN IN REVIEW UNINCORP’D 5. 2002.208 209 125 321 553 N/A OUT ORINDA 221 31 18 43 129 OUT DUE PINOLE 288 48 35 74 131 IN IN REVIEW PITTSBURG 2.603 471 273 625 1.459 921 509 1. 1999 & 2002 for all Bay Area Cities & Counties Key TOTAL NEED: projected number of new households. of Housing & Community Development (HCD) OUT: the housing element is out of compliance with the law.107 875 482 1.310 1.733 IN DUE CLAYTON 446 55 33 84 274 IN OUT CONCORD 2.395 1.551 15.959 2.341 248 139 341 613 IN OUT MORAGA 214 32 17 45 120 OUT OUT OAKLEY 1.785 767 1.101 642 1. Regional Housing Needs Determination by Income.567 IN DUE PIEDMONT 49 6 4 10 29 OUT IN REVIEW PLEASANTON 5.234 IN DUE SAN PABLO 494 147 69 123 155 IN OUT SAN RAMON 4.793 9.492 OUT OUT WALNUT CREEK 1.436 1.910 5.441 2.239 2.250 205 111 347 587 OUT OUT OAKLAND 7.937 60% 10% 21 .401 2.292 IN IN Total 34.238 969 1.436 796 531 1.347 IN DUE NEWARK 1.Appendix B.110 140 88 216 666 OUT IN EL CERRITO 185 37 23 48 77 IN IN REVIEW HERCULES 792 101 62 195 434 OUT OUT LAFAYETTE 194 30 17 42 105 OUT OUT MARTINEZ 1.733 2. 1999 . 1/1/99—6/30/06 IN: the housing element was certified by CA Dept.269 354 150 310 455 IN IN REVIEW DUBLIN 5.162 443 265 611 843 IN OUT ALBANY 277 64 33 77 103 IN DUE BERKELEY 1.873 IN DUE BRENTWOOD 4. 1999 2002 ANTIOCH 4.668 OUT DUE EMERYVILLE 777 178 95 226 278 IN IN FREMONT 6.079 636 1. Alameda County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.741 8.708 1. and needs to be revised DUE: the housing element update due 12/31/01 has not yet been started (no draft sent to HCD) IN REVIEW: HCD is now reviewing a draft/adopted housing element to determine its compliance Note: 2002 compliance is as of May 7. 1999 2002 ALAMEDA 2.179 IN IN REVIEW HAYWARD 2.032 IN OUT LIVERMORE 5.073 906 476 958 1.653 289 195 418 751 IN IN REVIEW UNINCORP’D 5.319 453 273 606 987 IN OUT DANVILLE 1.476 19.814 3.2006 & Housing Element Status.403 2.156 1.059 729 455 1.269 73% 7% Contra Costa County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.710 6.636 IN DUE SAN LEANDRO 870 195 107 251 317 OUT DUE UNION CITY 1.513 534 296 696 987 IN OUT PLEASANT HILL 714 129 79 175 331 OUT OUT RICHMOND 2.363 IN OUT Total 46.138 12.

244 2.241 618 1.046 IN OUT S.130 OUT DUE ROSS 21 3 2 5 11 OUT DUE SAN ANSELMO 149 32 13 39 65 IN DUE SAN RAFAEL 2.126 5.305 3.214 1.305 7.969 405 272 466 826 OUT OUT Total 7.582 476 242 734 1.726 2.094 OUT OUT SAN BRUNO 378 72 39 110 157 OUT OUT SAN CARLOS 368 65 32 89 182 OUT IN SAN MATEO 2.363 IN DUE 100% 0% San Mateo County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.835 33% 17% San Francisco City and County Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.639 7.775 2. 1. 1999 2002 BELVEDERE 10 1 1 2 6 OUT DUE CORTE MADERA 179 29 17 46 87 OUT IN REVIEW FAIRFAX 64 12 7 19 26 IN REVIEW DUE LARKSPUR 303 56 29 85 133 OUT DUE MILL VALLEY 225 40 21 56 108 OUT DUE NOVATO 2.Marin County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.090 445 207 562 876 IN DUE SAUSALITO 207 36 17 50 104 IN DUE TIBURON 164 26 14 32 92 OUT DUE UNINCORP’D 521 85 48 96 292 IN IN REVIEW Total 6.515 1.437 479 239 673 1. 1999 2002 SAN FRANCISCO 20. HELENA 142 31 20 36 55 OUT OUT YOUNTVILLE 87 21 15 20 31 OUT OUT UNINCORP’D 1.323 230 181 353 559 IN OUT CALISTOGA 173 44 31 41 57 OUT DUE NAPA 3.680 252 146 454 828 IN DUE Total 16.307 IN IN ST.391 282 139 392 578 IN OUT EAST PALO ALTO 1.567 4. 1999 2002 ATHERTON 166 22 10 27 107 OUT OUT BELMONT 317 57 30 80 150 IN IN REVIEW BRISBANE 426 107 43 112 164 OUT OUT BURLINGAME 565 110 56 157 242 IN IN REVIEW COLMA 74 17 8 21 28 IN IN REVIEW DALY CITY 1.063 1.930 33% 0% Napa County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.369 703 500 859 1.019 1.372 5. 1999 2002 AMER.331 277 131 360 563 IN IN REVIEW WOODSIDE 41 5 3 8 25 OUT OUT UNINCORP’D 1.219 57% 10% 22 . CANYON 1. SAN FRAN.434 1.544 534 256 660 1.282 358 148 349 427 IN OUT FOSTER CITY 690 96 53 166 375 IN IN HALF MOON BAY 458 86 42 104 226 OUT DUE HILLSBOROUGH 84 11 5 14 54 OUT IN REVIEW MENLO PARK 982 184 90 245 463 OUT DUE MILLBRAE 343 67 32 90 154 IN DUE PACIFICA 666 120 60 181 305 IN DUE PORTOLA VL’Y 82 13 5 13 51 IN DUE REDWOOD CITY 2.

669 IN OUT SARATOGA 539 75 36 108 320 OUT OUT SUNNYVALE 3.809 OUT IN Total 22.153 IN IN REVIEW MONTE SERENO 76 10 5 13 48 OUT OUT MORGAN HILL 2.299 IN IN REVIEW UNINCORP’D 2.423 698 331 991 1.339 1.636 860 629 1.994 60% 30% San Francisco Bay Area Region Total Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.124 401 270 597 856 OUT IN SANTA ROSA 7.735 81% 13% Solano County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.464 268 237 379 580 IN DUE FAIRFIELD 3.539 970 2.697 2.446 325 158 651 312 IN OUT Total 57.664 IN IN REVIEW UNINCORP’D 1. 1999 2002 CLOVERDALE 423 95 51 128 149 OUT IN REVIEW COTATI 567 113 63 166 225 IN IN REVIEW HEALDSBURG 573 112 78 171 212 IN OUT PETALUMA 1.364 7.681 3.120 3.799 1.991 11.146 2.654 1. 1999 2002 CAMPBELL 777 165 77 214 321 IN IN CUPERTINO 2.879 8.466 IN IN GILROY 3.173 15.484 455 228 615 1.085 OUT DUE Total 18.114 5.761 7.720 412 198 644 1.743 47.172 1.030 1.004 191 123 256 434 IN DUE VACAVILLE 4.311 1.836 736 361 1.313 4.585 56% 11% Sonoma County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.116 1.029 5.294 590 1.348 698 351 1.075 1.719 500 363 771 1.867 66 12 61% 11% 23 .242 690 474 779 1.071 430 232 559 850 IN IN UNINCORP’D 6.638 4.424 5.144 206 124 312 502 IN OUT ROHNERT PARK 2.025 IN OUT SEBASTOPOL 274 58 35 75 106 OUT OUT SONOMA 684 146 90 188 260 IN DUE WINDSOR 2.403 IN OUT PALO ALTO 1.659 25.746 906 334 1.563 2. 1999 2002 BENICIA 413 70 49 90 204 OUT DUE DIXON 1.186 IN OUT MOUNT’N VIEW 3.397 265 116 343 673 IN OUT SAN JOSE 26.476 OUT OUT LOS ALTOS 261 38 20 56 147 IN IN REVIEW LOS ALTOS HLS 83 10 5 15 53 IN DUE LOS GATOS 402 72 35 97 198 IN IN REVIEW MILPITAS 4. 1999 2002 REGIONAL TOTAL 230.327 IN IN REVIEW SANTA CLARA 6.337 2.Santa Clara County and Cities Housing Element in Compliance? Jurisidiction Total Need Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod.049 60.056 25.506 IN IN REVIEW RIO VISTA 1.391 357 190 342 502 OUT IN REVIEW SUISUN CITY 1.786 2.411 3.771 97.086 11.812 761 573 972 1.975 IN IN VALLEJO 3.

operations. A normal vacancy rate of 5% was used and current vacancy was subtracted. “very low income” or 20% lower income.ca. is Government Code Section 65580-655899. 250 sq. the jurisdiction considering the effect of inclusionary received a failing grade because of the County’s policies. See Appendix B for more information on and the California Coalition for Rural the compliance status of all Bay Area cities. p.org and search for report estimates a gap of $107. Linkage Fee Study.gov/planning/housingneeds/ for any development that is at least 10% meth. Thanks to John Landis for suggesting this methodology. The see www. trends and market-rate housing projections which has a history of successful partnerships with for the current housing element cycle. Draft Report.gov. the financial model underestimates the actual costs of development and 6 Non-Profit Housing Association research 2002. policies. ft. 30.ca. the analysis excluded projected failure to identify sites for affordable housing.Notes 1 The 89% of cities and counties out of compliance 7 This figure is from a statewide study of includes both those that have not drafted a inclusionary programs that will be released housing element and those that have not had their in 2002 by the Non-Profit Housing housing element approved by the state as of Association of Northern California (NPH) 5/7/02.htm. insurance and real estate sectors were used to project new office space development.abag. 2 Most of the jurisdictions that received a failing 8 Inclusionary affordable housing production grade had various major deficiencies in their was estimated using historic production housing element. The Cities of Napa. A per unit subsidy of $50.000. fewer than 5 units (approximately 6% of total production) since these developments 3 California’s “fair share” law.000 was assumed. In the case of Alameda County.nonprofithousing. “Planning for Residential Parking. and thus an adjustment has been To arrive at the estimate of 2000 homes. as housing production in developments of every housing element is required to do. Housing (CCRH). ABAG made. Fairfield and Vacaville were excluded due to inadequate data. 24 .8. job projections in the service (non-retail) and finance.” However.leginfo. requiring every are typically excluded from inclusionary incorporated place to produce a housing element. 5 For more information on the negative effects of 10 Sonoma County Workforce Housing high residential parking requirements on housing. In non-profit housing developers. of office space per employee was assumed. 9 Sunnyvale’s policy is in addition to the State Density Bonus law that requires local 4 ABAG’s methodology is explained at jurisdictions to provide a 25% density bonus www. The full text can be found at www.

its constitution for growth. Through infill. Housing is considered affordable if it costs no more than 30% of household income. Jobs-housing linkage programs are typically one-time fees that local governments place on commercial development to offset the increased housing need created by new employment. Just as localities require residential developers to offset the school impacts caused by their development. 25 . Smart growth is development that is economically sound. It is characterized by a higher concentration of amenities. that the jurisdiction has adequate land zoned appropriately to accommodate its projected housing need for all income levels. The most recent RHND allocation was released by ABAG in March 2001. Under state law. environmentally friendly and supportive of community livability.284 a month for housing. and is typically pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible. 80% of median income averages $51. or increase in property taxes. businesses are required to mitigate the new housing needs created by their new job creation. Some inclusionary policies allow developers to satisfy their obligation by paying a fee in lieu of actually constructing the affordable housing. and covers the period 1/1/99 . Housing elements are state-mandated local plans for meeting housing needs. Inclusionary zoning describes policies or ordinances requiring that new housing include a specific percentage—usually 10- 20%—of all homes as affordable to low and/or moderate income residents. which can be located inside or outside the project area. Low income households earn from 50% to 80% of area median income.” The key financing mechanism for redevelopment agencies is tax increment funding. Moderate income households earn from 80% to 120% of area median income Redevelopment agencies have special funding and land use powers under state law to revitalize areas with economic and physical “blight. Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND) refers to the projected regional need for housing for people of all income levels. Lower income households include both “low income” and “very low income” households. among other things. Every Bay Area jurisdictions was required to update its housing element in 2001 for the first time in ten years. Each city’s and county’s “fair share” of regional housing needs is then determined by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Every housing element must show. Very low income households earn no more than 50% of area median income. In the Bay Area. and this same family can afford up to $1.Glossary Affordable housing means housing affordable to lower income households earning no more than 80% of area median income. a mix of commercial and residential uses. which occurs over time within a redevelopment project area. The housing element is a part of each locality’s General Plan. Infill housing refers to construction on vacant or underutilized parcels of land amid existing buildings in urban or suburban areas. redevelopment agencies must “set aside” at least 20% of their tax increment to fund the construction and rehabilitation of low and moderate income housing. Redevelopment agencies retain the tax increment.360 for a family of three. Infill may involve new construction or rehabilitation of older structures. communities can increase the supply of housing without expanding into open space or farmland. The Bay Area’s overall RHND is developed by the California Department of Finance. earning from 0% to 80% of area median income.6/30/06.

Napa Valley Nonprofit Assisted by: Doug Shoemaker. Policy and Program Director. funding from the San Francisco Foundation. San Francisco. Marin Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Housing Council.org Greenbelt Alliance is the Bay Area’s leading land The Fair Share Housing Campaign was made possible with conservation and urban planning nonprofit. and the Nine County Housing (415) 989-8160 • www. and other Nine County Housing Advocacy Network sources. Council of San Mateo County.org Advocacy Network.. Sean Heron. Duane Bay. Spaulding Housing Association of Northern California (NPH). Communications Director. Margo Warnecke Merck. Sue Dee Shenk. Rene Cazenave. Housing and Homeless Issues. Greenbelt Community Housing Organizations. elements. Council of Janet Stone. Kesel. Santa Clara County Collaborative on Affordable Design: Brad Erickson. the Fannie Mae Foundation. Sonoma County. families and the challenging task of reading and grading local housing neighborhoods. San Francisco. Housing Coalition. 369 Pine St. Association of Homeless & Housing Service Principal Author: Shannon Dodge. Regional Coordinator. Merlin Wedepohl. and Greenbelt Alliance the Santa Clara County Housing Action Coalition. East Bay Housing Organizations. Housing Advocacy Group. Betty Pagett. Suite 350. Housing Leadership Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California.greenbelt. California Affordable Housing Law Project . Contra Costa County. We also appreciate the hard work of the Bay Area Transportation & Land Use Coalition. CA 94108 providing photos of affordable housing developments. Livable Communities Director. Thanks Executive Director: Tom Steinbach to Tom Jones of the California Futures Network for 530 Bush St. Urban Ecology. Suite 303.nonprofithousing. Greenbelt Alliance.. (415) 398-3730 • www. is a joint project of the Non-Profit Executive Director: Dianne J. San Francisco. Providers. We gratefully acknowledge all of the The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern people involved in updating the housing elements in their California (NPH) works to advance affordable housing as communities. CA 94104 Greenbelt Alliance. including this Housing Northern California (NPH) Crisis Report Card. the Butler Family Fund. Kristie Alliance. especially those who tirelessly volunteered for the foundation for thriving individuals. Mike Rawson.Acknowledgments The Non-Profit Housing Association of The Fair Share Housing Campaign.