Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04b_Scope of Services, Fee Schedule, Rate SheetRFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update 1 Scope of Services Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update Task 1: Consultant Familiarization with the General Plan 1.1 Kick-off Meeting + Team Meetings As a first step, the Kearns & West team will lead a kickoff meeting with City staff and the Steering Committee to review and confirm the project scope and schedule, to identify stakeholder groups, and outline project priorities. At the project kickoff meeting, Kearns & West will conduct an outreach assessment, which will involve a discussion of the benefits and drawbacks of various outreach strategies and digital tools, along with a staff and steering committee discussion of past community engagement efforts, successes, and lessons learned. The assessment will also address any communication needs that are unique to Newport Beach. Based on the input received, Kearns & West will develop the Community Engagement and Outreach Program in Task 2.1. Kearns & West will also hold bi-weekly team meetings with the City. These can be in person or on the phone as determined by the City and project team. Task 1.1 Deliverables: ●Develop agenda and attend Kick-off Meeting ●Provide summary of Kick-off Meeting ●Outreach assessment facilitation ●Attend bi-weekly project team meetings 1.2 Steering Committee Meetings The General Plan Steering Committee will play a vital role in the outreach program. Kearns & West will be in attendance at Steering Committee meetings and report back on the status of the outreach program and incorporate guidance on outreach objectives. The Project Manager will attend Steering Committee meetings during the Listen & Learn, with additional project team members joining at key points during the process as necessary to observe, participate, and prepare detailed minutes. We will also provide a monthly written briefing to the Steering Committee with key outreach insights. Task 1.2 Deliverables: ●Attendance of 12 Steering Committee meetings ●Summary/minutes for each Steering Committee ●One-page project brief each month provided to the Steering Committee GP Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Attachment 2a RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update 2 1.3 General Plan Diagnostic & Materials As an initial step to provide context for the community engagement to follow, the Kearns & West team, including Dyett & Bhatia, will conduct a diagnostic of the current General Plan and prepare a memo highlighting updates are needed to ensure compliance with new laws and guidelines. The memo will be used by the project team to inform the community as to the purpose and need of the General Plan Update project, as well as to frame key issues that should be part of the community conversation. This Task will also include creating one-sheet brochures on each General Plan element to be used as educational materials, as well as additional General Plan education materials needed throughout the process. We will work with City staff to share all educational and engagement materials, along with project updates, via the City’s website, the project website and engagement tool, existing communication and stakeholder networks, and social media outlets. Decisions about materials will be made when we prepare Community Engagement and Outreach Plan in Task 2.1. Task 1.3 Deliverable: ● One (1) General Plan Diagnostic Memo ● Twelve (12) informational brochures on General Plan elements and issues Task 2. Community Engagement and Outreach Program Preparation Program Development 2.1 Outreach Program Following the project kick off meeting, outreach assessment and development of the diagnostic memo in Task 1, the Kearns & West team will prepare a Community Engagement and Outreach Program. The Program will include elements necessary for the Kearns & West team, City staff, and the Steering Committee to ensure active public engagement in the Newport Beach General Plan through developing an outreach and participation program for residents and stakeholders. The Program will incorporate stakeholder analysis, an outreach program, a communications plan, roles and responsibilities, and a calendar. Task 2.1 Deliverable: ● One (1) draft and one (1) final Community Engagement and Outreach Program RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update 3 2.2 Graphic Identity In coordination with City staff and the steering committee, the Kearns & West team will create a unique graphic identity to establish a visual language for Listen & Learn process to communicate the goals of the project and garner ongoing enthusiasm for participation that can be translated into the General Plan update. Along with developing a visual identity, the team will work with the City and Steering Committee to identify key messaging to communicate what is different about this process than others. Task 2.2 Deliverables: ● One (1) draft and one (1) final visual identity concept ● One (1) draft and one (1) final messaging memo Online Activation 2.3 EngagementHQ EngagementHQ (also known as Bang the Table) will be used for digital activation and engagement throughout the life of the project and beyond. It can replace or supplement the existing project website and be wrapped in the graphic identity developed in Task 2.2. The EngagementHQ site can be updated throughout the project with new polls, forums, or mapping activities, will host a project schedule, documents and outreach summaries. It will be integrated with social media and can be branded to match the project and City graphic identity. Feedback gathered through EngagementHQ can be exported through their visually rich report- back format with exportable charts & benchmarking, an insight dashboard, and a comment analysis. EngagementHQ will be used to host the Final Vision Guide that will include every comment received during the Listen & Learn process. Task 2.3 Deliverables: ● Development and maintenance of the EngagementHQ website ● Data & relationship info from EngagementHQ 2.4 Social Media and Email Campaigns Kearns & West will develop a social media strategy to communicate about the Listen & Learn process. These will include shorthand project updates and educational content in the form of Tweets, Facebook posts, infographics for Instagram, and NextDoor posts. The strategy will encourage people to engage in the process and direct community members to the website. As part of the social media strategy, the project team will develop suggested emails and newsletters to share information about the project and to guide recipients to the project website and community engagement events. Emails could go out through the City Manager’s Newsletter, RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update 4 to residents who have opted-in to receiving emails from the City. Email advertisements can also be sent through partner and organizational email lists. Task 2.4 Deliverables: ●One (1) draft and one (1) final Social Media Strategy ●Four (4) series of suggested social media blurbs ●One (1) suggested email draft for each outreach activity Community Dialogues 2.5 Citywide Launch Event The launch event’s strategic functions are to introduce the community to Listen & Learn, and energize Newport Beach identity and connection to place and people, motivation and commitment to participate, and robust sign-ups for the online platform for future announcements about Listen & Learn events. The launch will also serve as the first opportunity to introduce the existing General Plan Vision, framed by dialogue questions about what might be different since its conception in 2006, and what might be the same. As part of preparing the Community Outreach and Engagement Plan, we will establish the shape and form of the citywide launch event. It could involve public art projects, local music and entertainment, a photo mosaic made with contributions from community members, a storytelling festival, a fair with booths for community organizations, interactive public art wall, kids and teen activities, a world cafe discussion format, social media streaming. Task 2.5 Deliverables: ●One (1) draft and one (1) final Logistics Plan ●Dry Run ●Coordination, set up and facilitation of the Citywide Launch Event 2.6 Two Series of Community Workshops We propose a series of two separate workshop series in each Council District to gather feedback on both goals and policies, as well as the Vision. The series will be two “Immersion Weeks” in each Council District. This expands the number workshops in each Council District yet provides opportunities for cost saving and efficiencies while gathering needed and meaningful input in the process. The first series will be designed to facilitate a dialogue about the purpose, intent, and structure of the General Plan and to review community values in assessing the Vision statement. The second series of workshops will be a review of key issues in the community and whether the current goals and policies in the General Plan reflect the community needs and values. There will RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update 5 also be an opportunity to solicit input on a Vision related to the new General Plan requirements most relevant to Newport Beach. Task 2.6 Deliverables: ● Preparation of one (1) draft and one (1) final logistics memo before each workshop series ● Workshop attendance and facilitation by two facilitators and a project coordinator ● Coordination City and Steering Committee on presentation and material content ● Facilitation of a Dry Run before each workshop series 2.7 Pop-Up Outreach (4) We proposes up to four (4) Pop-Up Events to engage community members in Listen & Learn for the General Plan Update during community activities where many people gather. These Pop -Ups will be designed for City staff to be able to replicate at additional events. Potential pop-up events can occur at the following events, as well as through other activities identified in Task 2.1: o Balboa Island Art Walk - May o Corona del Mar Scenic 5k - June o 16th Annual Art in the Park - September o Concerts on the Green - August - September o Earth Day at the Bay - April 2020 o Newport Beach Certified Farmers Market - ongoing Task 2.7 Deliverables: ● Design and facilitation of up to four (4) Pop-Up Workshops ● One (1) draft and one (1) final summary report of input received during the Pop-Up events Stakeholder Dialogues 2.8 Stakeholder Dialogues Kearns & West will conduct interviews and conversations with stakeholders identified through the Outreach Program to gather a broad range of perspectives are integrated into the outreach process. Up to two members of the consultant team are anticipated to attend these meetings. While a total number of stakeholder dialogues has not been identified, we anticipate up to 20 stakeholder dialogues at the front end of the process to quickly get the word out about the project, convey the involvement process, ask for help in getting the word out, getting advice on the best ways to engage the community. RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update 6 Dialogues will take place with both stakeholders inside and outside Newport Beach (ie. City of Costa Mesa, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange Watershed and Coastal Resources Division). Task 2.8 Deliverables: ● Develop stakeholder list ● Facilitation of dialogue with stakeholders in Newport Beach at a cost-per-meeting basis ● Summary of key findings 2.9 Go-to Outreach Using a “go to them” strategy, the Kearns & West Team team will attend up to ten (10) regularly scheduled meetings of local groups, organizations, and/or churches to build community enthusiasm and interest in the Listen & Learn process. Community organizations and interest groups could include local churches and parishes, youth and senior groups, and philanthropic groups as determined during Task 2.1. A short PowerPoint and/or set of display boards and handouts will be prepared for use at these meetings, and made available for staff use at additional meetings to expand the number of organizations reached through Go-to meetings. Task 2.9 Deliverables: ● Attendance at up to ten (10) meetings ● Presentation materials ● One (1) draft and one (1) final summary of input received Citywide Consensus 2.10 Citywide Summit During the Citywide summit, the project team and Steering Committee will report back what we have heard throughout the process, including insight on the existing goals and policies. The team will then present alternative articulations of the General Plan Vision developed through previous community engagement for participants to review and move towards consensus. While the format of the Citywide Summit will be determined through the Community Engagement and Outreach Program and alongside City staff and the Steering Committee, we envision a large community forum with breakout sessions and diving deep into Vision alternatives. After the small group breakout, attendees would gather back together and participate in live polling activities to affirm different elements of the Vision. Task 2.10 Deliverables: ● Preparation, coordination, set-up and facilitation of the Citywide Summit ● One (1) draft and one (1) final of all materials developed for Summit ● One (1) draft and one (1) final logistics plan prepared before Summit RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update 7 ●One (1) draft and one (1) final summary of input received Task 3. Capturing Community Desires 3.1 Draft Vision Guide Kearns & West will incorporate summaries and voices from each stage in the engagement process and develop a draft Vision Guide. The draft Vision Guide will provide the following: ●In-depth information about perceived needs, issues, and opportunities ●Reactions that residents and stakeholders have to the existing goals and goal structure ●Consensus statement validated through both the City summit and online engagement The draft will be in a format for City staff and Steering Committee to review and comment upon. Feedback will be incorporated into the Vision Guide to be hosted on the online portal. Task 3.1 Deliverable: ●One (1) draft Vision Guide 3.2 Final Vision Guide Based on the feedback and guidance from City staff and the Steering Committee, the Vision Guide will be updated and formatted into a “final” version. The guide will be available through the EngagementHQ online platform, or portal. This platform will be a continuation of the project website and engagement tools and serve as a compendium of all the voices engaged in the process, from neighborhood discussions to online mapping and citywide summits. Task 3.2 Deliverables: ●One (1) draft review of the online portal and Final Vision Guide ●Final Vision Guide Fee Schedule Kearns West Jenna TourjeJoan IsaacsonTaylor YorkMelina Smith-CastroGraphic DesignerDyett & BhatiaDyett & BhatiaDyett & BhatiaDyett & BhatiaDyett & BhatiaCommon Thread CollectiveTotal LaborTotalODC'sDirector / Project Manager Principal Senior Associate Project Coordinator Graphic Designer Partner Vice Principal Planner GIS Project Assistant Brand Lead Travel Misc Total Project Cost $165 $225 $150 $125 $95 $245 $210 $130 $125 $95 $110 Task 1: Consultant Familiarization With the General Plan 1.1 Kick-off Meeting & Team Meetings 8 4 4 4 4 4 2 $5,400 $625 $6,025 1.2 Steering Committee Meetings (assumes 12, cost per meeting $5000) 178 18 132 8 28 8 8 2 $59,990 $1,653 $500 $62,143 1.3 General Plan Diagnostic 26 12 40 35 4 18 8 2 $22,305 $22,305 Task 2: Community Engagement & Outreach Program Program Development 2.1 Outreach Program 15 4 20 8 $7,135 $7,135 2.2 Graphic Identity 10 4 90 $12,450 $12,450 Online Activation 2.3 EngagementHQ 25 8 20 $8,925 $8,000 $16,925 2.4 Social Media & Email Campaigns 10 4 30 8 $7,060 $7,060 Community Dialogues 2.5 Community-wide Launch 35 20 35 35 8 2 6 2 $22,670 $225 $2,000 $24,895 2.6 Commmunity Workshops (cost per workshop is $7,500/ meeting for the 14 workshops scoped, or $10,500 for individual workshops ) 168 72 170 204 16 8 8 4 4 $101,100 $1,150 $2,000 $104,250 2.7 Pop-up Outreach (4) (~$10,000/ event)90 16 100 50 8 $40,460 $500 $2,500 $43,460 Stakeholder Dialogues 2.8 Stakeholder Dialogues (assumes 20)40 60 $14,100 $225 $14,325 2.9 Go-to Them Meetings 65 8 80 8 8 2 4 $25,605 $300 $500 $26,405 Citywide Consensus 2.1 City Summit 43 18 48 58 8 $26,355 $725 $2,000 $29,080 Task 3: Capturing Community Desires 3.1 Draft Vision Guide 30 15 30 5 10 6 18 2 4 $20,280 $20,280 3.2 Final Vision Guide 20 7 20 40 $11,675 $11,675 Total:763 210 439 658 141 32 90 26 14 20 90 $385,510 $5,403 $20,000 $410,913 Assumptions: In addition to the assumptions included I the task descriptions in the proposal and in the above budget, the following apply: - For all Steering Committee meetings and community outreach meetings/workshops, Kearns & West will provide a facilitator and an outreach coordinator/note taker. -Cost per workshop is reduced with Immersions Weeks (workshop series). Immersion Weeks have built-in cost savings for logistics, planning, and follow-up. -Two drafts and a final version are anticipated for all products. -Facility fees, A/V equipment, refreshments, and other facility costs are assumed to be the responsibility of the City of Newport Beach. -“Miscellaneous ODCs” estimates shown above are generalized estimates to cover material printing. Specific responsibilities for printing and distribution can be identified in contract negotiations. Advertising and press placements are currently not anticipated in the “Miscellaneous ODCs” budget estimate. 3 2 1 RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update GP Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Attachment 2b RFP #19-69 – Community Engagement Related to a Future General Plan Update Rate Sheet Name Title Rate Jenna Tourje Kearns & West Director & Project Manager $165 Joan Isaacson Kearns & West Principal $225 Taylor York Kearns & West Senior Associate $150 Melina Smith-Castro Kearns & West Project Coordinator $125 Graphic Designer Kearns & West Graphic Designer $95 Rajeev Bhatia Dyett & Bhatia Partner $245 Andrew Hill Dyett & Bhatia Vice Principal $210 Dyett & Bhatia Planner $130 Dyett & Bhatia GIS $125 Dyett & Bhatia Project Assistant $95 Jon Dickson Common Thread Collective Brand Lead $110 GP Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Attachment 2c Community Development Department -Planning Division 1 Scope K&W Familiarity w/ General Plan •Kick-Off Meeting + Team Meetings •Steering Committee Meetings •GP Diagnostic + Materials Outreach Program •Program Development •Online Activation, Social Media + Email •Kick-Off Event, Workshops + Other Outreach, Summit Vision Guide •Capturing Community Desires General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Community Development Department -Planning Division Scope Attachment 2b General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Community Development Department -Planning Division 3 Schedule Contract Kick-off Launch Summit June 25, 2019 July 2019 August 2019 Spring 2020 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Presented at Meeting Cost Community Development Department -Planning Division 4 Approx. $2.5M Phase 1 (Listen + Learn) $410k (plus 10% contingency) Phase 2 (General Plan Update) $1.25M Environmental Impact Report (EIR) $750k Incidentals $100k General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Presented at Meeting   REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) SUBCOMMITTEE Monday, June 3, 2019 10:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.    SCAG Main Office  900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700  RC Board Room  Los Angeles, CA 90017  (213) 236‐1800    See Next Page for Other Meeting Locations and  Webcasting information    If members of the public wish to review the attachments or have any questions or comments on any of the agenda items related to RHNA, please send an email  to housing@scag.ca.gov. Agendas & Minutes are also available at:  www.scag.ca.gov/committees  SCAG,  in  accordance  with  the  Americans  with  Disabilities  Act  (ADA),  will  accommodate persons who require a modification of accommodation in order to  participate in this meeting. SCAG is also committed to helping people with limited  proficiency in the English language access the agency’s essential public information  and services. You can request such assistance by calling (213) 236‐1908. We request  at least 72 hours (three days) notice to provide reasonable accommodations and will  make every effort to arrange for assistance as soon as possible.  REGULAR MEETING     General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Videoconference Sites & Addresses  SCAG Los Angeles Office (Main Office)  900 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017  SCAG Imperial County Regional Office  1503 N. Imperial Ave., Ste. 104, El Centro, CA 92243  SCAG Orange County Regional Office   600 S. Main St., Orange, CA 92868  *Due to limited capacity, please RSVP prior to the meeting to ensure availability,  housing@scag.ca.gov   SCAG Riverside County Regional Office   3403 10th St., Ste. 805, Riverside, CA 92501  SCAG San Bernardino County Regional Office   1170 W. 3rd St., Ste. 140, San Bernardino, CA 92410  Coachella Valley Association of Governments Office  73‐710 Fred Waring Dr., Ste. 200, Palm Desert, CA 92260  City of Palmdale Office   38250 Sierra Hwy., Palmdale, CA 93550  South Bay Cities Council of Governments Office  South Bay Environmental Services Center   20285 S. Western Avenue, Suite 100 Torrance, CA 90501  Teleconference Sites & Addresses  Long Beach City Hall  333 W. Ocean Blvd., 14th Floor  Long Beach, CA 90802      Simi Valley City Hall  2929 Tapo Canyon Road   Simi Valley, CA 93063      CLOSURE NOTICE:   The SCAG Ventura County Regional Office is closed until further notice.  Webcasting Available   Webcast participation is view‐only. Registration for webcasting is limited and is on a first come, first  serve basis. Please register at  https://scag.zoom.us/meeting/register/b51c0e65c27044d78c34be5db4a05ad8    General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting RHNA SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS – RHNA 6TH CYCLE    VOTING MEMBERS    Representing Imperial County    Primary:   Hon. Jim Predmore, Holtville     Alternate:   Hon. Bill Hodge, Calexico     Representing Los Angeles County    Primary:   Hon. Margaret Finlay, Duarte    Alternate:  Hon. Rex Richardson, Long Beach           Representing Orange County    Primary:   Hon. Wendy Bucknum, Mission Viejo    Alternate:  CHAIR Peggy Huang, Yorba Linda, TCA        Representing Riverside County    Primary:   Hon. Rusty Bailey, Riverside     Alternate:   Hon. Russell Betts, Desert Hot Springs      Representing San Bernardino County    Primary:   Hon. Bill Jahn, Big Bear Lake       Alternate:  Hon. Jim Mulvihill, San Bernardino       Representing Ventura County    Primary:   Hon. Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard     Alternate:  Hon. Mike Judge, Simi Valley, VCTC       NON‐VOTING/EX‐OFFICIO MEMBERS    Representing Academia     Ex‐Officio:  Paavo Monkkonen, Vice Chair, Dept. of Urban Planning, UCLA    Representing Non‐Profit/Advocate     Ex‐Officio:  Cesar Covarrubias, Executive Director, Kennedy Commission       Representing Building Industry     Ex‐Officio:  Jeff Montejano, Chief Executive Officer, BIA of Southern California       General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting       AGENDA RHNA SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING Southern California Association of Governments 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Monday, June 3, 2019 10:00 AM The  RHNA  Subcommittee  may  consider  and  act  upon  any  of  the  items  listed  on  the  agenda  regardless of whether they are listed as Information or Action Items.   CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE  (The Honorable Peggy Huang, Chair)  ROLL CALL    PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD  Members of the public desiring to speak on items not on the agenda but within the purview of the  RHNA Subcommittee are asked to speak during the public comment period at the designated time at  the beginning of the agenda. For questions and comments related to listed items on the agenda,  members of the public desiring to speak may speak after the staff presentation and questions from  Subcommittee members for each listed item.  For those who attend via videoconferencing, please e‐ mail your name and the agenda item number you wish to speak to housing@scag.ca.gov at the  beginning of the meeting.  Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes per speaker. The Chair has  the discretion to reduce the time limit based upon the number of speakers and may limit the time  per speaker and/or the total time for all public comments if needed in order to complete all agenda  items.     Questions and comments related to RHNA may also be emailed to housing@scag.ca.gov including  the scenario while there is no time for public comments for a particular agenda item.  REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS    CONSENT CALENDAR    Approval Item                   Page No.      Receive and File                      1. Minutes of the Meeting – May 6, 2019   1 2. 6th Cycle RHNA Timeline    7 3. RHNA Subcommittee Topic Outlook   8 4. Summary of Written Comments Received for the 6th Cycle  RHNA  9 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting       RHNA SUBCOMMITTEE AGENDA     ACTION ITEM          Time  Page No.    5. RHNA Consultation Package to the California Department of         20 mins.  Housing and Community Development (HCD)  (Kevin Kane, SCAG staff)    11 INFORMATION ITEM    6. Proposed RHNA Methodology Distribution: Existing and              60 mins.  Projected Needs and Social Equity  (Ma’Ayn Johnson, SCAG staff)  28   CHAIR’S REPORT    Invitation to all RHNA Subcommittee members to attend the CEHD Policy Committee meeting on  June 6, 2019 (at 10:00 am at SCAG headquarters) to take actions on Subcommittee recommendations  on RHNA Consultation Package.    STAFF REPORT    ANNOUNCEMENT/S    ADJOURNMENT    The next regular meeting of the RHNA Subcommittee is scheduled for July 1, 2019 at 10 a.m. at the  Wilshire Grand Center, 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90017.  General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE of the SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS May 6, 2019 Minutes THE FOLLOWING MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT SUBCOMMITTEE. AN AUDIO RECORDING OF THE ACTUAL MEETING IS AVAILABLE FOR LISTENING. The Regional Housing Needs Assessment Subcommittee held its meeting at SCAG’s downtown Los Angeles office. A quorum was present. VOTING MEMBERS Representing Imperial County Primary: Hon. Jim Predmore, Holtville Present -- via videoconference Alternate: Hon. Bill Hodge, Calexico Present – in-person Representing Los Angeles County Primary: Margaret Finlay, Duarte Present – in-person Alternate: Hon. Rex Richardson, Long Beach Present – via teleconference Representing Orange County Primary: Hon. Wendy Bucknum, Mission Viejo Absent Alternate: CHAIR Peggy Huang, Yorba Linda, TCA Present – in-person Representing Riverside County Primary: Hon. Rusty Bailey, Riverside Present – via videoconference Alternative: Hon. Russell Betts, Desert Hot Springs Present – via videoconference Representing San Bernardino County Primary: Hon. Bill Jahn, Big Bear Lake Present – in-person Alternate: Hon. Jim Mulvihill, San Bernardino Present – in-person Representing Ventura County Primary: Hon. Carmen Ramirez, Oxnard Present – via teleconference Alternate: Hon. Mike Judge, Simi Valley Present – via teleconference NON-VOTING/EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS Academia: Paavo Monkkonen, UCLA Urban Planning Present – in-person Non-Profit/Advocate: Cesar Covurrubias, Kennedy Commission Absent Building Industry: Jeff Montejano, BIA of Southern California Present – in-person CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Chair Peggy Huang called the meeting to order at 10:01 AM and asked Primary Member Margaret Finlay, Los Angeles County to lead the Subcommittee in the Pledge of Allegiance. AGENDA ITEM 1 RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 1 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD Marika Poynter, Senior Planner with the City of Irvine, asked the RHNA Subcommittee to consider for Item No. 6 that SCAG should propose a regional determination of 430,000 for the 6th cycle of RHNA and that this 8-year projection should incorporate input from local jurisdictions that already included existing need and projected need. Ms. Poynter also pointed out that all numbers, tables, and discussions regarding existing need should be separate calculations that should be removed from the HCD consultation package. Ms. Poynter also requested that no action be taken on Item No. 7 on social equity adjustment until after HCD provides SCAG with a regional total need in order to properly assess impact. She further stated the City of Irvine proposes a social equity adjustment of 110% consistent with 4th and 5th RHNA cycles and requested that SCAG provide an Excel sheet that identifies cost-burden, healthy vacancy rate, overcrowding, etc. for all jurisdictions in SCAG. Stephen Blagden, a resident of Orange County, commented that there is nothing wrong with having exclusively residential cities as it helps separate commercial and industrial zoning, which could be harmful. He further stated that high density housing eliminates a mitigation buffer zone for unwanted sounds and smells. Mr. Blagden concluded by stating that he feels RHNA seeks to drive all cities to uniformity of population and income distribution. Joann Africa, Chief Legal Counsel, read key points from a letter addressed to the RHNA subcommittee by Jessica Lall, President and CEO of the Central City Association (CCA) of LA. In this letter Ms. Lall, speaking on behalf of CCA, believes that the guiding question in RHNA’s processes should be “How can we create a region that is as affordable, sustainable, and economically and socially enriching as possible?” Instead, based on recent meeting discussions, the Subcommittee’s unspoken direction appears to be “How can we keep our estimate of housing need as low as possible?” Ms. Lall then encouraged SCAG staff and the RHNA Subcommittee to reorient their focus and establish affordability, connectivity, and sustainability as real priorities for this region. REVIEW AND PRIORITIZE AGENDA ITEMS Joann Africa, Chief Legal Counsel, stated that the item “ELECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEE VICE CHAIR” was added into the agenda inadvertently and would be taken out of the agenda for today’s meeting. CONSTENT CALENDAR Approval Item 1. Minutes of April 1, 2019 Meeting A MOTION was made (Primary Member Bill Jahn, San Bernardino County) to approve the Minutes of April 1, 2019 Meeting. The MOTION was SECONDED (Alternate Member Jim Mulvihill, San Bernardino County) and APPROVED by the following votes: AYES: Predmore (Imperial County), Finlay (Los Angeles County), Huang (Orange County), Bailey (Riverside County), Jahn (San Bernardino County), Ramirez (Ventura County) (6). RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 2 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting NOES: None (0). ABSTAIN: None (0). Receive and File 2. 6th Cycle RHNA Timeline 3. RHNA Subcommittee Topic Outlook 4. Summary of Written Comments Received for the 6th Cycle RHNA A MOTION was made (Primary Member Bill Jahn, San Bernardino County) to approve the rest of the Consent Calendar. The MOTION was SECONDED (Primary Member Margaret Finlay, Los Angeles County) and APPROVED by the following vote: AYES: Predmore (Imperial County), Finlay (Los Angeles County), Bucknum (Orange County), Bailey (Riverside County), Jahn (San Bernardino County), Ramirez (Ventura County) (6). NOES: None (0). ABSTAIN: None (0). INFORMATION ITEM 5. Regional Determination Panels of Experts Recap Kevin Kane, SCAG staff, provided a recap of the regional determination panel of experts meeting that was held on March 27, 2019. The purpose of the panel was to solicit expert technical advice on existing housing need and to consider two questions: how the SCAG region can best quantify existing housing need given the options in State housing law, and examining the extent to which this accumulated housing need can be addressed in the RHNA 8 year period. Mr. Kane outlined some of the input received from the panel and thanked the experts who participated in the panel. Mr. Kane answered questions and responded to comments from the Subcommittee on preventing double-counting, healthy market vacancy rates, student housing, and the role of cost-burdened households. Mayor John Mirisch, representing the City of Beverly Hills, submitted a public comment on the impact of luxury units on affordability in communities. Deborah Diep, representing the Center for Demographic Research at Cal State Fullerton, submitted a public comment on the variability among perspectives of the experts on the panel, particularly in regard to the size of existing housing need. RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 3 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Matt Glesne, representing the City of Los Angeles Planning Department, asked questions regarding the source of panel meeting notes and provided public comments on the variability among vacancy rates based on geography and the need to include cost-burdened households in determining existing need. ACTION ITEMS 6. Draft Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Consultation Package to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Kevin Kane, SCAG staff, explained that the RHNA process requires a consultation between SCAG and the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in order for them to issue regional total housing need determination. Mr. Kane made note of the fact that the consultation package process for the 6th cycle of RHNA is a lot less clear cut and requires a different approach as opposed to the previous cycle, largely due to legislative changes. The result of this item presentation is to seek Subcommittee approval of general approach in order to discuss matters in further detail with HCD. Mr. Kane addressed questions from the Subcommittee regarding units produced from overcrowded households, potential data disparities averaged from rural and urban areas in the region, the idea of presenting HCD with numbers derived from current data, and comments regarding properly counting student housing. Paavo Monkkonen, Academia Ex-Officio Member representing UCLA, addressed a comment made by Subcommittee members in Riverside regarding how to encourage and incentivize more housing to be built, to which Mr. Monkkonen stated that there should be more concern being placed on housing those on the streets currently and addressing existing need. Mr. Monkkonen also expressed concerns with the point made that suggested phasing RHNA cycles as it could move attention away from addressing existing housing needs even further. Margaret Finlay, representing Los Angeles County, and Chair Peggy Huang expressed their favor towards phasing the existing need portion of the 6th RHNA cycle as it would help take into account certain external factors such as the developers willingness to build. Jeff Montejano, Building Industry Ex-Officio Member representing BIA of Southern California stated that from a developer’s standpoint they are certainly ready to build, but find difficulties to meet demand in a timely manner due to legislative factors. Kome Ajise, SCAG Executive Director, commented on the comparability of urban and rural areas in the region, stating the smaller, rural areas provide context in a cultural sense of overcrowding that can help better define it, but also felt that SCAG staff should potentially revisit the averaging process to better select comparable regions. Mr. Ajise also addressed the idea of RHNA cycle phasing and commented that it would not take away the importance of current existing need, but would allow local governments some room to react to what their obligation will be as a large number presented from just one cycle could be discouraging to some. RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 4 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Stephen Blagden, a resident of Orange County, provided public comment on incentives in the past have been fueled by local control or for particular purpose. He asked the subcommittee to consider incentivizing communities to maintain their individuality. Mayor John Mirisch, representing the City of Beverly Hills, provided public comment on the discussion behind the trends of population loss in the State. Mayor Mirisch agreed that there is a regional responsibility and part of that is respecting individual jurisdictions instead of a one-size-fits-all measure. He cautioned that built affordable housing be affordable and available and not purchased by hedge funds. A MOTION was made (Alternate Member Jim Mulvihill, San Bernardino County) to recommend SCAG’s approach for the consultation process with HCD to the Community, Economic and Human Development (CEHD) Committee. The MOTION was SECONDED (Primary Member Margaret Finlay, Los Angeles County) and APPROVED by the following vote: AYES: Predmore (Imperial County), Finlay (Los Angeles County), Huang (Orange County), Bailey (Riverside County), Jahn (San Bernardino County), Judge (Ventura County) (6). NOES: None (0). ABSTAIN: None (0). DISCUSSION ITEMS 7. Existing Need Distribution in RHNA Methodology Ma’Ayn Johnson, SCAG staff, outlined a (3) step process to determine RHNA numbers for individual jurisdictions. Ms. Johnson revisited and listed pros and cons from previous discussions that addressed factors for consideration to determine existing housing need such as access to transit, jobs housing fit, and opportunity indices. Ms. Johnson also provided an overview presentation of how existing need distribution methodology, along with a social equity adjustment, would be applied and used hypothetical city data to provide an example calculation for two jurisdictions. The proposed methodology would assign 70 percent of regional existing need to jurisdiction’s share of regional population and 30 percent would be assigned based on a jurisdiction’s share of regional population within a high quality transit area (HQTA). After adding projected need, which will be discussed at the next Subcommittee meeting, the total RHNA allocation for a jurisdiction is then divided into four income categories after the application of a 150 percent social equity adjustment. Hon. Russell Betts, representing Riverside County, wanted to point out that within the SCAG region there exist cities which are anomalies to the examples being given to justify the social equity adjustment, and that they should be kept in consideration moving forward. Gail Shiomoto-Lohr, representing the City of Mission Viejo, offered a public comment opposing the use of the 70/30 ratio for determining existing need and stated there is a flaw in assuming existing needs RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 5 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting will be met based solely on a city’s population. Ms. Shiomoto-Lohr asked for SCAG staff to look at jurisdiction’s individual relationship with the indicators of existing need such as overcrowding and cost- burdened households. Ms. Shiomoto-Lohr also indicated the difficulty local jurisdictions face in meeting housing needs through site and zoning restrictions placed on them from State legislation. CHAIR’S REPORT STAFF REPORT ANNOUNCEMENT/S Margaret Finlay, representing Los Angeles County, questioned if the topics brought up in discussion during today’s meeting will warrant a longer meeting in the future and if meetings should start at least an hour earlier. Chair Peggy Huang responded by addressing that she would meet with Kome Ajise, SCAG Executive Director, to determine if this would be necessary. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair Peggy Huang adjourned the meeting at 12:11PM. The next regular meeting of the RHNA Subcommittee is scheduled for Monday, June 3, 2019 at 10:00 AM at the Wilshire Grand Center, 900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90017. RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 6 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting please recycle 2851. 2019.03.18 The 6th RHNA cycle covers the housing element planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. Major milestones for jurisdictions include the development of the RHNA methodology, distribution of the draft RHNA allocation, the appeals process, and the adoption of the final RHNA allocation. Housing elements for the 6th cycle RHNA are due to HCD in October 2021. Public Participation: Stakeholders and members of the public are welcome to attend all public hearings and meetings, including the RHNA Subcommittee, and provide comments throughout the RHNA process. Meetings of the RHNA Subcommittee are held on the first Monday of each month unless otherwise noted. Comments and questions regarding RHNA can also be emailed to housing@scag.ca.gov. 12/2018–08/2019 Regional Determination Process 02/2019–09/2019 RHNA Methodology Development 10/2019–12/2019 Proposed RHNA Methodolgy HCD Review 02/2020–07/2020 Draft RHNA Appeals Process 2018 2021 JAN SEP MAY MAR NOV JUL FEB OCT JUN APR DEC AUG 2019 JAN SEP MAY MAR NOV JUL FEB OCT JUN APR DEC AUG 2020 Planning Factor/AFFH Survey Release Planning Factor/AFFH Survey Due Date: 04/30/2019 Adoption of Final RHNA Methodolgy Distribution of Draft RHNA RHNA Appeals Hearings Proposed Final RHNA Allocation Adoption of Final RHNA Allocation 10/2021: Housing Elements Due Notification to Subregional Delegation Last Day for HCD to provide Regional Determination Public Hearings on Proposed RHNA Methodology Hearing on Subregional Delegation Determination (if needed) DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE 6TH CYCLE RHNA (subject to change) AGENDA ITEM 2 RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 7 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting   *Meetings of the RHNA Subcommittee are held on the first Monday of the month, unless otherwise noted.  Revised 05/22/19  RHNA Subcommittee Topic Outlook  October 2018 – August 2020      Meeting  Proposed Date*   Subject Action 1  October 29,  2018  Overview of RHNA process and legislation; RHNA  work plan and schedule; notification to HCD and  Caltrans of RTP/SCS adoption date; discussion on  housing topics  2  December 3,  2018  Subregional delegation guidelines; best practices  for housing implementation; introduction to the  regional determination process; recommend  Subcommittee charter  Recommend Subcommittee charter 3  February 4, 2019  Regional determination process; local input  process update; local planning  factor/affirmatively furthering fair housing and  replacement need survey discussion; recommend  subregional delegation guidelines  Recommend subregional delegation  guidelines to CEHD  4  March 4, 2019  Regional determination process (continued);  finalize local planning factor/affirmatively  furthering fair housing and replacement need  survey;  discussion on social equity adjustment  Release  local planning  factor/affirmatively furthering fair  housing and replacement need survey to  local jurisdictions and subregions  5  April 1, 2019  Election of Subcommittee Vice Chair; update from  HCD; discussion on RHNA distribution and social  equity adjustment (continued)  6  May 6, 2019  Regional determination process (continued);  discussion on RHNA distribution and social equity  adjustment (continued)  Recommend to CEHD Regional  Determination  consultation package  with HCD  7  June 3, 2019  Updated regional determination packet;  discussion on determining existing and projected  RHNA need and social equity in RHNA  methodology  Recommend to CEHD Regional  Determination  consultation package  with HCD  8  July 2019  Proposed RHNA methodology (continued); survey  results for local planning factors, affirmatively  furthering fair housing, and replacement need;  RHNA costs  Recommend proposed RHNA  Methodology to CEHD for public  comment period; recommend RHNA  costs to CEHD    August/  September 2019  Public Hearing(s) on Proposed RHNA Methodology  9  October 2019  Review comments received on proposed RHNA  methodology  Recommend submittal of proposed  methodology to HCD  10  January 2020  Review comments from HCD on draft RHNA  methodology; RHNA appeals process guidelines  Recommend RHNA methodology  adoption to CEHD; adopt RHNA appeals  process guidelines  11  February 2020  Recommend distribution of draft RHNA allocation Recommend distribution of draft RHNA  allocation to CEHD  12  July 2020  Hearing on appeals Determine appeals  13  July 2020  Review and ratify the decisions on appeals Issue written decisions regarding appeals 14    August 2020  Final meeting Recommend to CEHD proposed Final  RHNA Allocation Plan  AGENDA ITEM 3 RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 8 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Summary of Written Comments Related to RHNA Received by SCAG (as of 05/06/19) To review the original comments or to provide comments on RHNA, please contact housing@scag.ca.gov.  Date Received  Name  Organization  Topic(s)  Summary 10/11/18  Hon. John Mirisch  City of Beverly Hills  Subcommittee membership Concerns were expressed regarding the membership of the Subcommittee and provided suggestions.  12/02/18  Gail Shiomoto‐Lohr  City of Mission Viejo  Subcommittee charter, subregional delegation, growth forecast Clarification is needed about legislative amendments to trade and transfer. Confirmation is needed about SCAG’s role in methodology and liability in delegating subregions. Questions were asked about overcrowding rates.  01/17/19  Hon. John Mirisch  City of Beverly Hills  Urban sprawl  A link to a research article was shared questioning the role of urban sprawl.  02/04/19  Hon. John Mirisch  City of Beverly Hills  Role of housing supply, single family homes, subcommittee membership Concerns were shared about the role between housing price and housing supply, along with the choice of single family homes. Subcommittee membership concerns were also expressed.  03/11/19  Hon. John Mirisch  City of Beverly Hills  Subcommittee membership, upzoning, single family homes Concerns were expressed regarding the nature of the Subcommittee discussion on March 4, 2019. Comments were provided on the effects of upzoning and building single family homes.  3/30/19  Hon. John Mirisch  City of Beverly Hills  Upzoning, urbanism, density  Three (3) links to articles were shared questioning the benefits of upzoning and increases in density.  5/2/19  Jessica Lall  Central Cities Association of Los Angeles Regional Determination Expresses concern that the regional determination packet developed by staff does not adequately reflect the needs of the housing crisis. Comments were provided on the regional economic impacts of underestimating housing need. (comment was also entered into the record at the May 6, 2019 RHNA Subcommittee meeting) 5/6/19  Marika Poynter  City of Irvine  Regional determination, existing need distribution, social equity adjustment Proposes that existing need as a separate calculation should be removed from the HCD consultation package and that the regional projection from local input already incorporates both existing need and future projected need. Proposes that social equity AGENDA ITEM 4RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 9 of 69General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Summary of Written Comments Related to RHNA Received by SCAG (as of 05/06/19) To review the original comments or to provide comments on RHNA, please contact housing@scag.ca.gov. adjustment in the RHNA methodology should not be acted upon until HCD provides the regional determination and requests that SCAG provide a table of variables for all jurisdictions (comment was also provided as a verbal comment at the May 6, 2019 RHNA Subcommittee meeting) 5/20/10  Sean Scully  City of Redondo Beach Existing housing need and zoning Indicates that the City of Redondo Beach has zoned for higher densities and multifamily areas in comparison to other communities and should not be allocated a general percentage of existing housing need 5/23/19  Paavo Monkkonen  UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs Zoning, housing prices, and regulation Provides critique response to a published academic article from Michael Storper (UCLA) and Andres Rodriguez‐Pose (London School of Economics)  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 10 of 69General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting              REPORT Southern California Association of Governments  900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90017  June 3, 2019      RECOMMENDED ACTION FOR RHNA SUBCOMMITTEE:  Recommend approval by the CEHD Committee of the SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment  (RHNA) Consultation Package to the state Housing and Community Development  (HCD)  Department.    STRATEGIC PLAN:  This item supports the following Strategic Plan Goal 1: Produce innovative solutions that improve  the quality of life for Southern Californians.     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:   The  RHNA  process  as  prescribed  by  Government  Code  Section  65584 et seq. requires a  consultation  process  between  SCAG  and  the  State  Department  of  Housing  and  Community  Development (HCD) before HCD issues its final determination of regional total housing need for  the SCAG region.  SCAG staff has developed a framework to guide this process, and a list of  specific subject areas for HCD’s consideration, including  projections of household growth from  SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS bottom‐up local review and input growth forecasting process as well as  data, analysis, and assumptions related to existing housing needs.    BACKGROUND:  The  RHNA  process  as  prescribed  by  Government  Code  Section  65584  et  seq.,  requires  a  consultation process between SCAG and HCD before HCD issues its final determination of regional  total housing need for the SCAG region.  Specifically, Government Code Section 65584.01(b)(1)  requires SCAG to provide data, assumptions, and methodology to be used by HCD to determine the  region’s housing needs.      SCAG staff have previously presented a framework to guide the development of this consultation  process which includes the following goals:      Follow the SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecasting process, procedure, methodology, and  results including bottom‐up local review, comment, and input.  To: Regional  Housing  Needs  Assessment  Subcommittee  (RHNA)    EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL     From: Kevin Kane, Senior Regional Planner, Planning Division,  (213) 236‐1828, kane@scag.ca.gov    Subject: Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) Consultation  Package to the State Department of  Housing and  Community Development (HCD)  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 11 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT  Provide  the  best  outcomes  for  the  SCAG  regional  housing  needs  assessment  and  determination,  meet  the  requirements  of  the  law,  and  use the  best  available  data  and  technical methodology.   Research the appropriate factors and causes associated with “existing housing needs.”   Develop  policy  responses  for  a  long‐term  robust,  stable,  supply  of  sites  and  zoning  for  housing construction.    SCAG proposes that a clear distinction be made between housing need due to projected regional  population growth and those due to existing housing needs.  Using the RTP/SCS growth forecast as  a basis for projected housing need is a long‐standing, credible approach which is consistent with  Government Code Section 65584.01.      SCAG also recognizes regional housing supply and affordability challenges statewide and in the  region and recognizes that legislative changes in 2017 and 2018 have added data elements to  65584.01(b)(1)  which  are  closely  related  to  “existing  housing  needs,”  or  “housing  production  backlog.” Separate estimates of existing need have not been included in RTP/SCS growth forecast  development, so therefore an alternative means of assessing and allocating this need is required.   Planning  for  this  additional  housing  production  through  RHNA  is  an  important  concurrent  and  complementary planning process.     Staff presented a draft consultation package which was approved by the RHNA Subcommittee on  May 6, 2019.  This draft consultation package included:   SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecast and approach to need due to projected growth   An interpretation of several new data elements which relate to existing housing need   Eight specific technical and conceptual matters to discuss with HCD related to the regional  determination    Subsequently on May 9th, SCAG staff met with HCD staff and shared this draft consultation package  as a starting point for ongoing discussions.  HCD reiterated their perspective that the legislative  changes are intended to explicitly address housing production backlog (“existing need”) which is  distinct from prior cycles of RHNA which had primarily followed  growth  forecasts  addressing  projected need.  While HCD did not conduct a full review of the draft consultation package, they  provided additional insight into how they are likely to consider certain data elements.      This  report  builds  on  SCAG’s  Draft  Consultation  Package  by  incorporating  insights  and  changes  learned  since  meeting  with  HCD.    Modifications  of  SCAG’s  estimate of housing need due to  projected  growth  and  existing  housing  need  have  been  made  to  recognize  aspects  of  HCD’s  established practice while maintaining SCAG’s recommended data sources and addressing several  key concerns. This report reiterates the same eight specific matters for HCD’s consideration:    1. SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecast data and assumptions  2. Clarifying the distinction between housing need due to projected growth versus existing  need  3. Use of a comparable region standard and household overcrowding  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 12 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT 4. Use of cost burden as an input to determining housing needs  5. Use of historical comparison for understanding SCAG region demographic, economic, and  housing characteristics  6. High  correlation  and  double‐counting  possibility  between  measures  of  existing  housing  need   7. Phasing existing housing need beyond a single RHNA cycle   8. Issues related to sites, zoning, and COG efforts to promote housing     At its May 6th meeting, the RHNA Subcommittee reiterated the importance of points 6 and 7 above  and also requested that staff seek clarification with HCD on various matters such as student or  university housing.      Ultimately, this report presents a realistic estimate of the final regional determination of housing  need taking into account SCAG’s data sources, key concerns, and aspects of HCD’s practice.  HCD  has final authority to issue a regional determination following the consultation with SCAG, which is  expected in August 2019.  Staff anticipates continued consultation with HCD on specific details until  that time, building on the approach laid out here.    RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 13 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Technical Appendix      The  RHNA  process  as  prescribed by  Government  Code  Section  65584 et. seq., requires a  consultation process between SCAG and HCD/DOF before HCD issues its final determination of  regional total housing need for the SCAG region.      Specifically, Government Code Section 65584.01(b)(1) requires SCAG to prepare this information  packet:    “At least 26 months prior to the scheduled revision pursuant to Section 65588 and prior to  developing the existing and projected housing need for a region, the department shall meet  and consult with the council of governments regarding the assumptions and methodology to  be  used  by  the  department  to  determine  the  region’s  housing  needs.  The  council  of  governments  shall  provide  data  assumptions  from  the  council’s  projections,  including,  if  available, the following data for the region:  (A) Anticipated household growth associated with projected population increases.  (B) Household size data and trends in household size.  (C) The percentage of households that are overcrowded and the overcrowding rate for a  comparable housing market. For purposes of this subparagraph:  (i) The term “overcrowded” means more than one resident per room in each room in a  dwelling.  (ii)  The  term  “overcrowded  rate  for  a  comparable  housing  market”  means  that  the  overcrowding rate is no more than the average overcrowding rate in comparable regions  throughout the nation, as determined by the council of governments.  (D) The rate of household formation, or headship rates, based on age, gender, ethnicity, or  other established demographic measures.  (E) The vacancy rates in existing housing stock, and the vacancy rates for healthy housing  market  functioning  and  regional  mobility,  as  well  as  housing  replacement  needs.  For  purposes of this subparagraph, the vacancy rate for a healthy rental housing market shall be  considered no less than 5 percent.  (F) Other characteristics of the composition of the projected population.  (G) The relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalance between jobs and  housing.  (H)  The  percentage  of  households  that  are  cost  burdened  and  the  rate  of  housing  cost  burden for a healthy housing market. For the purposes of this subparagraph:  (i) The term “cost burdened” means the share of very low‐, low‐, moderate‐, and above  moderate‐income households that are paying more than 30 percent of household income on  housing costs.  (ii) The term “rate of housing cost burden for a healthy housing market” means that the rate  of households that are cost burdened is no more than the average rate of households that  are  cost  burdened  in  comparable  regions  throughout  the  nation, as  determined  by  the  council of governments.    RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 14 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT (I) The loss of units during a state of emergency that was declared by the Governor pursuant  to the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 8550) of  Division 1 of Title 2), during the planning period immediately preceding the relevant revision  pursuant to Section 65588 that have yet to be rebuilt or replaced at the time of the data  request.”    As specified in Government Code 65584 et seq., if the total regional population forecast for the  projection  year  (10/1/2029)  developed  for  SCAG’s  RTP/SCS  is  within  a  range  of  1.5%  of  DOF’s  forecast of the same, then SCAG’s forecast shall be the basis from which HCD determines existing  and projected need for housing in the region.      Table  1  outlines  the  SCAG  region’s  housing  need  due  to  projected  growth.    SCAG  proposes  a  regional housing needs determination of 430,289 due to projected growth for SCAG and delegated  subregions  (if  applicable)  to  distribute  among  local  jurisdictions.  SCAG projects total regional  population to grow to 20,725,878 by October 1, 2029.  SCAG’s projection is 0.18% higher than DOF’s  projection of 20,689,591, thus SCAG’s forecast shall be used.        RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 15 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT 1 Population: Oct 1, 2029 (SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Forecast)20,725,878 - Less Group Quarters Population (SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Forecast)‐327,879 Household (HH) Population, Oct 1, 2029 20,397,998 2 Household Formation Groups SCAG Projected HH Population Headship rate - see Table 2 Projected Households 20,397,998 6,668,498 under 15 years 3,812,391 n/a 15 - 24 years 2,642,548 147,005 25 - 34 years 2,847,526 864,349 35 - 44 years 2,821,442 1,304,658 45 - 54 years 2,450,776 1,243,288 55 - 64 years 2,182,421 1,116,479 65 -74 years 1,883,181 1,015,576 75 - 84 years 1,167,232 637,415 85+590,480 339,727 3 Projected Households, Oct 1, 2029 6,668,498 4 CA DOF Occupied housing units, Jan 1, 2018 (E-5)6,073,761 5 Projected household growth, Jan 1, 2018 - Oct 1, 2029 (11.75 yrs)594,737 6 + Vacany Adjustment - Projected Need Owner Renter Tenure Percentage (2017 1-year ACS)52.43% 47.57% Projected HH Growth by Tenure 311,821 282,916 Healthy market vacancy rate 1.50% 5.00% SCAG vacancy rate 1.10% 3.28% Difference; multiply by projected HH growth by tenure 0.40% 1.72% Vacancy Adjustment - Projected Need 1,247 4,866 6,113 7 + Replacement Adjustment - Projected Need Estimate of share of housing stock demolished (DOF/HCD)0.41% Replacement Adjustment - Projected Need 2,438 8 + Overcrowding Adjustment - Projected Need SCAG total overcrowding rate (2017 1-year ACS, >1.0/room)9.82% Comparable region overcrowding rate 7.49% Difference; multiply by projected HH growth 2.33% Overcrowding Adjustment - Projected Need 13,857 9 - Less: HH growth on tribal lands (SCAG estimate, Table 3)-4,310 10 612,836 Regional housing need due to growth over the 8.25-year RHNA projection period (Jul 1, 2021 - Oct 1, 2029)430,289 Estimate of additional housing need existing at the beginning of the RHNA projection period 11 + Vacancy Adjustment - Existing Need Owner Renter Total Tenure Percentage (2017 1-year ACS) 52.43% 47.57% Existing occupied housing units by tenure on Jan 1, 2018 (CA DOF)3,184,473 2,889,288 SCAG Region Vacancy Rate, 2017 1-year ACS 1.10% 3.28% Healthy market vacancy rate 1.50% 5.00% Difference; multiply by existing occupied units by tenure 0.40% 1.72% Existing Vacancy Adjustment - New Unit Need 12,738 49,696 62,434 12 + Replacement Adjustment - Existing Need Existing housing units on January 1, 2018 6,073,761 Estimate of share of housing stock demolished (DOF/HCD)0.41% Replacement Adjustment - Existing Need 24,902 13 + Overcrowding Adjustment Existing housing units on Jan 1, 2018 6,073,761 SCAG Total Overcrowding Rate (2017 1-year ACS, >1.0/room)9.82% Comparable region overcrowding rate 7.49% Difference; multiply by existing occupied units 2.33% Overcrowding Adjustment - Existing Need 141,519 14 Cost Burden. Not recommended as an adjustment to new unit need. See footnote, and report section 4. 15 Estimate of additional housing need existing at the beginning of the projection period 228,855 Table 1. Assessment of SCAG region housing need from Jan 1, 2018 to Oct 1, 2029 Regional housing need due to projected growth, Jan 1, 2018 - Oct 1, 2029   RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 16 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT TABLE 1 NOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Projected households: Projected households at the end of the RHNA projection period using the above methodology. Existing occupied housing units: From the most recently available DOF occupied housing unit estimate as of April 2019. Projected household growth: Increase in the number of households expected from DOF's most recently available housing unit estimate until the end of the RHNA projection period. Vacancy adjustment - projected need: While Gov't Code 65584.01 specifies a 5% minimum for renter vacancy, 1.5% is used as an acceptable vacancy rate for for-sale housing. This is roughly equivalent to the statewide average vacancy rate between 1998-2018 and is also equal to the 1.5% owner vacancy used during the 5th cycle of RHNA. The fair market rate is compared against ACS 2017 1-year estimates for for-sale and for-rent housing (ACS series DP04), and the difference is multiplied by the projected growth in housing units. Population. Total population, group quarters population, and household reflect SCAG's October 1, 2029 projection consistent with the 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecast and reflect the most recent socioeconomic data and statstics from the Decennial Census & American Community Survey. Household formation groups: Headship rates, also referred to as household formation rates, are applied to the household population from (1) and are broken down by age, sex, and race/ethnicity as is standard demographic practice. Total headship rates in the SCAG region have declined consistently since 1980 and have been roughly stable since 2014. While SCAG's previous forecasts such as the 2012 and 2016 RTP/SCS typically forecasted a continuation of this long-term downward trend, SCAG's 2020 RTP/SCS forecast has been revised to use a constant headship rate based on the most available American Community Survey (ACS) data. At the time of this analysis, the most recently available data are ACS 2017 1-year samples. Replacement adjustment - projected need: A rate is applied to projected growth (and applied separately to existing occupied units in line 12) in order to approximate housing units demolished but not yet replaced during the projection period. HCD staff provided SCAG staff with DOF's estimate of annual demolitions for the SCAG region (0.41%) which is used in this calculation. At the time of this writing, estimates of units lost due to natural disaster have not yet been received from local jurisdictions or DOF. A modified estimate based on these data, or other data sources which may become available, may be included in order to refine this estimate prior to a final regional determination. Overcrowding adjustment - projected need: The difference in overcrowding rate between the SCAG region and a comparable region is multiplied by the projected growth in housing units. Data used are from the 2017 1-year American Community Survey estimates (series B25014) and compare the SCAG region with a set of consolidated statistical areas (CSAs) described in section 3 of this report. Vacancy adjustment - existing need: This adjustment accounts for observed vacancy rates which are below a fair market vacancy rate. This adjustment multiplies this difference by the number of existing occupied housing units, split by tenure. Overcrowding adjustment - existing need: See footnote 8. This difference is multiplied by the number of existing occupied housing untis. Existing housing need: Estimate of housing need existing at the beginning of the projection period to be addressed by the state's new approach to RHNA. Cost burden - While 65584.01 indicates that rates of cost burdened housholds can be considered in determining reginoal housing need, as indicated in section 4 of this report, indicators of cost burden may be more effectively captured elsewhere in the RHNA process, and may not require a separate adjustment to new unit need. Regional housing need due to projected growth: Estimate of housing need due to projected growth over the 8.25-year RHNA projection period, which is a proportional share using the above analysis of the 11.75-year period for which data are fully available (Jan 1, 2018 - Oct 1, 2029). Replacement adjustment - existing need: See footnote 7. This rate is multiplied by the number of existing occupied housing units. Household growth on tribal lands: Household growth identified on the tribal lands which are not subject to General Plan housing element update/planning. As discussed durnig the 5th cycle RHNA determination process, these households are both excluded in determining regional needs, and units constructed will not count toward satisfying a jurisdiction's RHNA total.       RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 17 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT     Race/Ethnicity Sex/Age 2029 Residential Population 2017 Headship Rate 2029 Households Race/Ethnicity Sex/Age 2029 Residential Population 2017 Headship Rate 2029 Households White NH Asian & Oth. NH White Male NH Asian & Oth. Male NH White 15-24 254,422 7.54% 19,172 NH Asian & Oth. 15-24 223,296 7.04%15,714 NH White 25-34 319,764 40.04% 128,049 NH Asian & Oth. 25-34 233,920 34.39% 80,455 NH White 35-44 384,282 52.30% 200,981 NH Asian & Oth. 35-44 234,858 53.38% 125,378 NH White 45-54 349,480 56.73% 198,277 NH Asian & Oth. 45-54 220,539 57.53% 126,886 NH White 55-64 322,373 62.46% 201,365 NH Asian & Oth. 55-64 201,374 58.51% 117,827 NH White 65-74 341,125 70.32% 239,893 NH Asian & Oth. 65-74 171,696 57.73% 99,118 NH White 75-84 230,154 72.29% 166,382 NH Asian & Oth. 75-84 111,302 52.64% 58,585 NH White 85+ 109,909 72.98% 80,209 NH Asian & Oth. 85+ 52,225 47.78% 24,956 NH White Male Total 2,311,510 1,234,328 NH Asian & Oth. Male Total 1,449,210 648,919 NH White Female NH Asian & Oth. Female 0 NH White 15-24 249,619 9.02% 22,512 NH Asian & Oth. 15-24 222,291 7.05%15,673 NH White 25-34 309,532 37.37% 115,687 NH Asian & Oth. 25-34 242,953 29.01% 70,493 NH White 35-44 353,394 49.76% 175,863 NH Asian & Oth. 35-44 256,035 39.72% 101,702 NH White 45-54 320,634 52.92% 169,680 NH Asian & Oth. 45-54 250,454 41.03% 102,750 NH White 55-64 318,582 53.52% 170,516 NH Asian & Oth. 55-64 228,414 37.12% 84,786 NH White 65-74 362,387 55.78% 202,122 NH Asian & Oth. 65-74 204,846 33.72% 69,067 NH White 75-84 276,412 59.19% 163,602 NH Asian & Oth. 75-84 146,686 37.99% 55,724 NH White 85+ 174,354 67.10% 116,999 NH Asian & Oth. 85+ 82,280 41.67% 34,288 NH White Female Total 2,364,914 1,136,981 NH Asian & Oth. Female Total 1,633,959 534,481 Black Hispanic NH Black Male Hispanic Male NH Black 15-24 73,225 7.11% 5,210 Hispanic 15-24 793,538 4.01% 31,828 NH Black 25-34 70,067 26.73% 18,730 Hispanic 25-34 813,915 24.60% 200,196 NH Black 35-44 82,547 44.14% 36,433 Hispanic 35-44 723,165 42.26% 305,592 NH Black 45-54 66,592 51.75% 34,459 Hispanic 45-54 592,224 51.04% 302,243 NH Black 55-64 56,756 57.66% 32,723 Hispanic 55-64 485,958 53.93% 262,072 NH Black 65-74 51,207 68.20% 34,924 Hispanic 65-74 323,946 56.16% 181,924 NH Black 75-84 26,746 59.50% 15,913 Hispanic 75-84 147,756 48.86% 72,199 NH Black 85+ 10,431 61.83% 6,450 Hispanic 85+ 59,000 45.12% 26,620 NH Black Male Total 437,571 184,841 Hispanic Male Total 3,939,502 1,382,674 NH Black Female Hispanic Female NH Black 15-24 71,673 6.19% 4,436 Hispanic 15-24 754,483 4.30% 32,461 NH Black 25-34 74,503 40.06% 29,847 Hispanic 25-34 782,872 28.22% 220,893 NH Black 35-44 85,856 58.23% 49,994 Hispanic 35-44 701,304 44.02% 308,715 NH Black 45-54 72,269 62.58% 45,223 Hispanic 45-54 578,583 45.59% 263,771 NH Black 55-64 68,812 58.51% 40,262 Hispanic 55-64 500,152 41.37% 206,928 NH Black 65-74 66,201 67.35% 44,586 Hispanic 65-74 361,773 39.79% 143,942 NH Black 75-84 37,571 68.36% 25,683 Hispanic 75-84 190,606 41.62% 79,327 NH Black 85+ 19,255 68.98% 13,282 Hispanic 85+ 83,027 44.47% 36,924 NH Black Female Total 496,141 253,313 Hispanic Female Total 3,952,799 1,292,962 Total Total Total 15-24 2,642,548 147,005 Total 25-34 2,847,526 864,349 Total 35-44 2,821,442 1,304,658 Total 45-54 2,450,776 1,243,288 Total 55-64 2,182,421 1,116,479 Total 65-74 1,883,181 1,015,576 Total 75-84 1,167,232 637,415 Total 85+ 590,480 339,727 Total Grand Total 16,585,607 6,668,498 Table 2: Household Projection Using Population Projection for 10/1/2029 Table 2 (cont'd): Household Projection Using Population Projection for 10/1/2029       RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 18 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Table 3: Analysis of SCAG region households on tribal land COUNTY TRIBE 2013-2017 ACS Estimate 2016 SCAG Estimate 2030 SCAG Projection Growth estimate, 1/2018-10/2029 Riverside Agua Caliente Reservation 13,777 13,891 17,263 2,830 Riverside Augustine Reservation 0 0 0 - Riverside Cabazon Reservation 206 206 670 389 Riverside Cahuilla Reservation 34 53 64 9 San Bernardino Chemehuevi Indian Reservation 124 295 295 - Riverside Colorado River Indian Tribes Reservation 719 944 1,089 122 San Bernardino Fort Mohave Reservation 113 73 75 2 Imperial Fort Yuma Reservation (Quechan Tribe) 405 615 773 133 Riverside Morongo Reservation 273 278 338 50 Riverside Pechanga Reservation 101 93 122 24 Riverside Ramona Reservation 0 2 2 - San Bernardino San Manuel Reservation 24 58 59 1 Riverside Santa Rosa Reservation 24 16 89 61 Riverside Soboba Reservation 387 182 229 39 Riverside Torres Martinez Reservation 840 1,148 1,919 647 San Bernardino Twenty-nine Palms Reservation 4 11 13 2 Source: Draft SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS Growth Forecast 17,031 17,864 23,000 4,310 HOUSEHOLDS       1. SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecast data and assumptions    SCAG’s growth forecast is the foundation for the 2020 RTP/SCS development and housing planning  efforts.  SCAG initiated the current growth forecasting process in July 2017.  Through the 24‐month  process, the methodology, assumptions, and results of SCAG’s growth  forecast  reflected  the  information of the most recently available socioeconomic data and statistics, including expert panel  opinions, and American Community Survey (ACS) information.  Additionally, as preparation for both  the  2020  RTP/SCS  and  the  6 th  cycle  of  RHNA,  SCAG  staff  met  one‐on‐one  with  all  197  local  jurisdictions and provided an opportunity to review the draft growth forecast.  Additional detail can  be found in the notes of Table 1.     2. Clarifying the distinction between housing need due to projected growth versus existing  need    SCAG proposes that a clear distinction be made between housing need due to projected regional  growth and that due to existing housing need following Government Code 65584.01(b)(1).  In this  context, projected need refers to housing need due to expected growth during the 6th cycle RHNA  projection period, which is from 7/1/2021 through 10/1/2029.  This approach was followed during  SCAG’s 5th cycle regional determination, which used projected growth in households as a starting  point and arrived at a determination of regional need by making adjustments to this value.      While  using  a  growth  forecast  as  a  basis  for  projected  housing need  is  a  credible,  established  approach for regional targeting, understanding existing housing need is less precise and is a less  established practice.  On March 27, 2019, SCAG convened a panel of fifteen housing, demographic,  and economic experts to assist SCAG staff with understanding how to measure and assess existing  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 19 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT housing need.  Several approaches informed by their insights are discussed throughout this memo  and SCAG staff’s estimates of existing housing need.1      As preparation for the 2020 RTP/SCS and 6th cycle of RHNA, staff met one‐on‐one with all 197 local  jurisdictions and provided an opportunity to review the draft growth forecast.  Since this process  began,  new  legislation  has  added  specific  measures  of existing  housing  need  to  the  planning  process.      SCAG has reviewed SANDAG’s 6th cycle regional determination from HCD which applied adjustment  factors  to total  households  rather  than projected  growth  in  households.    Government  Code  65584(b)(2) specifically enables this, stating “The methodology submitted by the department may  make  adjustments  based  on  the  region’s  total  projected  households,  which  includes  existing  households as well as projected households.”     SCAG believes that the nature of each adjustment must be considered carefully as to whether it is  appropriate to apply it to projected growth in households or to households existing at the beginning  of the projection period (henceforth “existing households”).  The approach outlined in Table 1 splits  adjustments based on whether they are attributable to projected growth or existing need.  As  previously noted, because local input resulting in the draft growth forecast did not address existing  need specifically, separate estimates of existing need must be addressed and an alternative means  of assessing and allocating this need is required.       1. Use of a comparable region standard and household overcrowding    Perhaps  recognizing  that  Census‐derived  data  on  household  conditions  is  reflective  of  myriad  factors in addition to housing market conditions e.g. demographic composition, unique geography,  and  cultural  and  regional  preferences,  SB  828  added  Section  65584.01  (b)(C)(ii):   “The  term  ‘overcrowded rate for a comparable housing market’ means that the overcrowding rate is no more  than the average overcrowding rate in comparable regions throughout the nation, as determined by  the council of governments.”      However, due to SCAG’s sheer size and unique demographic characteristics,  this  is  a  greater  challenge than other regions in the state.  Specifically, using 2017 American Community Survey data  for consolidated statistical areas (CSAs), the combined, five‐county area of Los Angeles, Orange,  Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura counties leads the nation in the share of households with  above 1.0 resident per room in a dwelling, at 9.8%.2                                                              1 A staff report to the May 6, 2019 SCAG RHNA Subcommittee meeting contains a recap of this Panel of Experts meeting. 2 The most common delineation of a region is the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) defined by the US Office of Management and Budget based on contiguity and labor market connectivity. However, the SCAG region is an aggregation of multiple MSAs. The Census Bureau’s definition of a CSA is roughly analogous and provides a basis of comparing the SCAG region to other areas (although Imperial County is omitted). RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 20 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Government  Code  Section  65584.01(b)(1)  defines  overcrowding  as “more  than  1.0  per  room,”  analogous to the ACS’ measure.  However, several concerns are raised by the use of this measure.   Multiple definitions of overcrowding exist including a 1.5 persons/room standard (“severe  overcrowding”) and measures which use occupants per unit size.  Despite this variety, state  law defines overcrowding as the 1.0/room standard.   SCAG’s  interpretation  of  existing  statute  is  that  overcrowding is being suggested as a  measure of housing need in order to capture “unrealized” housing demand, e.g. doubling or  tripling  up,  bundling,  adult  children  living  excessively  with  parents, etc. While the 1.0  occupants/room standard may capture some of this behavior it is not a precise reflection of  it.    Definitions of a “room” may not be universally applied and may vary based on the housing  design  characteristics,  the  character  of  a  region’s  housing  stock,  ACS  guidelines,  and  ultimately  the  opinion  of  what  constitutes  a  “room”  by  the  sample  of  householders  responding to the American Community Survey.   While housing overcrowding can be associated with substandard living  conditions,  a  planning target seeking to entirely eliminate overcrowding would remove a form of housing  safety  net—that  is,  the  ability  to  occasionally  have  additional person such as a family  member or friend in a housing unit in order to guard against further housing insecurity, up  to and including homelessness.    Measures of overcrowding may consider the same living conditions overcrowded or not  overcrowded.  For example, a family of two adults and two children living in a standard two‐ bedroom  apartment  (which  likely  contains  three  bona‐fide  rooms according  to  ACS  guidelines) live in overcrowded conditions according to the 1.0 occupants/room standard.   However, according to the California residential occupancy of standard of “two‐persons‐ per‐bedroom‐plus‐one” would not.3    There are strong cultural and demographic drivers of living arrangements.  Research on  residential occupancy standards emphasizes the extent to which a class‐specific standard of  individual space can prevent higher‐density housing in an area.4    Prior  research  on  housing  overcrowding  demonstrates  that  demographic  characteristics  show stronger observed relationships with overcrowding measures than housing market  characteristics.    A  region’s  foreign‐born  population  share  is  amongst the strongest  predictors of a region’s household overcrowding measure.5      Much of the uniqueness of the SCAG region from a demographic and housing perspective is  due to its historical and current role as a key immigrant gateway which fosters the social  and economic integration of recent immigrant arrivals to promote positive social outcomes.     Rather than choosing a single CSA as a comparable region, we propose using a set of CSAs based on  their  share  of  recently‐arrived (since  2000)  foreign‐born  population  as  a  crude  mechanism  for                                                            3 Tim Iglesias, Moving Beyond Two-Person-Per-Bedroom: Revitalizing Application of the Federal Fair Housing Act to Private Residential Occupancy Standards, 28 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. (2013). Available at: https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/gsulr/vol28/iss3/11 4 Ibid. 3 5 Myers, D., Baer, W.C., and Choi, S-Y. 1996. The changing problem of overcrowded housing. Journal of the American Planning Association 62:1, 66-84, DOI: 10.1080/01944369608975671. RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 21 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT isolating non‐demographic drivers of housing issues, including overcrowding.  Thus, a comparable  set of regions is the above list which have an average overcrowding rate of 7.49%.  The list consists  of large areas, plus mid‐sized areas in Texas and California which are also immigrant gateways  (Table 4).       Table 4: Ten largest CSAs by recently-arrived foreign-born population* (2017 ACS 1-yr.) Region/Consolidated Statistical Area (CSA) Total Population Percent Foreign-born, arrived since 2000 Percent Overcrowded (1.0/room) Percent Overcrowded (1.5/room) Percent cost-burdened (30% standard), low/very low-income renters 1 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA 18,788,800 19.7% 9.83% 3.79%88.1% 2 Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Port St. Lucie, FL 6,832,588 19.7% 4.63% 1.60%86.7% 3 San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA 8,837,789 16.8% 6.99% 2.52%85.9% 4 McAllen-Edinburg, TX 925,115 15.8% 11.25% 3.85%68.8% 5 Brownsville-Harlingen-Raymondville, TX 448,358 15.1% 9.67% 3.17%67.8% 6 El Paso-Las Cruces, TX-NM 1,058,256 15.1% 5.59% 1.82%65.5% 7 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT-PA 23,876,155 14.8% 5.26% 1.92%83.5% 8 Visalia-Porterville-Hanford, CA 614,594 14.6% 10.63% 1.99%73.9% 9 Modesto-Merced, CA 820,572 14.4% 7.09% 1.68%79.0% 10 Fresno-Madera, CA 1,146,145 13.1% 9.35% 3.48%78.1% 11 Las Vegas-Henderson, NV-AZ 2,455,481 12.0% 4.43% 1.45%77.6% **(1) is the SCAG region, excluding Imperial County AVERAGE: 7.49% 2.35%76.7%      2. Use of cost burden as an input to determining housing needs    SCAG staff’s understanding is that cost burden is a newly added data element for 2018 for which a  comprehensive approach is yet to be developed.  In particular, which (if any) income category  breakdowns to use is left unspecified.     There are several challenges in using a measure of cost burden to estimate housing unit need,  including but not limited to:   Owner and renter experiences of cost burden – and housing security – differ substantially.   Expenditure on housing represents a bundle of goods including the physical aspects of the  home itself, its location within a metropolitan area, and the labor market in which it lies.     The  30  percent‐of‐income  standard,  while  used  by  the  US  Department  of  Housing  and  Urban  Development  (HUD)  and  benefiting  from  historical  precedent, may not be an  effective measure of overpayment and housing affordability challenges.  In particular, cost  burden  shares  have  been  rising  nationwide.    A  “severe  cost  burdened”  indicator  which  measures the share of households paying more than 50 percent of income on housing may  be a better indicator, though the 30 percent standard is included in state legislation.      Using housing cost (or housing cost relative to income, which is effectively equivalent to the  cost burden measure) to estimate a number of units needed requires an analysis of the  elasticity of housing demand.  Put differently, how many units would need to be added such  that prices would decrease?  This is an especially challenging empirical and methodological  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 22 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT task due to the multi‐faceted behavioral nature of housing consumption.  By way of an  analogy, in the same way that adding freeway lane‐miles is not likely to alleviate traffic  congestion  in  the  long‐run,  there  is  not  a  one‐to‐one  (i.e.,  linear)  relationship  between  increases in housing supply and decreases in rates of housing cost burden.       Reports by the state legislative analyst’s office (LAO)6 and the McKinsey Global Institute7 both seek  to measure the elasticity of housing demand and estimate the number of housing units needed to  stabilize housing costs.  However both reports are careful to acknowledge a number of substantial  modeling  limitations.    A  high  level of trust must be placed in (generally  linear)  modeling  assumptions, e.g. the choice to use 1980 as a basis for rent growth in the LAO report’s case.  Given  inherent modeling uncertainties and the need to robustly and effectively communicate drivers of  housing need to a wide range of local jurisdictions and stakeholders, we do not recommend an  overreliance on either report’s conclusions.  Furthermore, SCAG’s share of state level housing needs  remains unexplored.  While roughly 49% of the state resides in the SCAG region, a strong rationale  would be needed in order to justify allocating 49% of a state housing target to the SCAG region— particularly given the especially acute affordability and supply issues in the state’s second‐largest  urbanized region.     Based on our analysis of the cost‐burden measure, review of similar approaches, and discussion  amongst a panel of experts, it’s clear that cost burden is an income‐based social condition rather  than a specific measure of housing undersupply.  As such, SCAG recommends caution in using a  cost‐burden measure to generate an estimate of new housing unit need.  Instead, SCAG proposes  continued research and discussion regarding how cost burden can be considered when allocating  the regional determination across income categories.     One potential approach to using cost burden measures to inform estimates of housing unit need,  which is provided for discussion but is not SCAG staff’s recommendation, is to focus on renter  households  earning  under  $50,000/year.    These  households  face  the lowest levels of housing  security.  In the SCAG region, 88.9% of renter households earning under $50,000/year are cost‐ burdened, while the share amongst the set of comparable regions in Table 4 is 76.7%.  Following  HCD’s  practice  of  adding  one  housing  unit  for  each overcrowded  household  in  excess  of  a  comparable region overcrowding rate, a potential approach using cost burden data could be to add  one housing unit for each cost‐burdened low‐income renter household above 76.7%.8       3. Use of historical comparison for understanding external drivers of housing need in the  SCAG region                                                              6 Talor, Mic. 2015. California’s high housing costs: Causes and consequences. California Legislative Analyst’s Office. March 17. 7 Woetzel, J., Mischke, J., Peloquin, S., and Weisfield, D. 2016. A tool kit to close California’s housing gap: 3.5 million homes by 2025. McKinsey Global Institute. October. 8 See the SANDAG 6th cycle RHNA determination. Additionally, per the 2017 1-year ACS estimates, the SCAG region has 1,348,193 low-income renter households as defined above. RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 23 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT An approach to estimating existing need that has been discussed at various points, including the  2015 LAO report,9 is to compare current socioeconomic indicators in a region to a historical point in  time  when  housing  supply  and  affordability  issues  in  the  region were less pronounced.  We  recommend that the relevance of decades‐old data should not be overstated given the myriad  economic,  demographic,  and  social  changes  that  have  occurred  regionally and nationally.  For  comparison, the above‐referenced LAO report compares regional to national rent growth since  1980, while a common reference point has also been the year 2000—prior to the housing bubble,  great recession, and housing collapse of the mid and late 2000s.      Table  6  presents  several  key  indicators  to  illustrate  some  differences  in  social  and  economic  conditions since 2000 which can also bear a strong relationship to measures of existing housing  need.  Fertility rates have dropped substantially and median ages have increased.  Importantly,  labor force participation – particularly amongst younger residents of the SCAG region – has declined  substantially.  This severely impacts the ability to build sufficient wealth to form households or  purchase homes.  More broadly, inflation‐adjusted median household incomes have barely risen  since 2000 despite substantial overall economic growth, making affording housing an increasing  challenge. Manufacturing jobs, long a pillar of middle‐class stability, have declined dramatically.   While employment has grown at high and low wage levels, substantial middle‐wage job losses  during the recovery from the financial crisis of the late 2000s have resulted in virtually no middle‐ wage employment growth since the beginning of the millennium—again impacting the ability to  form households purchase homes.        Table 6: Historical comparison of select social and economic conditions in the SCAG region Indicator 2000 Current Year Change Total Fertility Rate 2.17 1.75 2016 -19.6% Labor force participation, ages 16 and above 67.1% 62.0% 2018 -5.1% Labor force participation, ages 16-24 65.4% 52.8% 2018 -12.6% Median household income, 2017 constant dollars 67,726 67,943 20170.3% Median age 32.30 36.50 2020 13.0% Manufacturing employment 1,004,000 634,000 2018 -36.9% Growth in low-wage (< $18/hr) employment 344,320 Growth in middle-wage ($18-30/hr) employment 45,460 Growth in high-wage (> $30/hr) employment 252,840 Sources: SCAG 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecast, US Bureau of Labor Statistics, California Employment Development Department ES202       4. High correlation and double‐counting possibility between measures of existing housing  need     Table 1 suggests that adjustments to regional housing need should be split between those related  to projected growth and existing need.  Furthermore, this report discusses several measures of  existing housing need, namely overcrowding, cost burden, and the extent to which vacancy rates                                                            9 Ibid. 6 RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 24 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT are currently below healthy market levels.  However, as acknowledged during informal discussions  with HCD, these measures are not distinct and likely contain substantial overlap.      In addition, household formation (headship) rates can be considered measures of existing housing  need.    Headship  rates  have  been  consistently  decreasing  in  the region  for  decades  due  to  a  combination of economic, demographic, and housing drivers. SCAG’s 2020 RTP/SCS growth forecast  projects  future  population,  households,  and  employment  based  on  past  trends,  expert‐backed  assumptions, and local input and as indicated in Table 2 makes use of the most recently observed  headship rates to model future behavior, since evidence of future increases in this measure is not  present.      While the higher household formation rates of past periods may be desirable from a perspective of  housing  planning  and  social  outcomes,  we  stress  that  if  used  these  should  also  be  considered  measures of existing housing need which address the same existing housing need as adjustments  based on overcrowding, cost burden, or especially low vacancy.        5. Phasing existing need beyond a single RHNA cycle      As discussed previously, given that the state’s housing affordability and supply challenges have  accumulated over decades, it may be particularly challenging to address the entire “backlog” of  housing  needs  during  a  single  8.25‐year  period.    SCAG  proposes discussing  the  possibility  of  spreading the existing need component of the region’s determined housing needs over multiple  RHNA  cycles  in  order  to  incentivize  jurisdictions  to  make  realistic,  good‐faith  efforts  to  accommodate and foster sustainable, long‐term housing development.      This approach would have several advantages over the current approach, which is to include all  elements of projected and existing need into a short timeframe.  The current approach largely  “expires” after the planning period and provides minimal incentive for long‐range housing planning.   In past RHNA cycles, housing construction typically lags far behind RHNA targets with market rate  construction largely following market trends and affordable housing persistently in short supply.  A  2019 LAO report10 discusses the benefits of a lengthened planning period, noting that it would help  communities from becoming locked‐in to land use patterns that could prevent the accommodation  of  future  growth  while encouraging  local  thinking  about  the  connection  between development  patterns and long‐range infrastructure and climate adaptation goals.      While there are many details which would need to be discussed further with HCD, one approach  would be to spread an estimate of existing housing need across the 6th, 7th, and 8th cycles of RHNA  for the region (roughly 25 years total) and allocate 1/3 to each cycle.  2/3 would be “carried over”  into the 7th and 8th cycles and, at the beginning of those planning periods, would be added to the  need due to projected growth based on more recent economic and demographic information.  Data  related to existing need could be reviewed at that time as well.                                                             10 Petek, G. 2019. The 2019-20 budget: What can be done to improve local planning for housing? California Legislative Analyst’s Office publication. February. RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 25 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT   We recognize that such an approach would not be without challenges and many details would need  to be worked out; however, we believe this may be an effective mechanism for incentivizing local  participation in fulfilling long‐range housing needs.      6. Issues related to sites, zoning, and COG efforts to promote housing    Furthermore, we recognize that RHNA is a planning target and does not require jurisdictions or  COGs to build housing.  Following the determination of regional need and its allocation to local  jurisdictions, the main policy tool of RHNA is the identification of available sites and ensuring that  zoning sufficiently allows for development which can achieve regional targets.  However, broader  housing affordability and supply challenges are the result of numerous issues including limited state  and  federal  availability  of  affordable  housing  funding,  poor  middle‐income  job  growth,  high  construction labor costs, and other issues which RHNA’s main policy tool is not able to facilitate.  As  such, we suggest that a RHNA existing need target should strive to isolate the share of existing  housing need attributable to the unavailability of appropriately designated sites—a component of  housing need attributable to jurisdiction‐level planning—in order to increase the robustness of the  request being made of local jurisdictions.     We believe there are some approaches which could alleviate concerns over the need to identify  sites for which relate to an existing need which is driven by myriad factors beyond the control of a  local jurisdiction.  First, the use of a comparable region as already called for in the 2018 housing  legislation as a planning target can help to net out other, exogenous drivers of housing demand.   Secondly, ensuring that multiple measures of the same source of existing housing need are not  “doubled up” is an important technique which realizes that a single, credible estimate of “existing  need” is not necessarily feasible using the measures referenced in state law.      Finally, SCAG is committed to successfully meeting the region’s housing needs.  While ultimately  additional  state  policy  and  financial  assistance  will  be  necessary to further promote additional  housing  development—particularly  affordable  housing—SCAG  staff  are  in  various  stages  of  developing  supportive  programs  which  assist  local  jurisdictions  in  achieving  long‐range  housing  targets including the following:       1) SCAG’s Data Map Books, produced for the aforementioned Bottom‐up  local  input  and  envisioning process, proposed a methodology for identifying potential infill land and solicited input  from local jurisdictions.  It is likely that some of this potentially developable land inventory could fill  future housing need and fulfill RHNA allocations.      2)  SCAG’s  Regional  Data  Platform  and  General  Plan  Update  Tool.  A part of SCAG’s Future  Communities Initiative, our recent investment in GIS and data aims to provide additional technical  assistance to jurisdictions during the next housing element update process and aims to help in the  identification of sites and zoning characteristics that would fulfill housing need.    3) SCAG’s tax increment financing pilot program.  In particular, SCAG has funded pilot programs to  help jurisdictions navigate the state economic development incentive landscape with a focus on  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 26 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Enhanced  Infrastructure  Finance  Districts  (EIFDs),  Community  Revitalization  and  Improvement  Areas (CRIAs), and federal Opportunity Zones (OZs). Each of these represent mechanisms which  have the potential to fund future housing construction.  EIFDs offer particular promise to replenish  some  of  the  funding  for  affordable  housing  which  became  unavailable  following  the  2012  dissolution  of  Redevelopment  Authorities  (RDAs).    Importantly, they  are  not  restricted  to  designated disadvantaged areas.  SCAG’s pilot program has assisted several cities in studying and  eventually adopting EIFDs, in addition to leveraging our relationships with county governments who  are also able to contribute tax increment to priority projects.  A specific focus of SCAG’s upcoming  round  of  pilots  is  for  project  areas  with  an  affordable  housing  component  which  could  have  substantial impacts on the ability of jurisdictional own‐source funding for this goal.     FISCAL IMPACT:   Work associated with this item is included in the current FY 18‐19  General  Fund  Budget  (800.0160.03:RHNA).  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 27 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting              REPORT Southern California Association of Governments  900 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, California 90017  June 3, 2019      RECOMMENDED ACTION:    For Information Only – No Action Required    STRATEGIC PLAN:  This  item  supports  the  following  Strategic  Plan  Goal  2:  Advance  Southern  California’s  policy  interests  and  planning  priorities  through  regional,  statewide, and  national  engagement  and  advocacy.     EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:  SCAG staff recommends that the proposed RHNA allocation methodology include a series of steps  to determine existing housing need and projected housing need. Existing housing need will use a  jurisdiction’s share of regional population and proximity to transit as the determining factors and  a 110 percent social equity adjustment will be applied. Existing housing need will be assigned to  three (3) income categories of very low, low, and moderate income households. To determine  projected housing need, a jurisdiction’s projected household growth will be used as the basis and  a future vacancy need and replacement need will be applied. Additionally, a 150 percent social  equity  adjustment  will  be  applied  to  projected  housing  need  to  determine  four  (4)  income  categories. Under these recommendations, a jurisdiction’s RHNA will be the sum of its existing  and projected housing need.     BACKGROUND:  As  part  of  the  RHNA  process  SCAG  must  develop  a  proposed  RHNA  methodology,  which  will  determine each jurisdiction’s draft RHNA allocation as a share of the regional determination of  existing  and  projected  housing  need  provided  by  the  California Department  of  Housing  and  Community Development (HCD). While State housing law outlines several requirements for the  proposed  RHNA  methodology,  such  as  meeting  five  main  objectives,  conducting  methodology  surveys, and holding at least one public hearing, no specifics are provided on how the regional  allocation should be distributed to individual jurisdictions.         To: Regional Housing Needs Assessment Subcommittee (RHNA) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S APPROVAL     From: MaAyn Johnson, Senior Regional Planner, Compliance &  Performance Monitoring, (213) 236‐1975,  johnson@scag.ca.gov    Subject: Proposed RHNA Distribution Methodology RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 28 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT   At its March 4, 2019 meeting, the RHNA Subcommittee held a general discussion on the State  housing law objectives of social equity and affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH). For its April  1, 2019 meeting, the RHNA Subcommittee reviewed different mechanisms to distribute existing  housing  need  and  meeting  social  equity  and  AFFH  objectives,  along  with  the  methodologies  adopted  by  other  COGs  in  prior  RHNA  cycles.  At  its  May  6,  2019 meeting,  the  Subcommittee  discussed SCAG staff’s recommendation to use a combination of population share and proximity to  transit as influencing factors for determining a jurisdiction’s existing housing need.     In continuation of the May 6 discussion in this report, SCAG staff provides further data and analysis  of  its  approach  to  distributing  existing  need  and  also  recommends  a  mechanism  to  distribute  projected housing need and apply a social equity adjustment. While this report is intended as an  information item, SCAG staff is seeking input and direction from the RHNA Subcommittee on the  recommended approaches below for distributing existing and projected need to jurisdictions along  with the social equity adjustments to determine the four RHNA income categories. Thereafter,  SCAG staff will review the input received and develop a proposed RHNA methodology for the July 1,  2019  RHNA  Subcommittee  meeting.  SCAG  staff  will  request  that  the  RHNA  Subcommittee  recommend further approval of the proposed methodology to the Community, Economic & Human  Development  (CEHD)  Committee  and  the  Regional  Council  at  their August  5,  2019  meetings.  Following approval from the Regional Council, SCAG will begin the public comment period on the  proposed methodology and will hold at least one public hearing to receive comments in August or  September 2019.     The methodology for existing need and social equity adjustment discussed at the May 6 RHNA  Subcommittee meeting was presented to the SCAG Technical Working Group (TWG) at their April  18 and May 23 meetings. The TWG provided valuable feedback at both meetings and based on their  input, along with those provided at the RHNA Subcommittee meetings, SCAG staff has modified  some of its original suggestions for the RHNA methodology, which are discussed in this staff report.     The RHNA Allocation  The total RHNA allocation is the jurisdiction’s share of existing and projected housing needs in the  region. The final RHNA of each jurisdiction, by income category, must add up to the same total of  the regional total RHNA provided by the HCD during the RHNA process. While HCD requires that  indicators of existing need be included in the process to determine regional housing need, there are  no statutory requirements on how existing need is distributed in the RHNA methodology. SCAG  staff recommends a formulaic approach to ensure to maintain consistency  and  transparency  throughout the RHNA process.                  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 29 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT                                             Recommended Distribution Methodology  To determine a jurisdiction’s total RHNA need, SCAG staff recommends at multi‐step process:    1. Determine existing housing need  a. Assign 70 percent of regional existing need to jurisdictions based on each  jurisdiction’s share of the regional population  b. Assign 30 percent of regional existing need based on a jurisdiction’s share of  population within the regional high quality transit areas (HQTAs)  c. Apply a 110% social equity adjustment to determine three income categories (very  low, low, and moderate)    2. Determine projected housing need   a. Assign household growth to jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction’s share of  regional household growth based on the Integrated Growth Forecast collected from  local input data  b. Calculate a jurisdiction’s future vacancy need by applying a healthy market vacancy  rate separately to the jurisdiction’s owner and renter households  c. Assign a replacement need to jurisdictions based on each jurisdiction’s share of  regional replacement need based on information collected from the replacement  need survey submitted by local jurisdictions  d. Apply a 150% social equity adjustment to determine four income categories (very  low, low, moderate, and above moderate)  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 30 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT   3. Add the existing housing need by income category from step 1 and the projected housing  need by income category from step 2 together to determine a jurisdiction’s total RHNA  allocation and by income category    This staff report will provide an overview of each step and examples of how this methodology  would be applied to two cities, City A and City B. The two cities are based on two existing SCAG  cities but their data has been modified to illustrate how the proposed methodology would affect  different jurisdictions. City A is a jurisdiction that has a high  concentration  of  lower  income  households and 38 percent of its total city acreage is within an HQTA. City B is located in a different  county and is considered suburban, and does not have any HQTAs within its boundaries. It has a  higher concentration of high income households in comparison to its county. For this example, City  A and City B have the same population of 65,000.     The total regional RHNA allocation, which will include the regional existing and projected need  along  with  regional  need  by  income  category,  will  be  determined as part of the regional  determination  process  and  is  separate  from  the  SCAG  methodology  process.  For  purposes  of  illustration only, this staff report assumes a regional existing housing need of 250,000 units and a  regional projected need of 400,000 units. However because the regional determination process will  not conclude until mid to late summer 2019, the final existing and projected needs for the region  might be higher or lower.     Additionally, it is important to consider the proposed RHNA methodology as a concept rather than  focusing on the impact to singular jurisdictions. The purpose of the proposed methodology is to  ensure that statewide housing goals are met at the regional level. Fixating on only one jurisdiction  may overlook the bigger picture of what the proposed RHNA methodology is intended to achieve – which  at  a  regional  level  increase  housing  supply,  promote  infill  development  and  encourage  efficient development patterns, promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and  housing,  mitigating  the  overconcentration  of  household  income  categories, and affirmatively  furthering fair housing.     RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 31 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Step 1  The first step to determine a jurisdiction’s RHNA allocation is to determine its existing housing need  using the regional existing need as the starting point. Staff’s recommendation to determine this  splits the regional existing need into two parts. One part is based on the jurisdiction’s share of  regional  population  and  the  second  part  is  based  on  the  jurisdiction’s  share  of  the  region’s  population within a HQTA.            Regional existing  housing need  250,000  x  Distribution  based on  population share  70%  =  175,000  Regional existing  housing need  250,000  x  Distribution  based on  population  within HQTA  30%  = 75,000      RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 32 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Step 1a: Share of Regional Population  SCAG staff recommends that 70 percent of the regional existing need be assigned based on a  jurisdiction’s share of regional population. Assuming a regional existing need of 250,000 units, this  means  that  70  percent,  or  175,000 units  will  be  distributed  to jurisdictions  based  on  their  population.  This  straightforward  distribution  assigns  more  existing need in areas with larger  populations.     The SCAG region has a population of over 18 million people. Because City A and City B have the  same population of 65,000, they both have has 0.35% of the region’s population. Based on this  step, they each will receive 606 units for their share of the regional existing population.       SCAG existing need  based on population  share  x Share of regional  population = City A Existing need based on  share of regional population  175,000  x  0.35%=606      SCAG existing need  based on population  share  x Share of regional  population = City B Existing need based on  share of regional population  175,000  x  0.35%=606        Step 1b: Share of Regional HQTA Population  The next step involves the consideration of proximity to transit to distribute the remaining 30  percent  of  the  region’s  existing  housing  need.  To  measure  proximity  to  transit,  SCAG  staff  is  recommending the use of High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA)s, which are areas that are within a half‐ mile of transit stations and corridors that have at least a fifteen (15) minute headway (time in  between the next scheduled service) during peak hours. Encouraging growth within HQTAs can  promote the use of transit, resulting in lower commute times, reduced greenhouse gas emissions,  and efficient land use patterns.     The 30 percent of the regional existing housing need will be distributed based on a jurisdiction’s  share of regional population within an HQTA. In this example, this translates to 75,000 units that  will  be  distributed  regionally  based  on  this  factor.  City  B  does not have any HQTAs within its  jurisdiction and will receive 0 units of the 75,000. City A has a mix of HQTA and non‐HQTA areas. To  calculate its share of the 75,000 regional units, the methodology looks at City A’s population within  its HQTA areas and determines its share of the regional population  within  HQTA  areas.  It  is  determined that City A has 0.37% of the regional population within an HQTA and will be assigned  274 in addition to its need determined by population share from Step 1a.         RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 33 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT   Existing need based on  share of regional  population  x  Share of regional  population within  HQTA  =  City A Existing need based on share of regional population  within HQTA  75,000  x  0.37%=274           SCAG existing need  based on population  share within HQTA  x  Share of regional  population within  HQTA  =  City B Existing need based on  share of regional population  within HQTA  75,000  x  0.00%=0    Jurisdictions throughout the SCAG region vary in the population they have that are within HQTA.  Some, such as City B, have no HQTAs at all while others have 100 percent of their population  residing within an HQTA. Jurisdiction‐specific information about HQTAs can be found online on  SCAG’s  Open  Data  platform  at:  http://gisdata‐scag.opendata.arcgis.com/.  As  part  of  the  final  version  of  the  proposed  RHNA  methodology,  provided  that  HQTAs  will be  used  as part  of  the  methodology, SCAG staff will provide data about HQTAs for each jurisdiction.     To determine a jurisdiction’s existing housing need steps 1a and 1b are combined.     Step 1a: Existing need  based on population  share  +  Step 1b: Existing need  based on share of  regional population  within HQTA  =  City A Existing need   606 + 274 =880      Step 1a: Existing need  based on population  share  +  Step 1b: Existing need  based on share of  regional population  within HQTA  =  City B Existing need  606 + 0 =606    From step 1, City A has an existing housing need of 880 and City B has an existing need of 606.  Although the jurisdictions have the same population size, their existing need difference is based on  the prevalence, or lack of, HQTAs within their respective cities.     There were several suggestions provided on the basis of using population share and population  share within HQTAs at the RHNA Subcommittee and TWG meetings. One comment requested that  existing need be distributed based on factors that HCD will use in determining regional existing  need, particularly overcrowding, cost‐burdened households (those that pay more than 30 percent  of household income on housing), and vacancy rates. The assumed reasoning is that these  particular conditions are the main contributors to the regional existing need and should be assigned  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 34 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT to where these problems occur. Another comment requested that SCAG staff analyze building  permit data alongside existing need indicators to determine existing housing need.     In order to explore any trends and patterns of these possible factors, SCAG staff looked at four main  factors:  1)  single  family  permits  issued  (2006‐2018),  2)  multi‐family  permits  (2006‐2018),  3)  overcrowding, and 4) cost‐burdened households. To ensure that adequate comparisons, SCAG staff  calculated a ratio of these factors per 1,000 population for building permits issued and per 1,000  households  for  overcrowding  and  cost‐burdened  households.  The  period  for  permit  data  was  chosen to cover the last two RHNA cycles, which are 2006‐2014 (4th cycle) and 2013‐2017 (within 5th  cycle  2013‐2021).  The  attached  excel  sheet  to  this  report  provides  these  ratios  for  each  SCAG  jurisdiction.     The  red  highlighted  cells  of  the  attachment  signify  that  the  jurisdiction  is  above  or  below  the  average calculated for the region. For permits issued, jurisdictions highlighted in red have issued  fewer permits than the regional average. For the overcrowding and  cost‐burdened  ratios,  highlighted  jurisdictions  have  a  higher  rate  than  the  regional  average.  A  highlighted  cell  thus  indicates that for that indicator of existing need, the jurisdiction has more pronounced problem  than the average for the region.     Upon review of the four indicators, there is not a single trend for the entire region. Some  jurisdictions have more indicators that are beyond the regional average than others and others  have none at all. The conditions of jurisdictions experiencing these indicators are also different from  each  other.  For  example,  there  are  a  number  of  jurisdictions  that  have  a  lower  than  average  permitting rate for single family units and multi‐family units, and have a higher than average cost‐ burdened problem but not an overcrowding problem. These jurisdictions however, are dissimilar in  demographics and geography. Some are urbanized low income areas while others are suburban  higher income areas. Others have permitted higher than multi‐family units and have higher than  average cost‐burdened households but are higher income while some jurisdictions with the same  existing need indicators are lower income.     There  are  myriad  of  reasons  for  each  of  these  conditions  and  the data table of existing need  indicators do not point to a sole trend to use for existing need  methodology.  Perhaps  some  jurisdictions experience a high number of cost‐burdened households due to the premium added for  being  in  a  highly  desirable  location  while  in  lower  income  areas  the  cost  of  housing  may  be  relatively high due to lower household incomes. Jurisdictions that permit units below the regional  average may be causing a cross‐jurisdictional problem and contributing to overcrowding conditions  within their subregion, despite neighboring jurisdictions issuing permits more than the regional  average.     The lack of a single trend suggests that existing need indicators such as overcrowding and cost‐ burdened households viewed at the jurisdictional level may be a symptom of the housing crisis  rather than a cause. Moreover, the consequences of a low permitting rate are not confined to  jurisdictional boundaries and might not illustrate the full picture of existing housing need. For these  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 35 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT reasons, SCAG staff continues to recommend a regional approach to distributing existing housing  need.     However, the methodology should not completely ignore areas where existing need indicators are.  Assigning  a  certain  percentage  of  existing  need  to  HQTAs  addresses  these  indicators  since  overcrowding conditions and overpaying households tend to overlap in HQTA areas, particularly for  lower income households, and thus existing need is assigned to areas that already generate this  need. Distributing 30 percent of existing need acknowledges that these areas do need housing and  can link SCAG’s regional transportation efforts to increase transit accessibility for households of all  income levels. Distributing 70 percent of existing need to the entire SCAG region acknowledges that  that the housing crisis is a collective problem that requires a collective solution, and that sharing the  responsibility of housing planning is not confined to jurisdictional boundaries.     Step 1c: Social Equity Adjustment for Existing Need      The next step is to calculate income categories for existing housing need and by income category.  Based on input received at the RHNA Subcommittee and TWG meetings, SCAG staff is proposing  that a 110 percent adjustment be applied to existing housing need rather than the 150 percent that  is applied to the projected housing need. Additionally, it is proposed that the existing housing need  be categorized into three, instead of four income categories: very low, low, and moderate income.  Above moderate need is then redistributed to the three remaining categories while maintaining  their current proportions.    While  approximately  43  percent  of  all  SCAG  households  live  within  an  HQTA,  lower  income  households tend to live within an HQTA while higher income households tend to live in non‐HQTA  areas. For example, in Los Angeles County 63 percent of all households live within an HQTA, with 72  percent of the County’s very low income households living within an HQTA while only 56 percent of  above moderate income households do. In San Bernardino County, 9 percent of households live  within an HQTA, with  11 percent of its very low income households living within an HQTA while  only 6 percent of above moderate households live in HQTAs. The pattern of disparity among the  income  levels  means  that  assigning  any  RHNA  need  based  on  HQTAs  will  result  in  a  disproportionate impact to areas that have a high concentration of lower income households and  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 36 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT possibly perpetuate segregation patterns based on income and indirectly race. 1 For this reason,  SCAG  staff  recommends  an  income  adjustment  of  110  percent  in  order  to  mitigate  an  overconcentration of income groups while acknowledging that the existing need is essential in areas  with existing need indicators.      At  the  same  time,  the  conditions  of  overcrowding  and  cost‐burdened  have  disproportionate  impacts on lower income households. For example, a lower income household paying 40 percent of  their income on housing has less remaining income available for other costs than that of a higher  income household that spends the same percentage on housing. The lower the income of the  household  the  more  impact  overpaying  on  household  costs  becomes.  In  addition,  past  RHNA  progress reports indicated that the RHNA target for above moderate income housing has been met  while not for the other three income categories: very low, low and moderate.  For this reason, SCAG  recommends that existing need focus on three income categories and exclude above moderate  income housing from a jurisdiction’s existing need.    For  reference,  below  is  the  median  household  income  by  county. State  law  requires  that  the  mitigation of overconcentration of income categories be compared to the county distribution rather  than the regional distribution.      Imperial County: $44,779   Orange County: $61,015   Los Angeles County: $81,851   Riverside County: $60,807   San Bernardino County: $57,156   Ventura County: $81,972   SCAG region: $64,114    The four RHNA income categories are very low (50 percent or less of the county median income),  low (50‐80 percent), moderate (80 to 120 percent), and above moderate (120 percent and above).  However,  one  of  the  State  housing  law  goals  specifically  require  that  the  proposed  RHNA  methodology  allocate  a  lower  proportion  of  housing  need  in  jurisdictions  that  already  have  a  disproportionately  high  concentration  of  those  households  in  comparison  to  the  county  distribution.     A social equity adjustment approach compares a jurisdiction’s distribution for each income category  to  the  county  distribution  and  then  makes  an adjustment  to  each  category  distribution  to  the  jurisdiction. If the adjustment was 100 percent a jurisdiction’s distribution would be exactly the  same as the County’s distribution. Conceptually a 110 percent adjustment means that the City  meets the County distribution and goes beyond that threshold by 10 percent, resulting in a higher  or lower distribution than the County depending on what existing conditions are in the City.                                                               1 While not a formal part of this analysis to recommend a proposed RHNA methodology, there are numerous social  equity and environmental justice studies and data available that correlate areas of lower income households with  racial minorities and other protected groups under the federal Fair Housing Act.   RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 37 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT   Income category  City A existing  household  income  distribution  County X existing  housing  distribution/  100% adjustment 110% adjustment  Very low  30.1% 25.3%24.8% Low 23.2% 15.6%14.8% Moderate  17.6% 16.8%16.7% Above moderate  29.1% 42.3%43.6%         Household Income Level  Formula to Calculate City A Social Equity Adjustment of 110% Very Low Income 30.1%‐[(30.1%‐25.3%)x110%] = 24.8%  Low Income 23.2%‐[(23.2%‐15.6%)x110%] = 14.8%  Moderate Income 17.6%+[(16.8%‐17.6%)x110%] = 16.7%  Above Moderate Income 29.1%+[(42.3%‐29.1%)x110%] = 43.6%    The table above illustrates that based on its existing household income distribution, City A has a  higher concentration of lower income households in comparison to County X, and has a lower  concentration of higher income households in comparison to the county distribution. For reference,  SCAG applied a 110 percent adjustment for both the 4th and 5th RHNA cycles, though that was the  only  factor  used  to  affect  the  distribution  of  regional  housing need in the adopted RHNA  methodology.     The same mechanism is then applied to City B. The adjustment results in a different trend since City  B has a lower concentration of low income households in comparison to County Y, so it is required  to do a higher percentage of low income households than the county after adjustment.     Income category  City B existing  household  income  distribution  County Y existing  housing  distribution/  100% adjustment 110% adjustment  Very low  15.8% 23.7%24.5% Low 12.2% 16.5%16.9% Moderate  16.8% 18.3%18.5% Above moderate  55.2% 41.5%40.1%     RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 38 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT To determine three income categories and maintain the same total existing need, the above  moderate income category is redistributed back to the three remaining income categories while  retaining the same proportions.     City A Income  Distribution  Very low  Low Moderate Above  moderate  Total Current  distribution  30.1%  23.2% 17.6% 29.1%  100% After 110%  adjustment  24.8%  14.8% 16.7% 43.6%  100% After 110%  adjustment and  3 categories  44.0%  26.3% 29.7%_ _  100%           City B Income  Distribution  Very low  Low Moderate Above  moderate  Total Current  distribution  15.8%  12.2% 16.8% 55.2%  100% After 110%  adjustment  24.5%  16.9% 18.5% 40.1%  100% After 110%  adjustment and  3 categories  40.9%  28.3% 30.8%_ _  100%     The readjusted category percentages are applied to the total existing need to determine the units  for each category.     Existing housing need  City A RHNA allocation (units) City B RHNA allocation (units) Very low 360 267  Low 249 160  Moderate 271 180  Above moderate ‐‐‐‐  Total 880 606      This approach of excluding above moderate income housing and applying a 110 percent adjustment  is a different approach than initially reviewed by SCAG staff at the May 6 RHNA Subcommittee  meeting. The previous approach suggested that a 150 percent adjustment be applied to both the  existing and projected need to determine all four categories. However, based on feedback received  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 39 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT from  the  Subcommittee  and  TWG,  SCAG  staff  recommends  that  existing  need  be  calculated  differently than projected need.     A social equity adjustment that is lower than that used for projected need acknowledges that while  there  is  a  goal  to  mitigate  the  overconcentration  of  income  categories,  there  is  still  need  for  affordable  housing  in  communities  that  currently  have  a  high  concentration  of  lower  income  households. The need for assigning existing housing need to lower income categories also works  towards this balance by removing market rate housing since indicators of existing housing need,  such as overcrowding and cost‐burdened households, tend to impact lower income households  more than high income households.       RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 40 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Step 2: Projected Housing Need  The next step is to determine a jurisdiction’s projected need.         To determine a jurisdiction’s projected need, SCAG staff recommends a three‐step process:    a. Determine the jurisdiction’s share of regional projected household growth based on local  input  b. Determine future vacancy need based on a jurisdiction’s existing composition of owner and  renter households and apply a vacancy rate on projected household growth based on the  following:   a. Apply a 1.5% vacancy need for owner households  b. Apply a 5.0% vacancy need for renter households  c. Determine a jurisdiction’s share of regional replacement need based on replacement need  survey results    Step 2a: Projected Household Growth  Between October 2017 and October 2018, SCAG staff conducted the Bottoms‐up Local Input and  Envisioning process, which was an extensive outreach effort that surveyed each SCAG jurisdiction  on population, household, and employment growth, among other local policies and plans to help  inform the Connect SoCal and other regional plans such as RHNA. SCAG staff met with all 197  jurisdictions within the region and collected input and data on growth throughout the process.     Based  on  the  input  received  on  household  growth,  SCAG  recommends  assigning  projected  household  growth  based  on  a  jurisdiction’s  share  of  regional  household  growth.  The  regional  projected household growth will be determined as part of the regional determination process with  HCD.  For  purposes  of  illustration,  this  report  assumes  that  the  regional  household  growth  is  determined to be 425,000. Using local input submitted by City A and City B, the share of regional  household growth for the jurisdictions is calculated and applied to the regional household growth.            RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 41 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT     Regional household  growth x Share of regional  household growth =  City A household growth  425,000  x  0.12%=498           Regional household  growth x Share of regional  household growth =  City B household growth   425,000  x  0.31%=1,324      While  the  jurisdictions  have  the  same  population,  they  have  reported  different  responses  in  household  growth  over  the  same  time  period.  This  can  be  due  to different  reasons,  including  varying  market  conditions,  demand,  and  building  activity.  Moreover  the  household  growth  indicated by jurisdictions does not include anticipated income levels of reported future households  and the projected growth reported from jurisdictions may vary by socioeconomic indicators.     Step 2b: Future Vacancy Need  The purpose of a future vacancy need is to ensure that there is enough vacant units to support  projected household growth. An undersupply of vacant units can prevent new households from  forming or moving into a jurisdiction. Formulaically, future vacancy need is a percentage applied to  the jurisdiction’s household growth by tenure (owner and renter households).     To calculate a jurisdiction’s future vacancy need, its proportion of owner‐occupied units and renter‐ occupied  units  are  determined  using  American  Community  Survey  (ACS)  2013‐2017  data.  The  percentages are then applied to the jurisdiction’s projected household growth from the previous  step, which results in the number of projected households that are predicted to owners and those  that are predicted to be renters.     Next, two different vacancy rates are applied. SCAG staff recommends using the same percentages  applied in the regional determination provided by HCD. Because the final vacancy rates used in the  regional determination will not be determined until mid‐to late Summer 2019 at the earliest, SCAG  will  adjust  the  two  percentages  in  the  proposed  methodology  after  HCD  assigns  the  regional  determination. Currently SCAG proposes using an owner‐occupied units rate of 1.5 percent while  using a rate of 5 percent for renter‐occupied units. The difference is due to the higher rates of  turnover generally reported by renter units in comparison to owner‐occupied units. Additionally,  recent State legislation requires that renter units have a minimum vacancy rate of 5 percent.               RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 42 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT                                         For City A, there are noticeably more renter‐occupied households (57.6%) in comparison to owner‐ occupied households (42.4%). These percentages are applied to the household growth to indicate  that of that projected growth, 211 are likely to be owners and 287 will be renters. For the 211  owner‐occupied households, there will need to be a vacancy rate of 1.5 percent, or 3 units, to  support  household  growth.  For  the  287  renter‐occupied  households,  there  will  need  to  be  a  vacancy rate of 5 percent, or 15 units, to support household growth. These subtotals by tenure are  then added together to determine City A’s future vacancy need, 18 units.     The same process is applied to City B. Based on this methodology, City B’s future vacancy need is 35  units.        City A: 498 Projected HH growth Existing owner and renter City B: 1,324 Projected HH growth Existing owner and renter 42.4% Owner‐Occupied  57.6% Renter‐Occupied  211 units X 1.5% = 3 units 287 units X 5.0% = 15 units 3 units + 15 units = 18 units RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 43 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT     Step 2c: Replacement Need  Residential units are demolished for a variety of reasons, including natural disasters, fire, or desires  to construct entirely new residences. Each time a unit is demolished, a household is displaced and  disrupts the jurisdiction’s pattern of projected household growth. The household may choose to live  in a vacant unit or leave the jurisdiction, of which both scenarios result in negative household  growth through the loss of a vacant unit for a new household or subtracting from the jurisdictions  number of households.     For these reasons, replacement need is a required component of the  regional  determination  provided  by  HCD.  SCAG  staff  recommends  that  replacement  need  be  calculated  using  a  jurisdiction’s share of the regional replacement need based on data submitted for the replacement  need survey, which was conducted between March and April 2019.     Each jurisdiction’s share of historical demolitions between reporting years 2008 and 2018, which  was collected from the California Department of Finance (DOF), was tabulated and provided to  jurisdictions in the replacement need survey. Jurisdictions were asked to provide data on units that  replaced the reported demolished units and units lost due to site zoning changes to non‐residential  uses. A net replacement need was determined based on this information for each jurisdiction and  each jurisdiction’s share of the net regional replacement need was calculated.     Once  SCAG  receives  its  regional determination  from  HCD,  SCAG  will  be  able  to  apply  these  percentage shares to each jurisdiction. For illustrative purposes for this report, the replacement  need for the region is 5,000 units. Based on their submitted surveys, City A has a net share of 0.48%  of the regional replacement need while City B has indicated every demolished unit was replaced,  resulting in a 0.0% share. This results in a replacement need of 24 units for City A and 0 units for  City B.         RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 44 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Regional Replacement  Need x Share of regional net  replacement need =  City A replacement need  5,000 x  0.48%=24           Regional Replacement  Need x Share of regional net  replacement need =  City B replacement need  5,000 x  0.00%=0        After  determining  each  of  the  projected  housing  need  components, they are combined to  determine a jurisdiction’s projected housing need.         Projected  HH growth +  Future  vacancy  need  + Replacement  need =  City A  projected  housing  need  498  +  18  +24 =  540   Projected  HH growth +  Future  vacancy  need  + Replacement  need =  City B  projected  housing  need  1,324  +  35  +0 =  1,359   The next step is to separate projected housing need into four income  categories.  To  avoid  perpetuating historical patterns of segregation in consideration of AFFH, SCAG staff recommends a  150 percent social equity adjustment to projected housing need.       Similar to step 1c, the existing household income distribution is compared to the county distribution  and then modified. A 150 percent adjustment results in a noticeably higher difference in income  categories for City and City B in comparison to their respective county distributions than a 110  percent adjustment.     RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 45 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT   Income category  City A existing  household income  distribution  County X existing housing  distribution/ 100%  adjustment  150% adjustment  Very low 30.1% 25.3%22.9%  Low 23.2% 15.6%11.8%  Moderate 17.6% 16.8%16.4%  Above moderate  29.1% 42.3%48.9%    Income category  City B existing  household income  distribution  County Y existing housing  distribution/ 100%  adjustment  150% adjustment  Very low 15.8% 23.7%27.7%  Low 12.2% 16.5%18.6%  Moderate 16.8% 18.3%19.1%  Above moderate  55.2% 41.5%34.6%    The readjusted category percentages are applied to the total existing need to determine the units  for each category.     Projected housing need  City A RHNA allocation (units) City B RHNA allocation (units) Very low 124 376  Low 64 253  Moderate 89 259  Above moderate 264 471  Total 540 1,359      Step 3: Total RHNA Allocation      The  final  step  in determining  a  jurisdiction’s  total  RHNA  allocation  by income  category.  This  is  completed by combining the income categories as determined by step 1 and 2.    City A  Very low  Low Moderate Above  Total RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 46 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT moderate  Existing need 360 249 271 ‐‐ 880 Projected need 124 64 89 264 540 Total RHNA 484 312 360 264 1,420     City B  Very low  Low Moderate Above  moderate  Total Existing need 267 160 180 ‐‐ 606 Projected need 376 253 259 471 1,359 Total RHNA 643 413 439 471 1,965   Total RHNA  Allocation  (units)  Very low  Low Moderate Above  moderate  Total City A 484 312 360 264  1,420 City B 643 413 439 471 1,965     The Case for a Different Methodology  The proposed methodology illustrated in this staff report is a departure from past RHNA cycle  methodologies.  Prior  RHNA  cycles  focused  mainly  on  projected  housing  need,  however  due  to  market conditions and the recognition of the housing crisis at the State level, the 6th RHNA cycle  places a heavier emphasis on existing housing need and the need to not simply choose “business as  usual.”    Existing housing need is an accumulation of decades of the underproduction of housing and it  would  be  impossible  to  pinpoint  a  single  or  few  jurisdictions  that  would  have  single‐handedly  caused existing housing need. Overcrowded and cost‐burdened household indicators applied at the  jurisdictional level are a symptom of the housing crisis and are not its causes while at the regional  level,  these  indicators  reflect  an  overall  need.  Moreover,  these  indicators  are  not  confined  to  jurisdictional  boundaries  and  each  jurisdiction  may  be  experiencing  different  levels  of  these  indicators, all with different underlying factors. It would be impossible to determine the level of  cause and effect at each jurisdictional level using existing need indicators as the direct basis for  determining existing housing need.     On the other hand, an HQTA linkage supports a more efficient development pattern that prior  RHNA cycles have not adequately addressed, particularly for access to jobs. Including transit  proximity as a factor in existing housing need does not adversely impact AFFH and at the same time  acknowledges that there is still some level of affordable housing need in areas that have high rates  of existing need indicators. For these reasons, SCAG staff recommends that this collective problem  be addressed with a collective solution.    RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 47 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting                REPORT Additionally, SCAG staff recommends to continue the integrity of the local input process and to use  input  from  jurisdictions  on  household  growth  as  the  basis  for  projected  need.  To  ensure  that  historical patterns of segregation are not perpetuated and to promote social equity, a 150 percent  social equity adjustment is recommended to projected housing need.     Certainly this recommended methodology is a break from the past, but the past has relied on  modest approaches that have not been able to prevent a housing crisis.  There is a myriad of ways  to develop a methodology and applying different factors may result in a different RHNA allocation  to  the  example  jurisdictions  in  this  staff  report.  Based  on  a  review of these factors and input  received, SCAG staff has concluded that its recommended methodology for existing housing need  distribution,  projected  housing  need  distribution,  and  application  of  a  social  equity  adjustment  meets  the  goals  of  State  housing  law  and  can  be  applied  in  a  fair,  transparent,  and  equitable  manner across the region.     Next Steps  Based  on  further  input  and  direction  from  the  RHNA  Subcommittee, SCAG staff will provide a  proposed RHNA methodology, which will include mechanisms for existing and projected need and  social equity adjustments, at the July 1, 2019 in preparation for release for public comment. The  proposed RHNA methodology will also include results from the RHNA methodology local planning  factors and AFFH surveys submitted by jurisdictions, along with other information as required by  State housing law. SCAG staff will also present on the proposed methodology to the Community,  Economic & Human Development Committee at its August 2019 meeting.     At least one hearing on the proposed RHNA methodology will be held in August or September 2019.  Subsequent to the public comment period, the RHNA Subcommittee will recommend approval of  the proposed methodology for submittal to HCD by October 2019.     FISCAL IMPACT:  Work  associated  with  this  item  is  included  in  the  current  FY  18‐19  General  Fund  Budget  (800.0160.03: RHNA).     ATTACHMENT(S):  1. Existing Need Indicator Ratios by Jurisdiction  2. Map Cost Burdened Per 1000  3. Map MFU Per 1000 Year  4. Map Overcrowding Per 1000  5. Map SFU Per 1000 Year  6. PowerPoint Presentation: RHNA Distribution Methodology  RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 48 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting &RXQW\ 6XEUHJLRQ &LW\SRS ++ 6LQJOHIDPLO\ SHUPLWVLVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ  0XOWLIDPLO\SHUPLWV LVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ   2YHUFURZGLQJ KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV &RVWEXUGHQHG KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV ,PSHULDO ,&7&,9$* %UDZOH\FLW\Ϯϳ͕ϰϭϳ ϳ͕Ϭϱϲ ϮϬ͘ϴ ϭϮ͘ϭ ϵϵ͘ϯ ϯϳϱ͘Ϭ ,PSHULDO ,&7&,9$* &DOH[LFRFLW\ϰϭ͕ϭϵϵ ϵ͕ϭϴϬ ϴ͘Ϭ ϴ͘Ϭ ϭϮϳ͘Ϯ ϰϲϰ͘ϲ ,PSHULDO ,&7&,9$* &DOLSDWULDFLW\ϳ͕ϰϴϴ ϵϰϳ ϰ͘ϯ ϵ͘ϲ ϭϮϭ͘ϰ ϰϬϴ͘ϳ ,PSHULDO ,&7&,9$* (O&HQWURFLW\ϰϲ͕ϯϭϱ ϭϭ͕ϴϴϭ ϲ͘ϯ ϭϬ͘ϴ ϭϭϴ͘ϴ ϯϵϵ͘ϲ ,PSHULDO ,&7&,9$* +ROWYLOOHFLW\ϲ͕ϱϬϭ ϭ͕ϲϮϳ ϰ͘ϲ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϯϮ͘ϭ ϯϳϴ͘Ϭ ,PSHULDO ,&7&,9$* ,PSHULDOFLW\ϭϵ͕ϯϳϮ ϰ͕ϰϲϱ ϭϭϭ͘Ϭ ϯ͘ϭ ϲϳ͘ϰ Ϯϰϱ͘Ϯ ,PSHULDO ,&7&,9$* :HVWPRUODQGFLW\Ϯ͕ϯϮϱ ϲϭϯ ϴ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϮϬ͘ϳ ϯϵϵ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV /DV9LUJHQH$JRXUD+LOOVFLW\ϮϬ͕ϴϳϴ ϳ͕ϯϯϴ ϯ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϭ ϭϲ͘ϴ ϰϬϲ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* $OKDPEUDFLW\ϴϲ͕ϲϲϱ Ϯϵ͕ϭϳϵ Ϯ͘ϭ ϭϬ͘ϱ ϭϮϱ͘ϰ ϰϰϴ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* $UFDGLDFLW\ϱϳ͕ϳϬϰ ϭϵ͕ϰϰϮ Ϯϭ͘Ϯ ϵ͘Ϯ ϯϱ͘Ϯ ϯϴϭ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* $UWHVLDFLW\ϭϲ͕ϳϵϮ ϰ͕ϱϭϳ ϯ͘ϲ ϴ͘ϲ ϭϯϲ͘ϲ ϰϭϳ͘ϴ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* $YDORQFLW\ϯ͕ϴϲϳ ϭ͕ϯϱϴ ϯ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϱ ϭϲϳ͘Ϯ ϰϳϯ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* $]XVDFLW\ϰϵ͕ϵϱϰ ϭϮ͕ϰϵϱ ϮϬ͘ϭ ϭϭ͘Ϯ ϭϯϮ͘ϱ ϰϲϲ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* %DOGZLQ3DUNFLW\ϳϲ͕ϳϬϴ ϭϳ͕ϲϳϴ ϱ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘ϲ ϮϬϲ͘Ϭ ϰϱϱ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* %HOOFLW\ϯϲ͕ϯϮϱ ϴ͕ϵϮϭ ϭ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϵ Ϯϱϯ͘ϳ ϱϱϳ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* %HOO*DUGHQVFLW\ϰϯ͕Ϭϱϭ ϵ͕ϲϱϵ ϯ͘ϭ ϱ͘ϯ ϯϯϳ͘Ϭ ϲϬϲ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* %HOOIORZHUFLW\ϳϳ͕ϲϴϮ Ϯϯ͕ϯϱϵ ϰ͘ϰ Ϯ͘ϵ ϭϰϭ͘ϭ ϰϴϰ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV :&&2* %HYHUO\+LOOVFLW\ϯϰ͕ϱϬϰ ϭϰ͕ϵϬϮ ϭϭ͘ϳ ϭϯ͘ϴ Ϯϲ͘ϵ ϰϲϱ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* %UDGEXU\FLW\ϭ͕Ϭϲϵ ϯϭϰ ϱϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϯϰϯ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV $UUR\R9HUG%XUEDQNFLW\ϭϬϳ͕ϭϰϵ ϰϭ͕ϲϲϰ Ϯ͘ϳ ϭϭ͘ϵ ϱϮ͘Ϭ ϰϱϱ͘ϭ /RV$QJHOHV /DV9LUJHQH&DODEDVDVFLW\Ϯϰ͕Ϯϵϲ ϴ͕ϵϬϰ ϰ͘ϲ ϭϬ͘ϴ ϴ͘Ϭ ϰϴϰ͘Ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* &DUVRQFLW\ϵϯ͕ϳϵϵ Ϯϱ͕ϯϴϭ Ϯ͘ϰ ϵ͘ϱ ϭϬϰ͘ϰ ϯϲϴ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* &HUULWRVFLW\ϱϬ͕Ϭϱϴ ϭϱ͕ϱϰϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϭϯ͘ϳ ϰϳ͘ϭ ϯϮϴ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* &ODUHPRQWFLW\ϯϲ͕ϰϰϲ ϭϭ͕ϲϮϬ ϭϬ͘ϭ ϭϬ͘ϴ ϮϬ͘ϳ ϯϲϳ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* &RPPHUFHFLW\ϭϯ͕Ϭϲϳ ϯ͕ϱϴϵ Ϯ͘ϳ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϱϵ͘ϵ ϰϱϱ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* &RPSWRQFLW\ϵϵ͕ϴϳϮ Ϯϯ͕ϲϱϳ ϯ͘ϰ Ϭ͘ϴ ϮϮϬ͘ϭ ϱϮϮ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* &RYLQDFLW\ϰϵ͕ϬϬϲ ϭϱ͕ϭϵϯ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϯ͘ϲ ϲϬ͘Ϭ ϰϭϲ͘Ϯ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* &XGDK\FLW\Ϯϰ͕ϯϰϯ ϱ͕ϱϰϯ Ϭ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϯϭϱ͘ϱ ϱϳϲ͘ϲ /RV$QJHOHV :&&2* &XOYHU&LW\FLW\ϯϵ͕ϴϲϬ ϭϲ͕ϱϰϯ ϯ͘ϲ ϭϭ͘Ϭ ϱϱ͘Ϯ ϯϵϭ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 'LDPRQG%DUFLW\ϱϳ͕ϰϲϬ ϭϳ͕ϴϭϬ ϴ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϯ Ϯϲ͘Ϯ ϯϲϱ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 'RZQH\FLW\ϭϭϰ͕ϭϰϲ ϯϮ͕ϲϵϲ ϯ͘ϴ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϮϮ͘ϯ ϰϱϮ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 'XDUWHFLW\ϮϮ͕Ϭϭϯ ϲ͕ϵϴϬ ϰ͘ϴ ϯ͘ϲ ϴϲ͘Ϭ ϰϭϯ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* (O0RQWHFLW\ϭϭϳ͕ϮϬϰ Ϯϵ͕ϱϱϬ ϰ͘ϰ ϳ͘Ϭ ϮϬϮ͘Ϭ ϱϮϴ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* (O6HJXQGRFLW\ϭϲ͕ϳϴϰ ϲ͕ϲϯϴ ϭϮ͘ϳ Ϯ͘ϲ ϯϲ͘Ϭ ϯϯϳ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* *DUGHQDFLW\ϲϭ͕Ϯϰϲ ϮϬ͕ϲϰϵ ϲ͘Ϯ Ϯ͘ϯ ϵϰ͘Ϭ ϰϳϱ͘Ϯ /RV$QJHOHV $UUR\R9HUG*OHQGDOHFLW\ϮϬϱ͕ϱϯϲ ϳϮ͕ϳϯϴ ϭ͘ϭ ϮϮ͘ϱ ϳϴ͘ϱ ϱϭϲ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* *OHQGRUDFLW\ϱϮ͕ϳϬϯ ϭϳ͕ϬϴϬ ϲ͘ϳ ϭϵ͘ϲ ϯϲ͘Ϯ ϯϱϱ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* +DZDLLDQ*DUGHQVFLW\ϭϰ͕ϲϲϲ ϯ͕ϴϳϱ ϭ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϴ ϮϬϮ͘ϴ ϱϰϬ͘ϲ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* +DZWKRUQHFLW\ϴϴ͕ϳϳϮ Ϯϵ͕ϰϴϴ ϰ͘ϴ ϭϬ͘ϭ ϭϴϬ͘ϯ ϱϭϰ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* +HUPRVD%HDFKFLW\ϭϵ͕ϲϳϯ ϵ͕ϭϱϴ Ϯϱ͘ϭ ϯ͘Ϯ ϭϭ͘Ϭ Ϯϵϲ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV /DV9LUJHQH+LGGHQ+LOOVFLW\ϭ͕ϴϵϮ ϱϱϭ Ϯϴ͘ϱ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϳ͘ϯ ϰϮϴ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* +XQWLQJWRQ3DUNFLW\ϱϵ͕ϰϳϯ ϭϰ͕ϰϲϮ Ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϯϱϰ͘ϳ ϱϵϴ͘Ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* ,QGXVWU\FLW\ϰϯϳ ϳϵ ϭϲ͘Ϭ ϰ͘ϲ ϭϲϰ͘ϲ ϭϱϭ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* ,QJOHZRRGFLW\ϭϭϯ͕ϱϱϵ ϯϲ͕ϰϴϭ ϭ͘ϱ ϯ͘ϰ ϭϭϵ͘Ϯ ϱϯϮ͘ϴ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* ,UZLQGDOHFLW\ϭ͕ϰϱϬ ϯϳϰ ϭϴ͘ϲ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϱϬ͘ϴ ϰϳϯ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV $UUR\R9HUG/D&DxDGD)OLQWULGJHFLW\ϮϬ͕ϲϴϯ ϲ͕ϱϴϮ ϳ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϭ ϭϳ͘ϲ ϯϲϭ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* /D+DEUD+HLJKWVFLW\ϱ͕ϰϱϰ ϭ͕ϴϯϲ ϴ͘ϯ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϯϱ͘ϰ ϯϯϭ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* /D0LUDGDFLW\ϰϵ͕ϱϵϬ ϭϰ͕ϯϳϭ ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϴϳ͘ϵ ϯϰϵ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* /D3XHQWHFLW\ϰϬ͕ϲϴϲ ϴ͕ϵϵϴ ϯ͘ϰ ϯ͘ϲ Ϯϭϱ͘ϲ ϰϯϰ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 1RUWK/RV$/D9HUQHFLW\ϯϯ͕ϮϲϬ ϭϭ͕Ϯϯϲ ϲ͘Ϯ ϭϲ͘ϰ ϯϬ͘Ϭ ϯϰϲ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* /DNHZRRGFLW\ϴϭ͕ϭϳϵ Ϯϱ͕ϵϱϳ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϱ ϱϯ͘ϯ ϯϳϮ͘ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* /DQFDVWHUFLW\ϭϲϭ͕ϰϴϱ ϰϴ͕ϭϮϰ Ϯϲ͘Ϯ ϯ͘ϳ ϯϴ͘Ϯ ϰϭϮ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* /DZQGDOHFLW\ϯϯ͕ϲϬϳ ϵ͕ϴϳϱ Ϯ͘ϵ ϭ͘ϭ ϭϲϯ͘Ϭ ϱϭϴ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* /RPLWDFLW\ϮϬ͕ϳϭϱ ϴ͕ϬϳϬ ϲ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϱ ϲϴ͘Ϯ ϰϭϬ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* /RQJ%HDFKFLW\ϰϳϴ͕ϱϲϭ ϭϲϱ͕ϬϬϭ ϭ͘ϳ ϱ͘ϵ ϭϮϱ͘ϲ ϰϱϭ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV &LW\RI/RV$/RV$QJHOHVFLW\ϰ͕Ϭϱϰ͕ϰϬϬ ϭ͕ϯϲϰ͕ϮϮϳ ϰ͘ϳ Ϯϴ͘ϵ ϭϯϰ͘Ϯ ϱϭϰ͘ϭ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* /\QZRRGFLW\ϳϮ͕Ϭϭϱ ϭϱ͕ϯϯϯ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϴ Ϯϲϵ͘ϰ ϱϳϱ͘ϲ /RV$QJHOHV /DV9LUJHQH0DOLEXFLW\ϭϮ͕ϵϱϳ ϱ͕ϰϵϵ ϭϴ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϵ͘ϭ ϯϲϭ͘ϱ ATTACHMENT 1 RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 49 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting &RXQW\ 6XEUHJLRQ &LW\SRS ++ 6LQJOHIDPLO\ SHUPLWVLVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ  0XOWLIDPLO\SHUPLWV LVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ   2YHUFURZGLQJ KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV &RVWEXUGHQHG KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* 0DQKDWWDQ%HDFKFLW\ϯϱ͕ϵϵϭ ϭϯ͕ϱϮϵ Ϯϵ͘ϴ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϭϴ͘ϱ ϯϬϬ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 0D\ZRRGFLW\Ϯϴ͕Ϭϰϰ ϲ͕ϲϮϵ ϭ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϳ ϯϱϰ͘ϰ ϱϳϵ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 0RQURYLDFLW\ϯϴ͕ϳϴϳ ϭϯ͕ϬϬϬ ϰ͘ϱ ϲ͘ϭ ϰϰ͘ϯ ϰϮϱ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 0RQWHEHOORFLW\ϲϰ͕ϯϮϳ ϭϵ͕ϴϰϰ Ϯ͘ϴ Ϯ͘ϵ ϭϭϯ͘ϳ ϰϳϲ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 0RQWHUH\3DUNFLW\ϲϮ͕ϮϰϬ ϭϵ͕ϳϮϴ ϱ͘ϳ ϯ͘ϲ ϭϬϲ͘ϱ ϰϲϯ͘ϴ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 1RUZDONFLW\ϭϬϳ͕ϱϰϲ Ϯϳ͕Ϯϯϴ Ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϱ ϭϳϴ͘ϭ ϰϰϮ͘Ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 1RUWK/RV$3DOPGDOHFLW\ϭϱϴ͕ϵϬϱ ϰϰ͕Ϭϳϱ ϮϮ͘Ϭ ϲ͘ϭ ϴϱ͘ϳ ϰϱϮ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* 3DORV9HUGHV(VWDWHVFLW\ϭϯ͕ϱϭϵ ϰ͕ϳϱϳ ϭϰ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϴ͘ϲ Ϯϵϱ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 3DUDPRXQWFLW\ϱϲ͕ϬϬϬ ϭϰ͕ϯϯϵ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘ϭ ϭϵϱ͘ϰ ϰϵϲ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 3DVDGHQDFLW\ϭϰϰ͕ϯϴϴ ϱϰ͕ϳϯϰ ϯ͘ϯ Ϯϱ͘ϭ ϱϳ͘ϱ ϰϰϭ͘ϲ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 3LFR5LYHUDFLW\ϲϰ͕ϮϲϬ ϭϳ͕ϬϮϳ Ϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϯϱ͘ϲ ϰϭϭ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 3RPRQDFLW\ϭϱϱ͕ϲϴϳ ϯϴ͕ϴϲϵ ϱ͘ϲ ϱ͘Ϯ ϭϳϳ͘ϴ ϰϴϬ͘ϲ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* 5DQFKR3DORV9HUGHVFLW\ϰϮ͕ϳϮϯ ϭϱ͕ϳϴϬ ϯ͘ϯ Ϯ͘Ϯ Ϯϭ͘Ϯ ϯϳϭ͘ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* 5HGRQGR%HDFKFLW\ϲϴ͕ϲϳϳ Ϯϳ͕ϴϮϬ ϭϳ͘ϱ ϯ͘ϲ ϭϵ͘ϰ ϯϳϴ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* 5ROOLQJ+LOOVFLW\ϭ͕ϵϯϵ ϲϭϱ ϭϳ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϴ͘ϭ ϯϵϭ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* 5ROOLQJ+LOOV(VWDWHVFLW\ϴ͕ϭϭϭ ϯ͕ϬϮϲ ϰ͘Ϯ ϱ͘ϯ ϭϭ͘Ϯ ϯϱϬ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 5RVHPHDGFLW\ϱϱ͕Ϯϲϳ ϭϰ͕ϲϳϭ ϲ͘ϭ ϯ͘ϳ ϭϴϴ͘ϵ ϰϳϲ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 6DQ'LPDVFLW\ϯϰ͕ϱϬϳ ϭϭ͕ϳϰϵ ϯ͘ϳ ϰ͘ϱ Ϯϳ͘ϯ ϯϴϬ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV &LW\RI/RV$6DQ)HUQDQGRFLW\Ϯϰ͕ϲϬϮ ϲ͕Ϯϰϵ ϰ͘ϳ ϯ͘Ϭ ϭϲϵ͘Ϭ ϰϳϭ͘ϴ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 6DQ*DEULHOFLW\ϰϬ͕ϵϮϬ ϭϮ͕Ϯϯϵ ϳ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϯ ϭϬϱ͘ϰ ϰϲϭ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 6DQ0DULQRFLW\ϭϯ͕ϮϳϮ ϰ͕ϱϭϱ ϴ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϵ͘Ϭ ϯϰϰ͘ϰ /RV$QJHOHV 1RUWK/RV$6DQWD&ODULWDFLW\Ϯϭϲ͕ϱϴϵ ϲϳ͕ϵϭϰ ϭϮ͘ϲ Ϯ͘ϯ ϲϬ͘ϵ ϰϬϴ͘ϳ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 6DQWD)H6SULQJVFLW\ϭϴ͕ϯϯϱ ϱ͕Ϭϳϴ ϭϰ͘ϳ ϭϲ͘ϵ ϭϮϯ͘ϭ ϰϯϯ͘ϴ /RV$QJHOHV :&&2* 6DQWD0RQLFDFLW\ϵϮ͕ϰϭϲ ϰϲ͕ϯϱϴ ϰ͘ϳ Ϯϯ͘ϲ Ϯϵ͘ϱ ϰϯϬ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 6LHUUD0DGUHFLW\ϭϬ͕ϵϴϲ ϰ͕ϰϰϭ ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϮϬ͘Ϭ ϯϮϴ͘ϭ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 6LJQDO+LOOFLW\ϭϭ͕ϳϰϵ ϰ͕ϯϲϴ ϭϯ͘Ϯ ϭϬ͘Ϭ ϵϴ͘Ϭ ϰϰϮ͘ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 6RXWK(O0RQWHFLW\ϮϬ͕ϴϴϮ ϱ͕ϯϬϰ ϭϬ͘ϵ Ϭ͘ϯ ϭϴϲ͘ϱ ϱϬϳ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 6RXWK*DWHFLW\ϵϴ͕ϭϯϯ Ϯϯ͕ϱϱϳ Ϯ͘Ϯ Ϯ͘ϳ Ϯϰϲ͘Ϭ ϱϯϭ͘ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 6RXWK3DVDGHQDFLW\Ϯϲ͕Ϭϰϳ ϭϬ͕Ϯϰϴ Ϯ͘ϴ ϭ͘ϱ Ϯϰ͘ϴ ϯϵϮ͘ϲ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* 7HPSOH&LW\FLW\ϯϲ͕ϰϭϭ ϭϭ͕Ϭϵϰ Ϯϭ͘ϲ ϴ͘ϱ ϵϬ͘Ϭ ϰϭϯ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV 6%&&2* 7RUUDQFHFLW\ϭϰϵ͕Ϯϰϱ ϱϰ͕ϵϬϰ ϯ͘Ϭ ϰ͘ϭ ϱϴ͘ϱ ϯϴϭ͘ϴ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* 9HUQRQFLW\ϮϬϵ ϯϬ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϯϭϱ͘ϯ ϭϬϬ͘Ϭ ϮϬϬ͘Ϭ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* :DOQXWFLW\ϯϬ͕ϰϱϳ ϵ͕Ϭϴϭ ϭϲ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϮϮ͘ϭ ϯϲϴ͘Ϯ /RV$QJHOHV 6*9&2* :HVW&RYLQDFLW\ϭϬϴ͕Ϯϰϱ ϯϬ͕ϳϱϮ ϯ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϵ ϳϱ͘ϭ ϰϭϴ͘Ϯ /RV$QJHOHV :&&2* :HVW+ROO\ZRRGFLW\ϯϲ͕ϳϮϯ ϮϮ͕ϲϬϮ Ϯ͘ϴ ϰϲ͘ϯ ϭϮ͘ϱ ϰϱϯ͘ϱ /RV$QJHOHV /DV9LUJHQH:HVWODNH9LOODJHFLW\ϴ͕ϯϱϴ ϯ͕ϯϲϯ ϭ͘ϳ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϱ͘ϵ ϯϳϮ͘ϵ /RV$QJHOHV *&&2* :KLWWLHUFLW\ϴϳ͕ϯϲϵ Ϯϳ͕ϴϬϯ Ϯ͘ϵ Ϯ͘ϭ ϴϭ͘ϲ ϰϮϳ͘ϵ 2UDQJH 2&&2* $OLVR9LHMRFLW\ϱϭ͕ϵϱϬ ϭϴ͕ϲϲϭ ϵ͘ϯ ϮϮ͘ϯ Ϯϰ͘ϲ ϯϴϳ͘ϭ 2UDQJH 2&&2* $QDKHLPFLW\ϯϱϳ͕Ϭϴϰ ϭϬϬ͕ϮϴϬ Ϯ͘ϰ Ϯϭ͘ϵ ϭϱϰ͘ϯ ϰϳϵ͘ϱ 2UDQJH 2&&2* %UHDFLW\ϰϰ͕ϴϵϬ ϭϱ͕Ϭϵϵ ϭϭ͘ϳ Ϯϴ͘ϵ ϯϲ͘Ϯ ϯϲϰ͘ϴ 2UDQJH 2&&2* %XHQD3DUNFLW\ϴϯ͕ϵϵϱ Ϯϯ͕ϭϭϴ ϵ͘ϴ ϯ͘Ϭ ϭϭϴ͘Ϭ ϰϰϰ͘ϯ 2UDQJH 2&&2* &RVWD0HVDFLW\ϭϭϱ͕Ϯϵϲ ϰϬ͕ϱϱϳ ϭϬ͘ϭ ϭϮ͘ϵ ϵϬ͘ϭ ϰϯϳ͘ϰ 2UDQJH 2&&2* &\SUHVVFLW\ϰϵ͕ϵϳϴ ϭϱ͕ϴϰϬ ϴ͘ϲ Ϯ͘ϱ ϰϰ͘ϯ ϯϱϳ͘Ϯ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 'DQD3RLQWFLW\ϯϰ͕Ϭϳϭ ϭϰ͕ϲϭϲ ϭϭ͘ϵ ϯ͘ϴ ϭϲ͘ϰ ϰϰϵ͘ϳ 2UDQJH 2&&2* )RXQWDLQ9DOOH\FLW\ϱϲ͕ϵϮϬ ϭϴ͕ϱϮϳ ϰ͘ϵ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϰϵ͘Ϭ ϰϭϬ͘ϭ 2UDQJH 2&&2* )XOOHUWRQFLW\ϭϰϰ͕Ϯϭϰ ϰϱ͕ϰϳϲ ϯ͘ϰ ϭϬ͘ϵ ϵϮ͘Ϯ ϰϱϮ͘ϱ 2UDQJH 2&&2* *DUGHQ*URYHFLW\ϭϳϲ͕ϴϵϲ ϰϳ͕ϱϯϲ Ϯ͘ϲ ϱ͘Ϯ ϭϰϱ͘ϵ ϰϱϰ͘ϵ 2UDQJH 2&&2* +XQWLQJWRQ%HDFKFLW\ϮϬϮ͕ϲϰϴ ϳϲ͕ϳϬϵ Ϯ͘ϵ ϭϵ͘ϰ ϯϲ͘ϲ ϯϴϭ͘ϱ 2UDQJH 2&&2* ,UYLQHFLW\Ϯϳϲ͕ϭϳϲ ϵϮ͕ϴϲϵ ϱϭ͘ϰ ϵϱ͘ϲ ϱϲ͘ϲ ϰϭϱ͘Ϭ 2UDQJH 2&&2* /D+DEUDFLW\ϲϮ͕ϴϱϬ ϭϴ͕ϴϵϵ ϲ͘ϱ ϱ͘ϵ ϭϯϰ͘ϱ ϰϬϭ͘Ϯ 2UDQJH 2&&2* /D3DOPDFLW\ϭϱ͕ϵϰϴ ϰ͕ϵϬϳ ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱϰ͘ϰ ϯϯϴ͘ϵ 2UDQJH 2&&2* /DJXQD%HDFKFLW\Ϯϯ͕ϯϬϵ ϭϬ͕ϰϴϱ ϭϯ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϵ ϭϰ͘ϯ ϯϳϱ͘ϳ 2UDQJH 2&&2* /DJXQD+LOOVFLW\ϯϭ͕ϴϭϴ ϭϬ͕ϯϲϴ Ϭ͘ϱ ϵ͘ϭ ϰϲ͘ϰ ϰϮϬ͘ϲ 2UDQJH 2&&2* /DJXQD1LJXHOFLW\ϲϱ͕ϯϳϳ Ϯϱ͕Ϭϳϱ ϲ͘Ϭ ϮϬ͘Ϭ Ϯϯ͘ϳ ϰϮϬ͘ϴ 2UDQJH 2&&2*/DJXQD:RRGVFLW\ϭϲ͕ϱϵϳ ϭϭ͕Ϯϱϭ Ϭ͘ϭ ϴ͘ϭ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϰϴϰ͘ϲ 2UDQJH 2&&2* /DNH)RUHVWFLW\ϴϰ͕ϴϰϱ Ϯϳ͕ϵϲϱ Ϯϭ͘ϲ ϴ͘Ϯ ϰϵ͘ϰ ϯϳϰ͘ϯ 2UDQJH 2&&2* /RV$ODPLWRVFLW\ϭϭ͕ϴϲϯ ϰ͕ϭϭϬ Ϯ͘ϲ ϰ͘Ϭ ϯϵ͘ϰ ϰϬϰ͘ϰ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 0LVVLRQ9LHMRFLW\ϵϱ͕ϵϴϳ ϯϯ͕ϴϯϯ Ϯ͘Ϭ ϭ͘ϭ ϭϳ͘ϯ ϯϱϴ͘ϱ RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 50 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting &RXQW\ 6XEUHJLRQ &LW\SRS ++ 6LQJOHIDPLO\ SHUPLWVLVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ  0XOWLIDPLO\SHUPLWV LVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ   2YHUFURZGLQJ KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV &RVWEXUGHQHG KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV 2UDQJH 2&&2* 1HZSRUW%HDFKFLW\ϴϳ͕ϭϴϮ ϯϳ͕ϵϳϭ ϭϲ͘ϲ ϭϳ͘ϱ ϭϰ͘ϰ ϯϵϴ͘ϰ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 2UDQJHFLW\ϭϰϭ͕ϵϱϮ ϰϮ͕ϲϮϱ ϱ͘ϭ ϭϭ͘ϳ ϴϯ͘ϭ ϰϬϱ͘ϰ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 3ODFHQWLDFLW\ϱϮ͕ϳϱϱ ϭϲ͕ϰϬϴ ϳ͘ϳ ϭ͘ϳ ϳϱ͘Ϭ ϯϴϵ͘ϵ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 5DQFKR6DQWD0DUJDULWDFLW\ϰϵ͕ϯϮϵ ϭϳ͕ϯϯϵ ϭ͘ϯ Ϭ͘ϵ Ϯϱ͘ϭ ϰϯϭ͘ϲ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 6DQ&OHPHQWHFLW\ϲϱ͕ϱϰϯ Ϯϰ͕ϱϲϱ ϭϱ͘ϰ ϰ͘ϯ ϯϲ͘Ϯ ϰϮϮ͘ϴ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 6DQ-XDQ&DSLVWUDQRFLW\ϯϲ͕ϳϱϵ ϭϮ͕ϮϮϵ ϭϴ͘ϱ Ϯ͘ϭ ϲϱ͘ϯ ϰϳϮ͘ϯ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 6DQWD$QDFLW\ϯϯϴ͕Ϯϰϳ ϳϱ͕ϵϴϬ ϯ͘Ϭ ϲ͘ϳ ϯϭϱ͘ϭ ϰϵϴ͘ϳ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 6HDO%HDFKFLW\Ϯϱ͕ϵϴϰ ϭϮ͕ϰϱϮ ϰ͘ϰ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϭ͘ϯ Ϯϲϵ͘ϰ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 6WDQWRQFLW\ϯϵ͕ϰϳϬ ϭϬ͕ϵϮϲ ϴ͘ϵ Ϭ͘Ϯ ϭϴϮ͘ϴ ϱϬϬ͘ϵ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 7XVWLQFLW\ϴϮ͕ϯϰϰ Ϯϲ͕ϭϴϱ ϭϲ͘ϰ ϭϳ͘ϯ ϭϭϭ͘Ϯ ϰϱϳ͘ϭ 2UDQJH 2&&2* 9LOOD3DUNFLW\ϱ͕ϵϱϭ ϭ͕ϵϵϴ ϯ͘ϵ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϵ͘Ϭ ϯϳϱ͘ϰ 2UDQJH 2&&2* :HVWPLQVWHUFLW\ϵϰ͕ϰϳϲ Ϯϳ͕ϲϴϳ ϰ͘Ϭ ϯ͘ϴ ϭϬϯ͘Ϭ ϰϲϴ͘Ϭ 2UDQJH 2&&2* <RUED/LQGDFLW\ϲϵ͕ϭϮϭ Ϯϭ͕ϵϳϮ Ϯϱ͘ϳ ϰ͘ϯ ϮϬ͘ϲ ϯϱϵ͘ϭ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* %DQQLQJFLW\ϯϭ͕ϮϴϮ ϭϬ͕ϴϲϭ Ϯ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϭ ϱϲ͘Ϯ ϰϰϭ͘ϴ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* %HDXPRQWFLW\ϰϴ͕Ϯϯϳ ϭϯ͕ϮϮϳ ϭϰϯ͘Ϯ ϭ͘Ϭ ϯϴ͘Ϯ ϯϲϳ͘ϵ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* %O\WKHFLW\ϭϵ͕ϯϴϵ ϱ͕Ϭϵϭ ϲ͘ϳ Ϭ͘ϯ ϲϰ͘ϲ ϯϯϮ͘Ϯ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* &DOLPHVDFLW\ϴ͕ϴϳϲ ϯ͕ϯϯϵ ϱϰ͘ϱ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϯϬ͘Ϯ ϯϬϵ͘ϳ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* &DQ\RQ/DNHFLW\ϭϭ͕Ϭϭϴ ϰ͕Ϭϱϱ ϵ͘ϯ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϵ͘ϰ ϯϳϴ͘ϭ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* &DWKHGUDO&LW\FLW\ϱϰ͕ϳϵϭ ϭϳ͕ϴϴϴ ϵ͘ϳ ϭ͘ϱ ϴϲ͘ϲ ϰϳϵ͘ϰ 5LYHUVLGH &9$*&RDFKHOODFLW\ϰϱ͕ϲϯϱ ϭϮ͕ϵϰϯ ϯϲ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϰ ϴϳ͘ϱ ϱϳϮ͘Ϭ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* &RURQDFLW\ϭϲϴ͕ϱϳϰ ϰϵ͕ϵϱϯ ϲ͘ϰ ϭϲ͘ϰ ϲϮ͘Ϯ ϰϱϯ͘ϭ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* 'HVHUW+RW6SULQJVFLW\Ϯϵ͕ϳϰϮ ϵ͕ϯϲϬ Ϯϲ͘ϰ ϳ͘ϭ ϭϯϮ͘ϵ ϰϵϴ͘Ϭ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* (DVWYDOHFLW\ϴϯ͕ϭϲϲ ϭϰ͕ϲϰϱ ϮϬ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϴ ϯϱ͘ϴ ϰϭϱ͘ϱ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* +HPHWFLW\ϱ͕ϱϳϰ Ϯϵ͕ϳϮϲ ϳϲ͘ϭ ϭϬ͘Ϯ ϲϭ͘ϰ ϰϱϭ͘ϵ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* ,QGLDQ:HOOVFLW\ϴϳ͕ϴϴϯ Ϯ͕ϳϮϳ ϲϴ͘ϰ ϯ͘ϳ Ϯ͘ϲ ϯϵϰ͘Ϯ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* ,QGLRFLW\ϰϭ͕ϮϬϰ Ϯϵ͕ϭϴϲ ϲϯ͘ϯ ϮϮ͘ϴ ϳϬ͘ϴ ϰϰϭ͘ϯ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* -XUXSD9DOOH\FLW\ϲϯ͕ϯϲϱ Ϯϱ͕ϭϳϬ ϴϱ͘ϭ ϴ͘Ϭ ϭϱϳ͘ϵ ϰϭϭ͘ϴ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* /D4XLQWDFLW\ϮϬϳ͕ϲϮϵ ϭϱ͕ϭϲϲ ϭϱ͘ϳ ϭϮ͘Ϭ ϯϰ͘ϴ ϯϴϮ͘ϵ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* /DNH(OVLQRUHFLW\ϭϭϯ͕ϱϰϭ ϭϲ͕ϱϯϴ ϭϮ͘Ϭ ϭϬ͘ϰ ϵϬ͘ϲ ϰϮϱ͘ϲ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 0HQLIHHFLW\Ϯϲ͕ϳϲϭ Ϯϴ͕ϰϴϳ ϭ͘ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ Ϯϴ͘ϳ ϰϬϯ͘ϳ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 0RUHQR9DOOH\FLW\ϱϮ͕ϳϲϵ ϱϬ͕ϴϰϬ Ϯϴ͘ϲ ϯϬ͘ϰ ϭϬϯ͘ϵ ϰϯϳ͘ϰ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 0XUULHWDFLW\ϰϳ͕ϳϬϲ ϯϮ͕ϰϭϳ ϯϲ͘ϭ ϱ͘Ϯ ϯϲ͘ϭ ϰϮϯ͘Ϭ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 1RUFRFLW\ϳϳ͕ϴϯϳ ϳ͕Ϭϯϳ ϯϬ͘ϭ ϵ͘ϴ ϯϬ͘ϲ ϯϳϴ͘Ϭ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* 3DOP'HVHUWFLW\ϭϴ͕ϳϯϴ Ϯϯ͕ϵϳϯ ϯϮ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϰ ϰϭ͘ϳ ϰϬϯ͘ϱ 5LYHUVLGH &9$* 3DOP6SULQJVFLW\ϯϮϱ͕ϴϲϬ Ϯϯ͕ϱϱϭ ϴ͘ϯ ϭϬ͘ϭ ϯϵ͘ϳ ϰϯϯ͘ϳ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 3HUULVFLW\ϰϴ͕ϭϰϲ ϭϲ͕ϱϴϮ ϰϱ͘ϰ Ϯ͘ϴ ϭϱϬ͘ϱ ϰϲϴ͘ϴ 5LYHUVLGH &9$*5DQFKR0LUDJHFLW\ϭϭϯ͕ϭϴϭ ϵ͕ϰϬϮ ϯϯ͘ϴ ϭϱ͘ϵ ϭϬ͘ϱ ϰϯϭ͘ϰ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 5LYHUVLGHFLW\ϯϲ͕Ϯϴϳ ϵϬ͕ϵϳϰ ϭϵ͘ϱ ϴ͘ϲ ϵϰ͘Ϯ ϰϮϮ͘Ϭ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 6DQ-DFLQWRFLW\ϵϭ͕ϵϬϮ ϭϮ͕ϲϲϵ ϰϴ͘ϭ Ϯ͘Ϯ ϳϰ͘Ϭ ϰϮϮ͘ϲ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* 7HPHFXODFLW\ϲϰ͕ϴϱϱ ϯϯ͕ϲϰϰ ϯϵ͘ϱ Ϭ͘ϱ ϯϭ͘ϵ ϯϴϴ͘Ϯ 5LYHUVLGH :5&2* :LOGRPDUFLW\ϭϬϲ͕Ϭϱϰ ϵ͕ϵϯϱ ϭϬ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϰ ϱϴ͘ϲ ϯϴϲ͘Ϭ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&$GHODQWRFLW\ϯϱ͕Ϯϵϯ ϳ͕ϴϵϴ ϯϬ͘ϵ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϭϲϭ͘ϵ ϱϰϰ͘ϰ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&$SSOH9DOOH\WRZQ ϳϯ͕ϵϴϰ Ϯϯ͕ϵϭϭ Ϯϲ͘Ϯ Ϭ͘ϵ ϯϲ͘ϭ ϯϵϴ͘ϰ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&%DUVWRZFLW\Ϯϰ͕ϰϭϭ ϴ͕ϭϳϳ ϭϬ͘Ϯ Ϯ͘ϱ ϳϰ͘ϭ ϰϬϬ͘ϱ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&%LJ%HDU/DNHFLW\ϱ͕ϱϭϮ Ϯ͕ϭϯϳ ϲϴ͘ϲ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϱϱ͘ϳ ϰϮϴ͘Ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&&KLQRFLW\ϴϲ͕ϳϱϳ ϭϵ͕ϳϬϲ ϱϰ͘ϲ Ϯϰ͘ϲ ϲϱ͘ϲ ϰϭϴ͘ϲ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&&KLQR+LOOVFLW\ϴϯ͕ϭϱϵ Ϯϰ͕Ϭϵϭ ϭϰ͘ϴ ϭϴ͘ϭ ϯϵ͘ϱ ϯϳϭ͘ϱ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&&ROWRQFLW\ϱϯ͕ϳϮϰ ϭϲ͕ϯϵϯ ϱ͘ϵ Ϯ͘ϰ ϭϭϬ͘ϰ ϰϲϭ͘Ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&)RQWDQDFLW\ϮϭϮ͕ϬϬϬ ϱϭ͕ϵϰϲ Ϯϰ͘Ϯ ϰ͘ϯ ϭϮϱ͘ϳ ϰϰϲ͘ϴ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&*UDQG7HUUDFHFLW\ϭϮ͕ϱϮϰ ϰ͕ϮϲϬ ϭϮ͘ϳ ϭϮ͘ϱ ϯϭ͘ϳ ϰϭϯ͘ϲ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&+HVSHULDFLW\ϵϰ͕ϴϮϵ Ϯϲ͕Ϭϲϲ Ϯϲ͘Ϭ ϳ͘ϵ ϴϬ͘ϲ ϯϵϯ͘Ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&+LJKODQGFLW\ϱϰ͕ϳϲϭ ϭϱ͕ϳϴϱ ϵ͘Ϭ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϵϱ͘ϲ ϰϬϵ͘Ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&/RPD/LQGDFLW\Ϯϯ͕ϵϰϲ ϴ͕ϲϴϲ ϭϰ͘ϭ ϭϭ͘ϳ ϰϭ͘Ϭ ϰϭϴ͘Ϭ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&0RQWFODLUFLW\ϯϵ͕ϯϮϲ ϭϬ͕ϯϵϮ ϵ͘ϵ ϭϱ͘ϭ ϭϯϮ͘ϳ ϰϱϲ͘ϱ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&1HHGOHVFLW\ϱ͕ϭϳϳ Ϯ͕ϭϬϳ ϴ͘ϳ Ϭ͘Ϭ ϯϴ͘Ϭ ϯϬϴ͘Ϭ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&2QWDULRFLW\ϭϳϳ͕ϱϴϵ ϰϵ͕ϭϳϮ ϭϴ͘ϳ ϭϱ͘ϲ ϭϭϰ͘ϴ ϰϲϰ͘Ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&5DQFKR&XFDPRQJDFLW\ϭϳϲ͕ϲϳϭ ϱϱ͕ϴϳϬ ϭϴ͘ϳ ϭϭ͘ϱ ϰϬ͘ϲ ϰϬϰ͘Ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&5HGODQGVFLW\ϳϭ͕ϭϵϲ Ϯϯ͕ϵϯϵ ϵ͘ϱ Ϯ͘ϳ ϱϱ͘ϭ ϯϱϴ͘ϲ RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 51 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting &RXQW\ 6XEUHJLRQ &LW\SRS ++ 6LQJOHIDPLO\ SHUPLWVLVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ  0XOWLIDPLO\SHUPLWV LVVXHGSHU SRSXODWLRQ   2YHUFURZGLQJ KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV &RVWEXUGHQHG KRXVHKROGVSHU KRXVHKROGV 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&5LDOWRFLW\ϭϬϳ͕Ϭϰϭ Ϯϲ͕Ϭϭϯ ϯ͘ϭ ϰ͘ϰ ϭϰϲ͘Ϯ ϰϯϴ͘ϵ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&6DQ%HUQDUGLQRFLW\ϮϮϭ͕ϭϯϬ ϱϴ͕Ϭϰϲ ϯ͘ϲ ϭ͘ϵ ϭϲϮ͘ϵ ϰϴϰ͘ϲ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&7ZHQW\QLQH3DOPVFLW\Ϯϳ͕Ϭϰϲ ϴ͕Ϯϲϲ ϭϴ͘ϲ ϯ͘ϳ ϮϬ͘ϵ ϯϵϮ͘ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&8SODQGFLW\ϳϳ͕Ϭϭϳ Ϯϳ͕ϭϭϲ ϲ͘ϯ ϰ͘Ϯ ϱϲ͘ϰ ϰϮϬ͘ϳ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&9LFWRUYLOOHFLW\ϭϮϯ͕ϳϬϭ ϯϮ͕ϲϮϵ ϰϲ͘ϰ ϵ͘Ϯ ϵϱ͘ϭ ϰϰϲ͘Ϯ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&<XFDLSDFLW\ϱϰ͕ϲϱϭ ϭϴ͕Ϭϯϴ ϭϮ͘ϯ ϰ͘ϴ ϰϵ͘ϲ ϯϲϭ͘ϱ 6DQ%HUQDUGLQR 6%&7$6%&<XFFD9DOOH\WRZQ Ϯϭ͕ϴϯϰ ϴ͕ϳϮϭ ϭϵ͘ϲ Ϭ͘ϱ ϭϰ͘ϭ ϯϵϵ͘ϰ 9HQWXUD 9&2* &DPDULOORFLW\ϲϴ͕ϳϰϭ Ϯϰ͕ϲϰϬ ϭϮ͘Ϯ ϮϬ͘Ϯ Ϯϯ͘ϭ ϯϳϲ͘ϰ 9HQWXUD 9&2* )LOOPRUHFLW\ϭϱ͕ϵϱϯ ϰ͕ϯϬϬ Ϯϭ͘ϰ Ϯ͘ϯ ϭϯϬ͘ϳ ϰϱϲ͘ϱ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 0RRUSDUNFLW\ϯϳ͕Ϭϰϰ ϭϭ͕ϭϳϴ Ϯϵ͘ϱ ϯ͘ϯ ϯϴ͘ϲ ϯϴϱ͘ϴ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 2MDLFLW\ϳ͕ϲϳϵ Ϯ͕ϵϮϴ ϳ͘ϴ Ϭ͘ϵ ϱ͘ϱ ϰϲϵ͘ϲ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 2[QDUGFLW\ϮϬϲ͕ϰϵϵ ϱϭ͕ϭϬϴ ϱ͘ϰ ϭϲ͘ϴ ϭϴϰ͘Ϭ ϰϲϬ͘ϰ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 3RUW+XHQHPHFLW\Ϯϯ͕ϵϮϵ ϲ͕ϱϲϱ Ϯ͘ϴ ϭ͘ϴ ϵϰ͘ϭ ϰϲϰ͘ϳ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 6DQ%XHQDYHQWXUD 9HQWXUD FLW\ϭϭϭ͕Ϯϲϵ ϰϬ͕ϲϲϮ ϴ͘Ϭ ϭϱ͘ϰ ϰϮ͘ϲ ϰϭϲ͘ϲ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 6DQWD3DXODFLW\ϯϭ͕ϭϯϴ ϴ͕ϴϮϭ ϰ͘ϯ ϲ͘ϲ ϭϭϬ͘ϯ ϰϰϱ͘ϴ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 6LPL9DOOH\FLW\ϭϮϴ͕ϳϲϬ ϰϮ͕ϬϮϱ ϱ͘ϰ ϰ͘ϴ ϯϭ͘Ϯ ϯϵϳ͘ϳ 9HQWXUD 9&2* 7KRXVDQG2DNVFLW\ϭϯϬ͕ϭϵϲ ϰϲ͕ϭϯϲ ϯ͘ϭ ϯ͘ϴ Ϯϯ͘ϰ ϯϴϯ͘Ϯ 5HJLRQDO$YHUDJH ϭϰ͘ϭ ϴ͘Ϭ ϴϱ͘Ϯ ϰϮϭ͘ϰ RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 52 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting San BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyOrangeCountyVenturaCountyLos AngelesCountySan Diego CountyKern CountySIMI VALLEYTHOUSANDOAKSCAMARILLOOXNARDYUCAIPAYUVALVICTORVILLEADELANTOREDLANDSFONTANACHINO HILLSRANCHOCUCAMONGABARSTOWUPLANDCHINOONTARIOHESPERIAAPPLE VALLEYCALIMESANORCORIVERSIDECORONAMURRIETALAKE ELSINORESANJACINTOWILDOMARBANNINGPERRISMENIFEEMORENO VALLEYJURUPA VALLEYTEMECULAHEMETPALMSPRINGSSANTAANAFULLERTONANAHEIMSEALBEACHBREAIRVINELANCASTERPALMDALESANTA CLARITALOS ANGELESGLENDALEPASADENABURBANKCALABASASSANDIMASPOMONACARSONCost-Burdened Households per 1000 Households by Jurisdiction°010205MilesSan BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyImperialCountyARIZONASan DiegoCountyService Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2014 EsriPacific Ocean151.90 - 380.37380.38 - 418.18418.19 - 460.42460.43 - 606.382012 HQTA*Freeway*Note: The 2012 High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) are extracted from 2012 base yeardata of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment 2 and modified by inputs from transitoperators and local jurisdictions. SCAG’s HQTA is within one-half mile from MajorTransit Stops and HQTCs and developed based on the language in SB375. Please notethat this map may undergo changes as SCAG continues to update its transportationnetwork as part of the 2020 RTP/SCS development process and SCAG shall not beresponsible for local jurisdiction’s use of this map. Updates to this information will beforthcoming as information becomes available.Cost-Burdened Households per 1000 HouseholdsRHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 53 of 69General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting San BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyOrangeCountyVenturaCountyLos AngelesCountySan Diego CountyKern CountySIMI VALLEYTHOUSANDOAKSCAMARILLOOXNARDYUCAIPAYUVALVICTORVILLEADELANTOREDLANDSFONTANACHINO HILLSRANCHOCUCAMONGABARSTOWUPLANDCHINOONTARIOHESPERIAAPPLE VALLEYCALIMESANORCORIVERSIDECORONAMURRIETALAKE ELSINORESANJACINTOWILDOMARBANNINGPERRISMENIFEEMORENO VALLEYJURUPA VALLEYTEMECULAHEMETPALMSPRINGSSANTAANAFULLERTONANAHEIMSEALBEACHBREAIRVINELANCASTERPALMDALESANTA CLARITALOS ANGELESGLENDALEPASADENABURBANKCALABASASSANDIMASPOMONACARSONMulti-Family Units Permitted per 1000 Residents by Jurisdiction (2006-2018)°010205MilesSan BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyImperialCountyARIZONASan DiegoCountyService Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2014 EsriPacific Ocean0.00 - 0.900.91 - 3.703.71 - 10.1010.11 - 215.302012 HQTA*Freeway*Note: The 2012 High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) are extracted from 2012 base yeardata of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment 2 and modified by inputs from transitoperators and local jurisdictions. SCAG’s HQTA is within one-half mile from MajorTransit Stops and HQTCs and developed based on the language in SB375. Please notethat this map may undergo changes as SCAG continues to update its transportationnetwork as part of the 2020 RTP/SCS development process and SCAG shall not beresponsible for local jurisdiction’s use of this map. Updates to this information will beforthcoming as information becomes available.Multi-Family Units Permitted per 1000 ResidentsRHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 54 of 69General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting San BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyOrangeCountyVenturaCountyLos AngelesCountySan Diego CountyKern CountySIMI VALLEYTHOUSANDOAKSCAMARILLOOXNARDYUCAIPAYUVALVICTORVILLEADELANTOREDLANDSFONTANACHINO HILLSRANCHOCUCAMONGABARSTOWUPLANDCHINOONTARIOHESPERIAAPPLE VALLEYCALIMESANORCORIVERSIDECORONAMURRIETALAKE ELSINORESANJACINTOWILDOMARBANNINGPERRISMENIFEEMORENO VALLEYJURUPA VALLEYTEMECULAHEMETPALMSPRINGSSANTAANAFULLERTONANAHEIMSEALBEACHBREAIRVINELANCASTERPALMDALESANTA CLARITALOS ANGELESGLENDALEPASADENABURBANKCALABASASSANDIMASPOMONACARSONOvercrowded Households per 1000 Households by Jurisdiction°010205MilesSan BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyImperialCountyARIZONASan DiegoCountyService Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2014 EsriPacific Ocean0.00 - 31.1731.18 - 62.1862.19 - 123.08123.09 - 354.652012 HQTA*Freeway*Note: The 2012 High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) are extracted from 2012 base yeardata of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment 2 and modified by inputs from transitoperators and local jurisdictions. SCAG’s HQTA is within one-half mile from MajorTransit Stops and HQTCs and developed based on the language in SB375. Please notethat this map may undergo changes as SCAG continues to update its transportationnetwork as part of the 2020 RTP/SCS development process and SCAG shall not beresponsible for local jurisdiction’s use of this map. Updates to this information will beforthcoming as information becomes available.Overcrowded Households per 1000 HouseholdsRHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 55 of 69General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting San BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyOrangeCountyVenturaCountyLos AngelesCountySan Diego CountyKern CountySIMI VALLEYTHOUSANDOAKSCAMARILLOOXNARDYUCAIPAYUVALVICTORVILLEADELANTOREDLANDSFONTANACHINO HILLSRANCHOCUCAMONGABARSTOWUPLANDCHINOONTARIOHESPERIAAPPLE VALLEYCALIMESANORCORIVERSIDECORONAMURRIETALAKE ELSINORESANJACINTOWILDOMARBANNINGPERRISMENIFEEMORENO VALLEYJURUPA VALLEYTEMECULAHEMETPALMSPRINGSSANTAANAFULLERTONANAHEIMSEALBEACHBREAIRVINELANCASTERPALMDALESANTA CLARITALOS ANGELESGLENDALEPASADENABURBANKCALABASASSANDIMASPOMONACARSONSingle Family Units Permitted per 1000 Residents by Jurisdiction (2006-2018)°010205MilesSan BernardinoCountyRiversideCountyImperialCountyARIZONASan DiegoCountyService Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2014 EsriPacific Ocean0.00 - 3.303.31 - 7.807.81 - 18.4018.41 - 143.202012 HQTA*Freeway*Note: The 2012 High Quality Transit Areas (HQTA) are extracted from 2012 base yeardata of the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Amendment 2 and modified by inputs from transitoperators and local jurisdictions. SCAG’s HQTA is within one-half mile from MajorTransit Stops and HQTCs and developed based on the language in SB375. Please notethat this map may undergo changes as SCAG continues to update its transportationnetwork as part of the 2020 RTP/SCS development process and SCAG shall not beresponsible for local jurisdiction’s use of this map. Updates to this information will beforthcoming as information becomes available.Single Family Units Permitted per 1000 ResidentsATTACHMENT 5RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 56 of 69General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting This Page Intentionally Left Blank General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Proposed RHNA Distribution Methodology RHNA Milestones and Outlook RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 57 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Objectives of RHNA Objectives of RHNA RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 58 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Step 1 Determining Existing Need Distributed based on population share Distributed based on population within an HQTA Regional Existing Need 30% 70%Jurisdiction’s share of regional population Jurisdiction’s share of regional population within HQTA Jurisdiction Existing Need Step 1: Determining Existing Need Very low Low Moderate 110% social equity adjustment Jurisdiction Existing Housing Need Jurisdiction Existing Housing Need (only three categories) RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 59 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Step 2: Determining Projected Housing Need Jurisdiction Projected Housing Need Jurisdiction’s share of regional projected HH growth Future vacancy need (owner) Future vacancy need (renter) Jurisdiction’s share of regional replacement need Step 2: Determining Projected Housing Need Very low Low Moderate Above moderate 150% social equity adjustment Jurisdiction Projected Housing Need Jurisdiction Projected Housing Need RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 60 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Step 3: Total RHNA Allocation Jurisdiction Existing Need Very low Low Moderate Above moderate Jurisdiction Projected Need Jurisdiction Total RHNA Allocation Very low Low Moderate Above moderate Very low Low Moderate • • • • • • • • • • • • City A and City B: A Methodology Example RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 61 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting • • • City A and City B: Step 1 Social Equity Adjustment 36%32% 25% 44% 24% 45% 17% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Very low income Low income Moderate Above moderateHH Income DistributionCity A existing distribution County distribution (benchmark) 24% 1 County distribution (benchmark) City A existing distribution RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 62 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting City A and City B: Step 1 City A and City B: Step 1 RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 63 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting • • • • • City A and City B: Step 2 Future vacancy need (owner) Future vacancy need (renter) Jurisdiction’s share of regional replacement need Jurisdiction’s share of regional projected HH HH growth JurisdictionProjected Need City A and City B: Step 2a Household Growth • RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 64 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting • • • City A and City B: Step 2b Future Vacancy Need 42.4%Owner-Occupied =211 of total units 57.6%Renter-Occupied = 287 of total units 211 units X 1.5%= 3 units 287 units X 5.0% = 15 units 3 units + 15 units = 18 units % 66.5%Owner-Occupied =880 of total units 33.5%Renter-Occupied = 444 of total units 880 units X 1.5%= 13 units 444 units X 5.0% = 22 units 13 units + 22 units = 35 units 0% City A and City B: Step 2c Replacement Need • • • • RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 65 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting City A and City B: Step 2 City A and City B: Step 2 RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 66 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting Step 3: Total RHNA Allocation • • • • The Case for Existing Housing Need Methodology RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 67 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting • • • The Case for Existing Housing Need Methodology • • • • • • Next Steps RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 68 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting For more information RHNA subcommittee Meeting 06.03.19 Page 69 of 69 General Plan Update Steering Committee - May 29, 2019 Item No. IV(b) Additional Materials Received at Meeting