Final Regional Housing Needs Plan - Tulare County Association of

Transcription

Final Regional Housing Needs Plan
for Tulare County 2014-2023
May 2014
This page is intentionally left blank.
Acknowledgements
Many individuals aided in the preparation of the 2014-2023 Regional Housing Needs Plan.
TCAG Board of Governors
Allen Ishida, Tulare County
Pete Vander Poel, Tulare County
Phil Cox, Tulare County
J. Steven Worthley (Chair), Tulare County
Mike Ennis, Tulare County
Emi Theriault, City of Porterville
Cristobal Carrillo, City of Dinuba
Bill Zigler, City of Lindsay
Greg Collins, City of Exeter
Lisa Wallis-Dutra, City of Farmersville
Karl Shoettler, City of Woodlake
Janet Hinesly, City of Dinuba
Jack Allwardt, City of Exeter
Greg Gomez, City of Farmersville
Pamela Kimball, City of Lindsay
Virginia Gurrola, City of Porterville
Craig Vejvoda, City of Tulare
Bob Link, City of Visalia
Rudy Mendoza (Vice Chair), City of Woodlake
Terry McKittrick, Member-at-Large
Tom Sparks, Member-at-Large
Dennis Townsend, Member-at-Large
Sharri Bender-Ehlert, Caltrans
TCAG Staff
Ted Smalley, Executive Director
Ben Kimball, Deputy Executive Director
Elizabeth Wright, Senior Regional Planner
Ben Giuliani, Executive Officer- LAFCO
Mark Hays, Senior Regional Planner
Marvin Demmers, Regional Planner
Cynthia Echavarria, Associate Regional Planner
Roberto Brady, Associate Regional Planner
Christine Chavez, Associate Regional Planner
Jennie Miller, Associate Regional Planner
Gabriel Gutierrez, Associate Regional Planner
TCAG RHNA Methodology
Committee
Jake Raper, Tulare County
Mike Spata, Tulare County
Fred Brusuelas, Tulare County
Chuck Pryzibyski, Tulare County
Mike Olmos, City of Visalia
Josh McDonnel, City of Visalia
Paul Scheibel, City of Visalia
Bonnie Simoes, City of Tulare
Brad Dunlap, City of Porterville
Julie Phillips, City of Porterville
Consultant Team
Ted Holzem, Senior Project Manager, Mintier Harnish
Chelsey Norton, Project Manager, Mintier Harnish
Dov Kadin, Planner, Mintier Harnish
Table Contents
Executive Summary .........................................................................................................................................i
Section I: Introduction ...................................................................................................................................1
Section II: Growth Projections for the RTP/SCS and RHNA ...............................................................6
Section III: RHNA Methodology Factors ..................................................................................................9
Section IV: Adopted RHNA Methodology and Allocations................................................................. 14
Appendices.................................................................................................................................................... 20
A. Regional Housing Needs Determination Letter
B. RHNA Methodology
C. California Government Code Section 65584
D. Public Outreach and Participation Program
Tulare County Association of Governments
Executive Summary
State housing element law assigns the
responsibility for preparing the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the
Tulare County region to the Tulare County
Association of Governments (TCAG).
TCAG, and other California councils of
governments (COGs), undertake the RHNA
process prior to each housing element cycle.
The current RHNA is for the fifth housing
element cycle and covers a 9.75-year projection
period (January 1, 2014 – September 30, 2023).
The Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP)
describes the methodology developed to
allocate the region’s housing needs in four
income categories (very low, low, moderate,
and above moderate) among Tulare County’s
eight cities and the unincorporated county in
accordance with the objectives and factors
contained in State law.
The RHNA process begins with the RHNA
Determination. The California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD)
issues a RHNA Determination to TCAG and
all other COGs in California to identify housing
needs for each region of the state. The TCAG
RHNA Determination is the total number of
units that the jurisdictions within the Tulare
County region must collectively plan for in their
housing elements. The Determination, which is
divided into four income categories, is based on
Department of Finance (DOF) population
projections and regional population forecasts.
HCD provided the Tulare County region a final
RHNA Determination on January 10, 2014, of
26,910 housing units.
The RHNA
Determination covers a planning period from
January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2023.
The
State-mandated
RHNA
process
(Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.)
requires TCAG to develop and adopt a
methodology for allocating a portion of the
RHNA Determination to each jurisdiction
within the Tulare County region. Prior to
adoption of the RHNA Methodology, TCAG
staff
consulted
the
TCAG
RHNA
Methodology Committee, comprised of
representatives from each of the jurisdictions in
the county, and the TCAG Board of
Governors. Together, TCAG staff, the TCAG
RHNA Methodology Committee, and the
TCAG
Board
considered
different
methodologies to allocate a portion of the
RHNA Determination to each jurisdiction. The
Proposed RHNA Methodology (Methodology
A1—Regional Income Parity by 2050) and five
alternative methodologies were released for
public review on September 25, 2013. The
public, as well as the affected cities and the
County were given the opportunity to comment
on the methodologies during a 60-day review
and comment period that ended on November
24, 2013.
The RHNA Methodology (Methodology A1—
Regional Income Parity by 2050) was adopted
by the TCAG Board of Governors on
Proposed Final RHNP – May 2014
i
Regional Housing Needs Plan
December 9, 2013. An underlying principle of
the RHNA Methodology is to ensure that
affordable housing is equitably distributed
throughout the region. The Methodology
applies an adjustment factor based on
disparities in household income across the
TCAG region. The adjustment factor assigns a
higher proportion of units affordable to lowerincome households to jurisdictions that
currently have a lower proportion of affordable
households compared to the regional average
and assigns a lower proportion of affordable
units to jurisdictions that currently have a
higher proportion of affordable households
than the regional average. The Methodology is
intended to help region achieve income parity
(the same proportion of affordable units in
each community) by 2050. Table 1 summarizes
the overall allocation of units to each
jurisdiction and the allocation by the four
income categories. The RHNA Methodology is
described in more detail in Section IV.
The Draft Regional Housing Needs Plan, which
includes the Draft Allocations using the
adopted RHNA Methodology, was released for
a 60-day public review period on March 13,
2014. Since TCAG did not receive any
comments, the Proposed Final RHNP will go
to the TCAG Board for review and adoption
on June 30, 2014. Following adoption of the
RHNA, each jurisdiction in the county must
update its housing element consistent with the
2014-2023 RHNA and submit it to HCD for
certification. The housing element must
demonstrate that adequate sites and zoning are
available during the planning period to
accommodate the RHNA for all income
categories. HCD reviews each jurisdiction’s
housing element for compliance with State law.
ii
Key Terms
RHNA Determination. HCD issued an
overall region wide housing need called the
RHNA Determination.
The RHNA
Determination is the total number of units that
the jurisdictions within the Tulare County
region must collectively plan to accommodate
between January 1, 2014, and September 30,
2023.
RHNA Methodology. TCAG prepared a
RHNA Methodology to allocate a portion of
the RHNA Determination to each jurisdiction
in the Tulare County region. The RHNA
Methodology must reflect certain objectives of
State law and be consistent with the SCS
development pattern.
RHNA Allocations. Once the TCAG Board
of
Governors
adopted
the
RHNA
Methodology, TCAG released the RHNA
Allocations in conjunction with the Draft
RHNP. The RHNA Allocations are each
jurisdiction’s
share
of
the
RHNA
Determination.
Regional Housing Needs Plan. Once the
TCAG Board of Governors adopts the RHNA
Allocations, TCAG issues the Regional
Housing Needs Plan (RHNP). The Final
RHNP describes the RHNA process and
officially assigns the allocations to each
jurisdiction. The RHNP must be adopted by
the TCAG Board of Governors.
Housing Elements. Each jurisdiction in the
Tulare County region must adopt and submit a
housing element to HCD for review and
certification. The housing elements must show
how each jurisdiction will accommodate its
RHNA Allocation.
Table 1: 2014-2023 Draft RHNA Allocations by Income
Category
Total RHNA Allocation
Tulare County Region
January 1, 2014 to September 30, 2023
Very Low
Income
Allocation
Low Income
Allocation
Affordable
Allocation
(Combined Low
+ Very Low
Income)
Moderate
Income
Allocation
Above Moderate
Income
Allocation
Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA
Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA
Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA
Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA
Units
Percent
of Total
RHNA
Dinuba
965
211
21.9%
163
16.9%
374
38.8%
121
12.5%
470
48.7%
Exeter
625
143
22.9%
125
20.0%
268
42.9%
85
13.6%
272
43.5%
Farmersville
466
74
15.9%
65
13.9%
139
29.8%
68
14.6%
259
55.6%
Lindsay
590
80
13.6%
80
13.6%
160
27.1%
82
13.9%
348
59.0%
Porterville
3,196
623
19.5%
576
18.0%
1,199
37.5%
566
17.7%
1,431
44.8%
Tulare
3,594
920
25.6%
609
16.9%
1,529
42.5%
613
17.1%
1,452
40.4%
Visalia
10,021
2,616
26.1%
1,931
19.3%
4,547
45.4%
1,802
18.0%
3,672
36.6%
Woodlake
372
71
19.1%
41
11.0%
112
30.1%
69
18.5%
191
51.3%
Unincorporated
County
7,081
1,477
20.9%
1,065
15.0%
2,542
35.9%
1,169
16.5%
3,370
47.6%
26,910
6,215
23.1%
4,655
17.3%
10,870
40.4%
4,575
17.0%
11,465
42.6%
Total
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding
Source: TCAG 2014
iii
iv
Section I: Introduction
State housing element law assigns the
responsibility for preparing the Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the
Tulare County region to the Tulare County
Association of Governments (TCAG).
TCAG, and other California councils of
governments (COGs), undertake the RHNA
process prior to each housing element cycle.
The current RHNA is for the fifth housing
element cycle and covers a 9.75-year projection
period (January 1, 2014 – September 30, 2023).
The RHNA process for the Tulare County
region was initiated in January 2013, and is
anticipated to be completed in June 2014, with
the adoption of the Regional Housing Needs
Plan (RHNP). The RHNP describes the
methodology developed to allocate the region’s
housing needs in four income categories (very
low, low, moderate, and above moderate)
among the eight cities and the unincorporated
county. The adopted methodology must be
consistent with the following objectives of State
housing element law (Government Code
Section 65584(d)):
1. Increasing the housing supply and the
mix of housing types, tenure, and
affordability in all cities and counties
within the region in an equitable
manner, which shall result in all
jurisdictions receiving an allocation of
units for low-income and very lowincome households.
2. Promoting infill development and
socioeconomic equity, the protection of
environmental
and
agricultural
resources, and the encouragement of
efficient development patterns.
3. Promoting an improved intraregional
relationship between jobs and housing.
4. Allocating a lower proportion of
housing need to an income category
when a jurisdiction already has a
disproportionately high share of
households in that income category, as
compared
to
the
countywide
distribution of households in that
category from the most recent
decennial United States census.
The RHNP assigns each jurisdiction part of the
RHNA Determination, issued by HCD. The
TCAG RHNA Determination is the total
number of housing units that the jurisdictions
within the Tulare County region must
collectively plan to accommodate between
January 1, 2014, and September 30, 2023. The
RHNA Determination, which is divided into
four income categories, is based on Department
of Finance (DOF) population projections and
takes into consideration a regional population
forecast. Table 2 shows the breakdown of the
RHNA Determination by the four income
categories.
Table 2: Total RHNA Determination
by Income Category
Income Category
Housing
Units
Percent
Very Low
6,215
23.1
Low
4,655
17.3
Moderate
4,575
17.0
Above Moderate
Total
11,465
26,910
42.6
100.0
Source: California Department of Housing and Community
Development
1
Organization
The RHNP is organized into four sections:
x
Section
I,
Introduction,
provides
background information on the RHNA
process, the connection between the
RHNA and SB 375, and public
outreach.
x
Section II, Growth Projections, describes
how TCAG’s 2040 Regional Forecast
was used in the development of the
RHNA Methodology.
x
Section III, RHNA Factors, describes
how TCAG considered each of the
RHNA Methodology factors set forth
in State law.
x
Section IV, Adopted RHNA Methodology,
provides a detailed description of the
adopted RHNA Methodology.
x
The appendices include the Regional
Housing Needs Determination Letter
from HCD, documents related to the
development
of
the
RHNA
Methodology,
and
California
Government Code Section 65584.
The RHNA Process
The RHNA process began in March 2013 when
TCAG worked with HCD to develop the
RHNA Determination. Between March 2013
and January 2014, HCD staff and TCAG staff
exchanged information and worked together to
refine the assumptions used to calculate the
RHNA Determination (e.g., population
projections, vacancy rates, household formation
rates). HCD first provided a draft RHNA
Determination to TCAG in August 2013. Staff
2
worked with HCD over the next several
months to calculate a Determination for the
region that better reflected local demographic
projections. While the original due date for
HCD’s final determination was September 30,
2013, the due date was extended into January
2014 to allow additional time to refine
assumptions. HCD provided a final RHNA
Determination on January 10, 2014, of 26,910
housing units for the 9.75-year RHNA period
(see Appendix A for HCD letter to TCAG).
State law requires TCAG to release the
Proposed RHNA Methodology for a 60-day
public review and comment period. The
comment period gives the public and each
jurisdiction an opportunity to provide
comments on the RHNA Methodology. The
public review and comment period for the
TCAG Proposed RHNA Methodology ran for
60 days from September 25, 2013 to November
24, 2013. The TCAG Board of Governors
adopted the RHNA Methodology at their
December 9, 2013 meeting. Based on the
adopted RHNA Methodology, TCAG released
the Draft RHNA Allocations as a part of the
Draft RHNP on March 13, 2014 for a 60-day
public review period that ended on March 12,
2014. Since TCAG did not receive any
comments, the Proposed Final RHNP will go
to the TCAG Board for review and adoption
on June 30, 2014.
Once adopted, HCD has 30 days to review the
Final RHNP for consistency with the objectives
of State law. Each jurisdiction must then
update its Housing Element to demonstrate
that it is meeting State law requirements.
Jurisdictions within Tulare County are required
to adopt and submit housing elements to HCD
for final review and certification 18 months
after the adoption of the 2014 Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and Sustainable
Communities Strategy (SCS). The RHNA
process and timeline is illustrated on the
following page.
3
Project Phases
Months
Public Outreach
RHNA
Determination
RHNA
Methodology
RHNA
Allocation
RHNP
TCAG Board of
Governors Hearings
Public Workshops
Mar
Apr
May
Proposed
RHNA
Methodology
Comment Period
Aug
Sept
Nov
3 Workshops
(Visalia, Dinuba, and Porterville)
Oct
Dec
Jan
RHNA
Methodology
Adopted
Final RHNA
Determination
Tulare Regional Housing Needs
Assessment Process
Draft RHNA
Determination
July
6 Board of Governors Meetings (that directly discussed the RHNA)
June
2013
Draft
RHNA
Allocations
Draft
RHNP
Feb
Mar
60-Day Revision
Request Period
60-Day
April
Comment Period
2014
Revision Request
July
Final
RHNP
Adoption
Response Period
(if necessary)*
June
Proposed
Final
RHNP
Final
RHNA
Allocations
May
*The schedule can change based on requests for revision and/or appeals
SB 375: Integrating Land
Use, Housing, and
Transportation Planning to
Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
The Sustainable Communities and Climate
Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) was passed to
support the State’s climate action goals, as
identified in Assembly Bill 32, to reduce
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through
coordinated transportation and land use
planning.
The bill mandates each of
California’s
Metropolitan
Planning
Organizations (MPOs) to prepare a sustainable
communities strategy (SCS) as a part of its regional
transportation plan (RTP). The SCS contains
land use, housing, and transportation strategies
that, if implemented, would allow the region to
meet its GHG reduction targets.
In the past, the RHNA was undertaken
independently from the RTP. SB 375 requires
that the RHNA and RTP/SCS processes be
undertaken together to better integrate housing,
land use, and transportation planning. The law
recognizes the importance of planning for
housing and land use in creating sustainable
communities where residents of all income
levels have access to jobs, services, and housing
using transit, or by walking and bicycling.
In addition to the RHNA requirements of State
law (Government Code Section 65584), SB 375
requires TCAG to address the region’s housing
needs in the SCS of the RTP. SB 375 states that
the SCS will:
x
Consider the State housing goals
(Government Code Section 65080
(b)(2)(B)(vi));
x
Identify areas within the region
sufficient to house all the population of
the region, including all economic
segments of the population, over the
course of the planning period for the
RTP (out to 2040 for the 2040
RTP/SCS) taking into account net
migration into the region, population
growth, household formation, and
employment growth (Government
Code Section 65080 (b) (2)(B)(ii); and
x
Identify areas within the region
sufficient to house the regional housing
needs for the region (Government
Code Section 65080 (b)(2)(B)(iii)).
Public Outreach and
Participation
State law (Government Code Section 65584.04
(c)(4))states that “public participation and
access shall be required in the development of
the methodology and in the process of drafting
and adopting the allocation of the regional
housing needs.” This includes participation by
organizations other than local jurisdictions.
TCAG made a diligent effort to achieve public
participation of all economic segments of the
community though the TCAG Board of
5
Governors Meetings, public noticing and
review, and the SCS outreach program.
TCAG Board of Governors Meetings
The TCAG Board of Governors, comprised of
one representative from each of the eight cities,
the five members of the County Board of
Supervisors, and three members-at-large,
conducts meetings every month that are open
to the public. Board meetings were the primary
method of public outreach and participation for
the RHNA Determination and Methodology.
Six TCAG Board meetings from May 20, 2013,
to December 9, 2013, included the RHNA as
either a discussion or action item. At these
meetings, Board members and the general
public were given opportunities to review,
comment, and ask questions about the RHNA
Determination and Methodology.
TCAG RTP/SCS Outreach
The RHNP is part of the TCAG RTP/SCS in
that SB 375 requires consistency between the
RHNA and the development pattern outlined
in the SCS. This requirement necessitated that
the RHNA Methodology be developed in
parallel with the SCS.
TCAG undertook significant outreach efforts
to encourage active participation from a
number of stakeholder groups. In October
2013 TCAG conducted workshops in Visalia,
Dinuba, and Porterville, that covered issues
related to the SCS.
Public Noticing and Review
TCAG released the Proposed RHNA
Methodology for 60 days of public review from
September 25, 2013, to November 24, 2013.
The Proposed RHNA Methodology included
both a Proposed Methodology, recommended
by TCAG staff, and five alternative
methodologies. Written comments on the
Proposed Methodology and alternatives were
made a part of the record and were considered
in the adoption of the Final RHNA
Methodology on December 9, 2013. TCAG
also provided the public with the opportunity
to request to receive notices and information
regarding Tulare County’s SCS through the
“Notify Me” feature on TCAG’s website. This
feature has allowed members of the public to
provide an email address and other information
for use in the database that TCAG used to send
out notices.
6
Section II: Growth
Projections for the
RTP/SCS and RHNA
The 2040 Regional Forecast serves as the
foundation for the RHNA Methodology and
Allocations and for the 2040 Regional
Transportation
Plan
and
Sustainable
Communities Strategy. The 2040 Regional
Forecast is a locally-driven study that provides
housing unit, employment, and population
projections for each jurisdiction in the Tulare
County region through the year 2040. TCAG
developed a projection of growth in the Tulare
County region that considered a variety of
factors including, historical growth trends,
pending
development
applications,
entitlements, existing general plans/community
plans, and employment trends. The 2040
Regional Forecast complies with all applicable
statutes and regulations regarding the RTP,
SCS, and RHNA from SB 375 and the
California Transportation Commission’s RTP
Guidelines.
Difference between 2040
Regional Forecast and RHNA
Determination
There is a difference between the housing units
projected in the 2040 Regional Forecast and the
RHNA Determination. The 2040 Regional
Forecast estimates that 21,661 housing units, or
about 2,222 units per year, will be built during
the 9.75-year RHNA projection period. The
RHNA Determination projects a need for
26,910 housing units, or 5,249 units (539 per
year) more than the 2040 Regional Forecast for
the same time period.
There are two main reasons why the
projections are different: 1) the two projections
have different purposes and; 2) they were
developed using different assumptions. The
2040 Regional Forecast is oriented toward
actual housing production, whereas the RHNA
Determination is focused on planning to meet
anticipated housing demand. The 2040
Regional Forecast reflects the number of
housing units that are likely to be built in the
region based on market considerations and
other policy factors.
The RHNA Determination is a projection of
housing need based on demographic
considerations (i.e., providing sufficient housing
to accommodate population growth). State law
(Government Code 65584.01 (b)) governs the
process that HCD uses to calculate the
Determination.
The law states that the
Determination “shall be based on population
projections produced by the Department of
Finance and regional population forecasts used
in preparing regional transportation plans.”
HCD is required to use Department of Finance
projections, but to also consider local
assumptions for anticipated household growth,
household size, household formation rates,
headship rates, vacancy rates, and other
characteristics of the projected population. The
final RHNA Determination reflects a blending
of the Department of Finance projections and
assumptions contained in TCAG’s 2040
Regional Forecast.
7
Consistency with the
RTP/SCS and Calculating
Total RHNA
The pattern of growth projected in the 2040
Regional Forecast is the nexus between the
RTP/SCS and the RHNA.
The growth projections for each jurisdiction
from the 2040 Regional Forecast were used as
the basis for distributing housing units and jobs
in the RTP/SCS scenario development. The
2040 housing unit and employment growth
projections for each jurisdiction acted as notto-exceed targets, or control totals, for the
development of land use scenarios. These
scenarios mapped different alternatives for how
Tulare County could grow through 2040. The
scenarios assigned jurisdictions the same
housing unit and employment growth totals
from the 2040 Regional Forecast. However,
the location, density, and pattern of
8
development within the jurisdictions varied by
scenario. These scenarios were linked to the
RTP transportation model and help to inform
future transportation investments.
The housing unit control totals in the 2040
Regional Forecast were also the basis for the
total RHNA Allocations to each jurisdiction.
TCAG used the proportion of units allocated
to each jurisdiction in the 2040 Regional
Forecast to calculate the total RHNA
Allocation for each jurisdiction for the 9.75year period of January 1, 2014, to September
30, 2023. TCAG estimated the housing units on
September 30, 2023, using the 2040 Regional
Forecast and then scaled up the proportions
until the total units allocated to the jurisdictions
equaled the total RHNA Determination. See
Appendix B for more information on the
process TCAG used to calculate the Total
RHNA in each jurisdiction. Table 3 shows each
jurisdiction’s Total RHNA.
Table 3: Total RHNA Allocation by Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
1/1/2014
Housing
Unit
Control
Totals
2023
Housing
Unit
Control
Totals
A
Estimated
9/30/2023 Housing
Units
Housing
Units
Percent
of Total
B
C
D
2024
Housing
Unit
Control
Totals
Housing Units 9/30/2023 (Based
on Allocation of 26,910 units)
Total
Housing
Units
Percent
of Total
Net New
Housing
Units
1/1/20149/30/2023
E
F
G
H
Dinuba
6,223
7,106
7,186
4.05%
7,212
7,188
4.05%
965
Exeter
3,803
4,305
4,426
2.50%
4,365
4,428
2.50%
625
Farmersville
2,878
3,253
3,343
1.89%
3,298
3,344
1.89%
466
Lindsay
3,384
3,858
3,972
2.24%
3,914
3,974
2.24%
590
Porterville
17,764
20,331
20,952
11.82%
20,639
20,960
11.82%
3,196
Tulare
20,022
22,908
23,606
13.32%
23,255
23,616
13.32%
3,594
Visalia
47,380
55,411
57,379
32.37%
56,386
57,401
32.37%
10,021
2,187
2,486
2,558
1.44%
2,521
2,559
1.44%
372
46,774
52,477
53,834
30.37%
53,151
53,855
30.37%
7,081
150,415
172,134
177,255
100.00%
174,741
177,325
100.00%
26,910
Woodlake
Unincorporated
County
Total
Sources
Columns A, B, and E: TCAG 2040 Demographic Forecast (2013)
Column C: Estimated using trendline growth between Columns B and E
Column D: Column C divided by countywide total from Column C (177,225)
Column F: Proportionally scaled up from Column D to 9/30/2023 countywide total (177,325)
Column G: Column F divided by countywide total from Column F (177,325)
Column H: Column A subtracted from Column F
9
Section III: RHNA
Methodology Factors
State law (Government Code 65584.04(d))
requires that TCAG, to the extent sufficient
data is available, consider 10 unique factors in
the development of the RHNA Methodology.
TCAG directly addressed these factors in three
ways: 1) as part of the process to develop the
RHNA Determination and Methodology, 2) in
the development of the 2040 Regional Forecast,
and 3) in the development of the SCS. Several
factors were also addressed by cities and
counties with the Tulare County region through
locally adopted plans and regulations. These
processes and how they related to the RHNA
Methodology are described below:
The RHNA Methodology. A variety of planning
objectives were used in the development of the
RHNA Methodology (e.g., efficient land use
patterns, a balance of jobs and housing, and
socioeconomic equity).
The adopted
methodology adjusted the distribution of
affordable units among jurisdictions based on
differences in existing household incomes as a
means of moving each jurisdiction towards
regional parity. Other factors were considered
as alternative methodologies.
The 2040 Regional Forecast. TCAG considered
many of the required RHNA factors during the
development of the 2040 Regional Forecast
(e.g., jobs/housing balance, constraints to
development, and opportunities for infill). As
the foundation of the RHNA Methodology, the
2040 Regional Forecast was the basis for the
total RHNA Allocations by jurisdiction. For
more information on how the 2040 Regional
Forecast was used in the RHNA Methodology
see Section II.
10
The Sustainable Communities Strategy. State law
requires that the SCS be consistent with the
RHNA. To accommodate this requirement,
the RHNA Methodology and the Sustainable
Communities Strategy were developed in
parallel. As a part of the process to develop the
SCS, TCAG prepared and evaluated four
growth scenarios that showed potential future
development patterns for the Tulare region.
TCAG also prepared performance measures to
help compare these scenarios. Many of these
performance measures also address the RHNA
Methodology factors.
Other Locally Adopted Regulations. In some cases,
local regulations, ordinances, and plans
addressed or will address RHNA Methodology
Factors in ways that the RHNA Methodology
could not (e.g., local jurisdictions will address
the housing needs of farmworkers though their
Housing Element updates).
The following section describes how TCAG
addressed each of the 10 RHNA Methodology
factors using one or more of the
aforementioned processes. It is organized
around each RHNA factor, as excerpted from
State law.
1. Each member jurisdiction’s existing and
projected jobs and housing relationship.
The RHNA Methodology addressed this factor
through the 2040 Regional Forecast and
directly in the RHNA Methodology itself. A
balance between jobs and housing was a
consideration in the development of the 2040
Regional Forecast. The 2040 Regional Forecast
used each jurisdiction’s existing and projected
jobs and housing to determine where job
growth would likely occur and assigned new
housing units to areas with expected increases
in jobs. The Proposed RHNA Methodology,
released by TCAG on September 25, 2013,
included an alternative methodology, entitled
Methodology B – Jobs/Housing Adjustment,
that directed more affordable housing to areas
that are closer to jobs. While this methodology
was not ultimately selected, it was considered as
an alternative.
2. The opportunities and constraints to
development of additional housing in each
member jurisdiction, including all of the
following:
(A) Lack of capacity for sewer or water
service due to federal or state laws,
regulations or regulatory actions, or supply
and distribution decisions made by a sewer
or water service provider other than the
local jurisdiction that preclude the
jurisdiction from providing necessary
infrastructure for additional development
during the planning period.
through the 2040 Regional Forecast and the
SCS. Both the 2040 Regional Forecast and the
SCS reflect planned residential densities
included in local general plans and community
plans. State law requires that each jurisdiction’s
general plan consider “public utilities and
facilities” in its circulation and land use
elements. Capacity for sewer and water service
is included within public utilities and facilities.
State law also requires that city/county
infrastructure standards and plans be consistent
with local general plans.
It should be noted that the RHNA
Methodology did not cap a jurisdiction’s overall
allocation because of existing sewer or water
capacity issues. As long as a jurisdiction was
planning for additional sewer and/or water
capacity, no special adjustments were
considered in the RHNA Methodology.
B) The availability of land suitable for
urban development or for conversion to
residential use, the availability of
underutilized land, and opportunities for
infill development and increased residential
densities. The council of governments may
not limit its consideration of suitable
housing sites or land suitable for urban
development to existing zoning ordinances
and land use restrictions of a locality, but
shall consider the potential for increased
residential development under alternative
zoning ordinances and land use
restrictions.
through the SCS. The SCS generally directs
growth away from greenfield development and
towards infill within downtowns and mixed-use
neighborhoods. One of the primary goals of
the RTP/SCS is to reduce vehicle miles traveled
(VMT). The SCS land use scenario prioritizes
infill development as a means of minimizing
urban sprawl and reducing the distance
between residence and workplace.
The
scenario did not limit its consideration of
suitable housing sites to existing zoning
ordinances.
Based on input from local
planning staff, strategic redevelopment sites
that had potential for future rezoning/upzoning
within the RTP/SCS horizon year were
identified and incorporated into the scenario.
In addition, the SCS assumes an increased share
of multifamily housing units relative to historic
trends.
11
(C) Lands preserved or protected from
urban development under existing federal
or state programs, or both, designed to
protect
open
space,
farmland,
environmental habitats, and natural
resources on a long-term basis.
through the SCS. The SCS categorizes land
preserved
or
protected
from
urban
development as constrained. Since this land is
not projected to be developed in local land use
plans, the SCS assumes no growth on these
lands within the RHNA planning period.
(D) County policies to preserve prime
agricultural land, as defined pursuant to
Section 56064, within an unincorporated
area.
SCS. The 2040 Regional Forecast took into
consideration policies in the County General
Plan intended to protect agricultural land. The
preservation of prime farmland is one of the
primary objectives of the SCS as well. TCAG
used performance measures that assessed
conversion of important farmland and critical
habitat to compare the growth scenarios. The
SCS took this performance measure into
account.
3. The distribution of household growth
assumed for purposes of a comparable
period of regional transportation plans and
opportunities to maximize the use of public
transportation and existing transportation
infrastructure.
through the SCS. TCAG used an iterative
12
process
to
distribute
housing
and
transportation facilities to mixed-use centers
and along corridors to maximize the
relationship between the two. TCAG used
performance measures that assessed proximity
to transit service to compare the growth
scenarios. The SCS took these performance
measures into account.
4. The market demand for housing.
directly and through the 2040 Regional
Forecast. The 2040 Regional Forecast is based
on a market-based projection of housing. The
distribution of housing growth within the 2040
Regional Forecast takes into consideration
market
indicators,
including
pending
development applications, entitlements, and
expected employment growth. There is not a
significant difference in the market demand for
housing between the jurisdictions in the county
and it was not treated as an affordable housing
adjustment factor in the development of the
methodology. The RHNA Determination for
the Tulare County region as a whole did
consider the market demand for housing by
adjusting for regional vacancy rates and
absorption of existing excess vacant units.
5. Agreements between a county and cities
in a county to direct growth toward
incorporated areas of the county.
SCS. The 2040 Regional Forecast took into
consideration the Tulare County General Plan,
which includes goals and policies that
encourage growth within and around cities to
minimize the conversion of farmland. This is
consistent with the goals and objectives of the
Tulare County regional Blueprint. The SCS is
based on a development pattern that
emphasizes compact, infill development.
TCAG used performance measures that
assessed land consumption and conversion of
important farmland to compare growth
scenarios. The SCS took these performance
measures into account.
6. The loss of units contained in assisted
housing developments, as defined in
paragraph (9) of subdivision (a) of Section
65583, that changed to non-low-income use
through mortgage prepayment, subsidy
contract expirations, or termination of use
restrictions.
Multiple programs and funding streams make it
difficult for jurisdictions and other interest
groups to compile accurate lists of the assisted
properties in each jurisdiction, especially larger
jurisdictions. As such, TCAG determined that
the data available was insufficient and could not
be incorporated into the RHNA Methodology
in a consistent and rationale manner. State law
requires housing elements to address the loss of
assisted housing developments for lowerincome households. TCAG will rely on each
jurisdiction to address this factor when
preparing their housing elements.
7. High-housing cost burdens.
Overall, housing costs in Tulare County are
lower than the large metropolitan and coastal
regions in California. Within Tulare County,
the median income is $43,550 and 40.40
percent of all units in the RHNA
Determination are affordable (i.e., very lowand low-income). The income categories of the
RHNA are relative to the median income of the
region. Since the adopted RHNA Methodology
is based on regional income parity, planning for
enough housing to meet each jurisdiction’s very
low- and low-income housing needs will
address local housing cost burdens.
8. The housing needs of farmworkers.
through the 2040 Regional Forecast.
According to the California Employment
Development Department (EDD), there were
approximately 37,700 farmworkers in Tulare
County in 2010. That number is projected to
rise to 41,600 in 2020, an increase of 10.3
percent. The 2040 Regional Forecast takes
these residents into account in its allocation of
future growth. Further, the housing need of
farmworkers is an issue that will be addressed
by each jurisdiction when preparing their
housing elements.
9. The housing needs generated by the
presence of a private university or a campus
of the California State University or the
University of California within any member
jurisdiction.
There are no large-scale private university,
California State University, or University of
California campuses in Tulare County.
However, the SCS assumes appropriate
development types adjacent to the College of
the Sequoias and San Joaquin Valley College
campuses in Visalia. Additional student housing
considerations will likely be addressed in
Visalia’s Housing Element.
13
10. Any other factors adopted by the council
of governments.
TCAG considered several factors in the
development of the RHNA Methodology
including, regional income parity, jobs-housing
balance, and proximity to transit. While the
proposed RHNA Methodology and Allocation
adjusts affordable allocations based only on
existing regional income disparities, these
14
factors were considered as alternative
methodologies and were released as part of the
RHNA Methodology package for public
comment (see Appendix B). These alternative
methodologies provide options to emphasize
specific local planning objectives, such as
distributing more affordable housing to
communities with more jobs or existing
capacity for high-density development.
Section IV: Adopted
Methodology and
Allocations
This section describes the adopted RHNA
Methodology for the period covering January 1,
2014, to September 30, 2023. The adopted
Methodology, A1—Regional Income Parity,
was selected out of six methodologies provided
as a part of the Proposed RHNA Methodology
package. Below is a step-by-step description of
the RHNA Methodology. Table 4 corresponds
to the description and shows the affordable
allocations (i.e., low- and very low-income
units) assigned to each jurisdiction. Table 5
further breaks down the allocations into the
four State-mandated income categories.
Methodology A1 – Regional
Income Parity
The adopted RHNA Methodology reflects the
underlying objectives of State housing law by
being consistent with the SCS growth pattern
and equitably distributing affordable housing
among the jurisdictions in the region. It
establishes a trendline for each jurisdiction to
determine the percentage of new housing units
that must be affordable in order for all
jurisdictions to achieve “regional income
parity” by 2050 (i.e., an equal percentage of
lower income households in 2050) (see Figure 1
below). Jurisdictions that currently have a lower
proportion of lower-income households
compared to the current regional average, are
expected to plan for a higher proportional share
of affordable units compared to the average.
Conversely, jurisdictions that currently have a
higher share of lower-income households
compared to the regional average are expected
to plan for a lower percentage of affordable
units (see Figure 1). The following steps were
used to calculate the affordable allocations for
each jurisdiction (see Table 4). (Note: The letters
in parentheses correspond with the columns in Table 4):
1. The 2014 total affordable units (E) were
calculated by multiplying the 2014 total
units (A) by the existing percentage of
affordable households (D) in each
jurisdiction based on the 2007-2011
American Community Survey (ACS)
estimate of lower-income households.
The Regional Income Parity (G) is
based on the existing countywide
average percentage of lower-income
households from the 2007-2011 ACS.
2. The September 30, 2023, intersection of
the income parity trendline (F) was
calculated by establishing a trendline
between each jurisdiction’s 2014
percentage of affordable households
(D) and the 2050 income parity
percentage of 40.4 percent (G) (i.e., the
existing countywide average percentage
of affordable households). This
trendline is intersected at September 30,
2023, (i.e., 2023.75) (F) to determine
what
percentage
of
affordable
households each jurisdiction should
have by September 30, 2023, in order to
be trending towards income parity by
2050.
3. Total affordable units on September 30,
2023, (H) were calculated by
multiplying total housing units in
September 30, 2023, (B) with the
September 30, 2023, intersection of the
income parity trendline (F).
15
4. The 2014-2023 affordable allocations
(I) were calculated by subtracting the
2014 affordable units (E) from the total
affordable units in September 30, 2023,
needed to reach income parity (H) and
then proportionally scaled to equal the
countywide affordable allocation of
10,870 (net new housing units
multiplied by 40.4 percent).
16
Visalia 32.39%
Exeter 38.31%
Tulare 38.33%
Dinuba 42.44%
Porterville 44.72%
Unincorporated County 45.06%
Farmersville 52.06%
Woodlake 52.69%
Lindsay 56.96%
34.57%
38.88%
38.90%
43.80%
43.55%
41.89%
48.90%
49.36%
52.48%
17
40.4%
Unincorporated County
Woodlake
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
Lindsay
Farmersville
Exeter
Dinuba
Figure 2: Methodology A1- 2050 Regional Income Parity - Income Trendline
2014 affordable percentages: 2007-2011 American Community Survey
2050 income parity percentage: 2007-2011 ACS (existing countywide average)
2023 affordable percentages: Calculated by Mintier Harnish using a trendline between 2014 affordable percentage and 2050 income parity percentage
Sources
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
3,803
2,878
3,384
17,764
20,022
47,380
2,187
46,774
150,415
Exeter
Farmersville
Lindsay
Porterville
Tulare
Visalia
Woodlake
Unincorporated
County
Total
177,325
53,855
2,559
57,401
23,616
20,960
3,974
3,344
4,428
7,188
26,910
7,081
372
10,021
3,594
3,196
590
466
625
965
C
Net New
Housing
Units (20149/30/2012)
40.4%
45.1%
52.7%
32.4%
38.3%
44.7%
57.0%
52.1%
38.3%
42.4%
D
Existing
Percentage
of
Affordable
Units
60,758
21,076
1,152
15,348
7,675
7,944
1,928
1,498
1,457
2,641
E
2014
Affordable
Units
40.4%
43.8%
49.4%
34.6%
38.9%
43.5%
52.5%
48.9%
38.9%
41.9%
F
9/30/2023
Intersection
of 2050
Income
Parity
Trendline
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
40.4%
G
Regional
Parity
18
Sources
Column A: TCAG 2040 Demographic Forecast (2013)
Column B: Estimated using trendline growth between 2023 and 2024 control totals in the TCAG 2040 Demographic Forecast
Column C Column A subtracted from Column B
Column D: 2007-2011 American Community Survey
Column E: Column A multiplied by Column D
Column F: Calculated by Mintier Harnish using a trendline between Column D and Column G
Column G: 2007-2011 American Community Survey (existing countywide average)
Column H: Column B multiplied by Column F
Column I: Column E subtracted from Column H and then proportionally adjusted to add up to countywide total of 10,870.
Column K: Column I divided by Column C
6,223
B
A
Dinuba
Total
Housing
Units
2023
Total
Housing
Units
2014
71,628
23,586
1,263
19,838
9,184
9,128
2,085
1,635
1,721
3,011
H
Total
Affordable
Units 2023
to Reach
Income
Parity
100%
23%
1%
42%
14%
11%
1%
1%
2%
3%
J
Percent
of Total
40.4%
35.9%
30.1%
45.4%
42.5%
37.5%
27.1%
29.8%
42.9%
38.8%
K
Percent
Affordable
Allocation
10,870
2,542
112
4,547
1,529
1,199
160
139
268
374
I
Units
2014-2023 Affordable
Allocation
Table 4: Methodology A1- Income Parity by 2050
625
466
590
3,196
3,594
10,021
Exeter
Farmersville
Lindsay
Porterville
Tulare
Visalia
26,910
7,081
6,215
1,477
71
2,616
920
623
80
74
143
211
Units
23.1%
20.9%
19.1%
26.1%
25.6%
19.5%
13.6%
15.9%
22.9%
21.9%
Percent of
Total
RHNA
Very Low Income
Allocation
4,655
1,065
41
1,931
609
576
80
65
125
163
Units
17.3%
15.0%
11.0%
19.3%
16.9%
18.0%
13.6%
13.9%
20.0%
16.9%
Percent of
Total
RHNA
Low Income
Allocation
10,870
2,542
112
4,547
1,529
1,199
160
139
268
374
Units
40.4%
35.9%
30.1%
45.4%
42.5%
37.5%
27.1%
29.8%
42.9%
38.8%
Percent of
Total
RHNA
Affordable Allocation
(Combined Low + Very
Low Income)
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding
Total
Unincorporated
County
372
965
Dinuba
Woodlake
4,575
1,169
69
1,802
613
566
82
68
85
121
Units
17.0%
16.5%
18.5%
18.0%
17.1%
17.7%
13.9%
14.6%
13.6%
12.5%
Percent of
Total
RHNA
Moderate Income
Allocation
11,465
3,370
191
3,672
1,452
1,431
348
259
272
470
Units
19
42.6%
47.6%
51.3%
36.6%
40.4%
44.8%
59.0%
55.6%
43.5%
48.7%
Percent of
Total
RHNA
Above Moderate
Income Allocation
Table 1: 2014-2023 Draft RHNA Allocations by Income Category
Total RHNA Allocation
Appendix A: HCD Regional Housing Needs
Determination Letter
Appendix B: Proposed RHNA Methodology
Disclaimer: The Proposed RHNA Methodology and the alternative methodologies
described in this appendix use a Draft RHNA Determination from HCD of 31,482.
The Final RHNA Determination of 26,910 was received after the Proposed RHNA
Methodology was released for public review, and is therefore not reflected in the
following tables. The actual RHNA Allocations, which are based on the Final
RHNA Determination, can be found on page iii and 19.
TCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Proposed RHNA Methodology
September 17, 2013
TCAG Proposed RHNA Methodology
This document describes six methodologies for the TCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Methodologies A1, A2, and A3 consider regional income parity while Methodologies B, C, and D apply
adjustment factors to emphasize different planning objectives and provide options for the local
jurisdictions. Methodology A1 is TCAG’s proposed methodology, while Methodologies A2, A3, B, C, and
D are offered as alternatives.
RHNA Process Overview
State housing element law assigns the responsibility for preparing the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) for Tulare County jurisdictions to the Tulare County Association of Governments.
TCAG, and other California councils of government, undertake the RHNA process prior to each housing
element cycle. State housing element law (Government Code Section 65584(d)) states that the RHNA
must be consistent with the following four objectives:
1. Increase the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities
and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in all jurisdictions
receiving an allocation of units for low-income and very low-income households.
2. Promote infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns.
3. Promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.
4. Allocate a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already
has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the
countywide distribution of households in that category based on the most recent decennial
United States census.
Preparing and adopting a methodology for distributing the RHNA determination to each jurisdiction in
the region is the basis for the Regional Housing Needs Plan. The adopted methodology must be
consistent with the aforementioned objectives of State housing element law. The methodology,
ultimately adopted by the TCAG Board, must be a formula for distributing housing elements by four
income categories (i.e., very low, low, moderate, and above moderate) to each jurisdiction in the
county. For the purposes of this document, we will only be addressing the affordable units (i.e., very
low-income and low-income categories combined).
The RHNA for TCAG covers a 9.75-year projection period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2023.
The following steps and tables document the process of using the jurisdictional housing unit control
totals, provided by TCAG staff, to develop the RHNA methodology. The RHNA process, illustrated in
Figure 1, is divided into two steps: 1) calculating the total RHNA allocation by jurisdiction, and 2)
calculating the affordable housing allocations using one of the six RHNA methodologies. (Note: the
methodologies use the draft RHNA determination of 31,482 provided by HCD on July 30, 2013. This is not
the final determination and we are working with HCD to refine this number.)
1
September 17, 2013
Figure 1: Preparing the Alternative RHNA Methodologies
2
September 17, 2013
Methodologies A1, A2, and A3
Methodologies A1, A2, and A3 reflect the underlying objectives of State housing law by being consistent
with the SCS growth pattern and equitably distributing affordable housing among the jurisdictions in the
county. They establish a trendline for each jurisdiction to determine the percentage of new housing
units that must be affordable in order for all jurisdictions to achieve “regional income parity” (i.e., an
equal percentage of affordable housing units) by a specific future date.
Jurisdictions that currently have a higher proportion of lower-income households compared to the
current regional average, are expected to plan for a lower proportional share of affordable units.
Conversely, jurisdictions that currently have a lower share of lower-income households compared to the
regional average are expected to plan for a higher percentage of affordable units. The earlier the income
parity date, the more pronounced the affordable allocations for jurisdictions with existing proportions of
lower-income households that are significantly higher or lower than the regional average. For example,
jurisdictions that have a much lower existing proportion of lower-income households than the regional
average would receive a higher affordable allocation with a regional income parity date of 2040 than
they would with a regional income parity date of 2060.
Methodology A1 – Regional Income Parity by 2050 (TCAG’s Proposed Methodology)
Methodology A1 achieves regional income parity by 2050, the horizon year for the Tulare County
Regional Blueprint.
Methodology A2 – Regional Income Parity by 2060
Methodology A2 achieves regional income parity by 2060, the extent of population projections from the
Department of Finance.
Methodology A3 achieves regional income parity by 2040, the horizon year for the RTP/SCS.
Methodologies B, C, and D
Methodologies B, C, and D apply adjustment factors to a flat rate allocation of 40.41 percent (i.e., the
existing countywide average percentage of affordable households). These adjustment factors provide
options to emphasize specific planning objectives, such as distributing more affordable housing to
communities with more jobs or transit. They are applied individually (Methodology B and C) and in
combination (Methodology D).
Methodology B – Jobs/Housing Adjustment
The Jobs/Housing Adjustment is based on the planning objective to direct more affordable housing to
areas that are closer to jobs. One of the primary goals of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Jobs/Housing
3
September 17, 2013
Adjustment Factor allocates more affordable housing to areas with high job growth in an effort to
reduce the distance between the workplace and home for lower-income households.
The Jobs/Housing Adjustment provides an upward or downward adjustment in the number of affordable
housing units based on the projected number of jobs in 2040. Jurisdictions with a higher proportion of
projected jobs receive an upward adjustment in the number of affordable units and jurisdictions with a
lower proportion of projected jobs receive a downward adjustment. For the purposes of this analysis,
only non-agricultural jobs are considered.
Methodology C – Transit Adjustment
The Transit Adjustment is based on the planning objective to direct more affordable housing to areas
with more transit service. With no existing or planned light rail, Tulare County residents rely on local and
regional bus systems for public transportation. The Transit Adjustment allocates more affordable
housing in areas that are well served by the bus network within Tulare County in an effort to increase
public transit use and reduce VMT.
Methodology D – Jobs/Housing and Transit Adjustment
Methodology D adds the adjustments from Methodology B and Methodology C together to form a
hybrid methodology. Methodology D is based on the planning objective to direct more affordable
housing to areas that are both closer to jobs and have more transit service.
RHNA Methodologies Summary
A quantitative summary of the RHNA methodologies can be found in Table 1 on the following page. The
table summarizes affordable unit allocations for each methodology. A more detailed explanation of the
methodologies and their derivation can be found in Attachment A.
4
11,502
Visalia
31,482
4,202
Tulare
Total
3,737
Porterville
8,469
692
Lindsay
Unincorporated
County
553
Farmersville
437
739
Exeter
Woodlake
1,151
Dinuba
Jurisdiction
Total RHNA
(Net New
Housing Units
1/1/20149/30/2023)
(Proposed
Methodology)
Affordable Units
12,722
3,155
145
5,059
1,767
1,436
214
181
312
453
40.41%
37.25%
33.10%
43.99%
42.04%
38.42%
30.91%
32.83%
42.27%
39.35%
Percent or
Total RHNA
Job/Housing
Adjustment
Regional Income
Parity by 2040
12,722
3,312
164
4,785
1,739
1,493
254
205
307
462
Affordable Units
Regional Income
Parity by 2060
40.41%
39.11%
37.53%
41.60%
41.38%
39.95%
36.76%
37.19%
41.56%
40.17%
Percent or
Total RHNA
Methodology B
12,722
2,878
111
5,544
1,815
1,335
143
139
322
436
Affordable Units
Methodology A3
40.41%
33.98%
25.28%
48.20%
43.20%
35.73%
20.60%
25.16%
43.53%
37.89%
Percent or
Total RHNA
Methodology A2
12,722
3,190
163
4,648
1,768
1,642
323
194
255
537
Affordable Units
Regional Income
Parity by 2050
40.41%
37.67%
37.32%
40.41%
42.08%
43.95%
46.68%
35.16%
34.52%
46.69%
Percent or
Total RHNA
Methodology A1
Transit
Adjustment
Methodology C
12,722
3,277
169
4,765
1,703
1,541
267
226
299
473
Affordable Units
Affordable Allocations
40.41%
38.69%
38.69%
41.43%
40.53%
41.25%
38.60%
40.95%
40.51%
41.12%
Percent or
Total RHNA
Table 1: RHNA Methodology Summary Table
Jobs/Housing
and Transit
Adjustment
Methodology D
12,722
3,045
156
4,765
1,774
1,674
311
197
256
546
Affordable Units
September 17, 2013
40.41%
35.95%
35.59%
41.43%
42.21%
44.78%
44.86%
35.70%
34.62%
47.40%
Percent or
Total RHNA
5
Detailed RHNA Methodologies
September 17, 2013
Attachment A
This attachment describes six methodologies for the TCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA).
Methodologies A1, A2, and A3 consider regional income parity while Methodologies B, C, and D apply
adjustment factors to a flat rate allocation to emphasize different planning objectives and provide options for
the local jurisdictions. Methodology A1 is TCAG’s proposed methodology, while Methodologies A2, A3, B, C, and
D are offered as alternatives.
Step 1. Calculating Total RHNA Allocations by Jurisdiction
To ensure consistency between the Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy
(RTP/SCS) and the RHNA, the starting point for the proposed methodologies is the housing unit control totals
used in the development of the Draft RTP/SCS. Under all methodologies, each jurisdiction receives the same
total number of housing units. The difference in the methodologies is only in how they allocate the affordable
units (i.e., very low + low-income units); each methodology emphasizes or addresses different planning policy
objectives. The SCS serves as the foundation for the RHNA methodologies.
The following steps show how the proportion of units allocated to each jurisdiction in the housing unit control
totals were used to determine the total RHNA allocation for each jurisdiction for the 9.75-year period of January
1, 2014, to September 30, 2023 (See Table 1). (Note: The letters in parentheses correspond with the columns in
Table 1.)
1. The January 1, 2014, Base Year housing units (A) were taken directly from the housing unit control
totals.
2. Assuming linear growth between 2023 and 2024, the September 30, 2023 housing units control totals
(C) reflect 75 percent of the net new housing units from 2023 to 2024 for each jurisdiction.
3. The total countywide units for September 30, 2023, (182,748 units) (F) were calculated by adding the
31,482 unit draft RHNA determination to the 2014 countywide unit total (151,266) (A).
4. The proportion of units allocated to each jurisdiction in the September 30, 2023 housing unit control
totals (C) was multiplied by the September 30, 2023 countywide units (182,748) (F) to calculate the units
on September 30, 2023, for each jurisdiction (F).
5. Finally, the January 1, 2014, Base Year housing units (A) was subtracted from the September 30, 2023,
total for each jurisdiction (F) to determine the January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2023, net new housing
units (H) (i.e., the total RHNA allocation).
6
September 17, 2013
Table 1: Total RHNA Allocation by Jurisdiction
1/1/2014
Housing
Unit
Control
Totals
2023
Housing
Unit
Control
Totals
A
Dinuba
Jurisdiction
Estimated Housing
Units 9/30/2023
Based on Control
Totals
Housing Units 9/30/2023 (Based on
Determination of 31,482 units)
2024
Housing
Unit
Control
Totals
Total
Housing
Units
Percent
of Total
Total RHNA
(Net New
Housing Units
1/1/20149/30/2023)
Housing
Units
Percent
of Total
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6,258
7,238
7,326
4.13%
7,356
7,548
4.13%
1,289
Exeter
3,825
4,385
4,426
2.49%
4,452
4,559
2.49%
735
Farmersville
2,894
3,313
3,343
1.88%
3,364
3,444
1.88%
550
Lindsay
3,403
3,929
3,972
2.24%
3,992
4,092
2.24%
689
Porterville
17,864
20,707
20,952
11.81%
21,050
21,584
11.81%
3,720
Tulare
20,135
23,332
23,606
13.31%
23,718
24,319
13.31%
4,183
Visalia
47,647
56,433
57,379
32.34%
57,507
59,110
32.34%
11,463
Woodlake
2,200
2,532
2,558
1.44%
2,572
2,635
1.44%
435
Unincorporated
County
47,039
53,449
53,834
30.35%
54,213
55,458
30.35%
8,418
Total
151,266
175,318
177,396
100.00%
178,224
182,748
100.00%
31,482
Sources
Columns A, B, and E: TCAG 2040 Demographic Forecast (2013)
Column C: Estimated using trendline growth between Columns B and E
Column D: Column C divided by countywide total from Column C (177,396)
Column F: Proportionally scaled up from Column D to 9/30/2023 countywide total (182,748)
Column G: Column F divided by countywide total from Column F (182,748)
Column H: Column A subtracted from Column F
7
September 17, 2013
Step 2. Calculating the Affordable RHNA Allocations by Jurisdiction
Methodologies A1, A2, and A3
Methodologies A1, A2, and A3 reflect the underlying objectives of State housing law by being consistent with
the SCS growth pattern and equitably distributing affordable housing among the jurisdictions in the county. They
establish a trendline for each jurisdiction to determine the percentage of new housing units that must be
affordable in order for all jurisdictions to achieve “regional income parity” (i.e., an equal percentage of
affordable housing units by a specific future date) (see Figure 2, 3, and 4). Jurisdictions that currently have a
higher proportion of lower-income households compared to the current regional average, are expected to plan
for a lower proportional share of affordable units. Conversely, jurisdictions that currently have a lower share of
lower-income households compared to the regional average are expected to plan for a higher percentage of
affordable units.
Methodologies A1, A2, and A3 use an Income Parity Trendline to assign the number of units necessary for each
jurisdiction to be trending towards regional income parity by a specific future date. TCAG’s preferred
methodology is Methodology A1, which achieves regional income parity by 2050, the horizon year for the Tulare
County Regional Blueprint; Methodology A2 achieves regional income parity by 2060, the extent of population
projections from the Department of Finance; and Methodology A3 achieves regional income parity by 2040, the
horizon year for the RTP/SCS. The earlier the income parity date, the more pronounced the affordable
allocations for jurisdictions with existing proportions of lower-income households that are significantly higher or
lower than the regional average. For example, jurisdictions that have a much lower existing proportion of
lower-income households than the regional average would receive a higher affordable allocation in
Methodology A3 than in Methodology A2 because they need to “catch up” to the regional average by 2040
instead of 2060.
The following steps were used to calculate the affordable allocations for each jurisdiction using Methodologies
A1, A2, and A3 (see Tables 2, 3, and 4 below). (Note: The letters in parentheses correspond with the columns in
Tables 2, 3, and 4.)
1. The 2014 total affordable units (E) were calculated by multiplying the 2014 total units (A) by the existing
percentage of affordable households (D) in each jurisdiction based on the 2007-2011 American
Community Survey (ACS) estimate of lower-income households. The Regional Income Parity (G) is based
on the existing countywide average percentage of lower-income households from the 2007-2011 ACS.
2. Methodology A1 – Regional Income Parity by 2050 (Proposed Methodology)
The September 30, 2023, intersection of the income parity trendline (F) was calculated by establishing a
trendline between each jurisdiction’s 2014 percentage of affordable households (D) and the 2050
income parity percentage of 40.41 percent (G) (i.e., the existing countywide average percentage of
affordable households). This trendline is intersected at September 30, 2023, (i.e., 2023.75) (F) to
determine what percentage of affordable households each jurisdiction should have by September 30,
2023 in order to be trending towards income parity by 2050.
8
September 17, 2013
3. Total affordable units on September 30, 2023, (H) were calculated by multiplying total housing units in
September 30, 2023, (B) with the September 30, 2023, intersection of the income parity trendline (F).
4. The 2014-2023 affordable allocations (I) were calculated by subtracting the 2014 affordable units (E)
from the total affordable units in September 30, 2023, needed to reach income parity (H) and then
proportionally scaled to equal the countywide affordable allocation of 12,722 (net new housing units
multiplied by 40.41 percent) .
9
Visalia 32.39%
Exeter 38.31%
Tulare 38.33%
Dinuba 42.44%
Porterville 44.72%
Farmersville 52.06%
Woodlake 52.69%
Lindsay 56.96%
34.57%
38.88%
38.90%
43.80%
43.55%
41.89%
48.90%
49.36%
52.48%
10
40.41%
Woodlake
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
Lindsay
Farmersville
Exeter
Dinuba
Figure 2: Methodology A1- 2050 Regional Income Parity - Income Trendline
Sources
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
September 17, 2013
21,584
24,319
55,458
182,748
2,894
3,403
17,864
20,135
47,647
2,200
47,039
151,266
Farmersville
Lindsay
Porterville
Tulare
Visalia
Woodlake
Unincorporated
County
Total
31,482
8,418
435
11,463
4,183
3,720
689
550
735
1,289
C
40.41%
45.06%
52.69%
32.39%
38.33%
44.72%
56.96%
52.06%
38.31%
42.44%
D
Existing
Percentage
of
Affordable
Units
61,128
21,195
1,159
15,435
7,718
7,989
1,938
1,507
1,465
2,656
E
2014
Affordable
Units
40.41%
43.80%
49.36%
34.57%
38.90%
43.55%
52.48%
48.90%
38.88%
41.89%
F
9/30/2023
Intersection
of 2050
Income
Parity
Trendline
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
G
Regional
Parity
73,850
24,290
1,301
20,432
9,459
9,400
2,147
1,684
1,773
3,162
H
Total
Affordable
Units in
2023 to
Reach
Income
Parity
12,722
3,129
143
5,051
1,759
1,427
211
179
311
511
I
Units
100%
25%
1%
40%
14%
11%
2%
1%
2%
4%
J
Percent
of Total
2014-2023
Affordable
Allocation
Sources
Column B: Estimated using trendline growth between 2023 and 2024 control totals in the TCAG 2040 Demographic Forecast (see Table 2 for more details)
2,635
59,110
4,092
3,444
4,559
3,825
Exeter
7,548
6,258
B
A
Dinuba
Total
Housing
Units
9/30/2023
Net
New
Housing
Units
(20142023)
Table 2: Methodology A1 - Income Parity by 2050
Total
Housing
Units
2014
September 17, 2013
40.41%
37.17%
32.91%
44.06%
42.06%
38.36%
30.67%
32.64%
42.30%
39.65%
K
Percent
Affordable
Allocation
11
Visalia 32.39%
Exeter 38.31%
Tulare 38.33%
Dinuba 42.44%
Porterville 44.72%
43.81%
Farmersville 52.06%
Woodlake 52.69%
Lindsay 56.96%
34.09%
38.75%
38.77%
42.01%
44.07%
49.59%
50.09%
53.45%
12
40.41%
Woodlake
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
Lindsay
Farmersville
Exeter
Dinuba
Figure 3: Methodology A2 - 2060 Regional Income Parity - Income Trendline
Sources
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
September 17, 2013
21,584
24,319
55,458
182,748
2,894
3,403
17,864
20,135
47,647
2,200
47,039
151,266
Farmersville
Lindsay
Porterville
Tulare
Visalia
Woodlake
Unincorporated
County
Total
31,482
8,418
435
11,463
4,183
3,720
689
550
735
1,289
C
40.41%
45.06%
52.69%
32.39%
38.33%
44.72%
56.96%
52.06%
38.31%
42.44%
D
Existing
Percentage
of
Affordable
Units
61,128
21,195
1,159
15,435
7,718
7,989
1,938
1,507
1,465
2,656
E
2014
Affordable
Units
40.41%
44.07%
50.09%
34.09%
38.77%
43.81%
53.45%
49.59%
38.75%
42.01%
F
9/30/2023
Intersection
of 2060
Income
Parity
Trendline
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
G
Regional
Parity
73,850
24,442
1,320
20,153
9,429
9,455
2,187
1,708
1,767
3,171
H
Total
Affordable
Units in
2023 to
Reach
Income
Parity
12,722
3,286
163
4,775
1,732
1,484
252
204
305
521
I
Units
100%
26%
1%
38%
14%
12%
2%
2%
2%
4%
J
Percent
of Total
2014-2023
Affordable
Allocation
Sources
2,635
59,110
4,092
3,444
4,559
3,825
Exeter
7,548
6,258
B
A
Dinuba
Total
Housing
Units
9/30/2023
Net
New
Housing
Units
(20142023)
Total
Housing
Units
2014
September 17, 2013
40.41%
39.04%
37.38%
41.66%
41.39%
39.90%
36.57%
37.04%
41.58%
40.41%
K
Percent
Affordable
Allocation
13
Visalia 32.39%
Exeter 38.31%
Tulare 38.33%
Dinuba 42.44%
Porterville 44.72%
Farmersville 52.06%
Woodlake 52.69%
Lindsay 56.96%
39.11%
43.10%
47.69%
35.40%
39.10%
41.68%
43.32%
48.09%
50.76%
14
40.41%
Woodlake
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
Lindsay
Farmersville
Exeter
Dinuba
Figure 4: Methodology A3 - 2040 Regional Income Parity - Income Trendline
Sources
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
September 17, 2013
21,584
24,319
55,458
182,748
2,894
3,403
17,864
20,135
47,647
2,200
47,039
151,266
Farmersville
Lindsay
Porterville
Tulare
Visalia
Woodlake
Unincorporated
County
Total
31,482
8,418
435
11,463
4,183
3,720
689
550
735
1,289
C
40.41%
45.06%
52.69%
32.39%
38.33%
44.72%
56.96%
52.06%
38.31%
42.44%
D
Existing
Percentage
of
Affordable
Units
61,128
21,195
1,159
15,435
7,718
7,989
1,938
1,507
1,465
2,656
E
2014
Affordable
Units
40.41%
43.32%
48.09%
35.40%
39.11%
43.10%
50.76%
47.69%
39.10%
41.68%
F
9/30/2023
Intersection
of 2040
Income
Parity
Trendline
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
G
Regional
Parity
73,850
24,022
1,267
20,925
9,511
9,304
2,077
1,642
1,783
3,146
H
Total
Affordable
Units in
2023 to
Reach
Income
Parity
12,722
2,851
109
5,537
1,808
1,326
140
137
320
494
I
Units
100%
22%
1%
44%
14%
10%
1%
1%
3%
4%
J
Percent
of Total
2014-2023
Affordable
Allocation
Sources
2,635
59,110
4,092
3,444
4,559
3,825
Exeter
7,548
6,258
B
A
Dinuba
Total
Housing
Units
9/30/2023
Net
New
Housing
Units
(20142023)
Total
Housing
Units
2014
September 17, 2013
40.41%
33.86%
25.03%
48.31%
43.23%
35.65%
20.28%
24.90%
43.57%
38.31%
K
Percent
Affordable
Allocation
15
September 17, 2013
Methodologies B, C, and D
Methodologies B, C, and D apply adjustment factors to a flat rate allocation of 40.41 percent (i.e., the
existing countywide average percentage of affordable households). These adjustment factors provide
options to emphasize specific planning objectives, such as distributing more affordable housing to
communities with more jobs or transit. They are applied individually (Methodology B and C) and in
combination (Methodology D).
Methodology B – Jobs/Housing Adjustment
The Jobs/Housing Adjustment is based on the planning objective to direct more affordable housing to
areas that are closer to jobs. One of the primary goals of the Sustainable Communities Strategy is to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The Jobs/Housing
Adjustment Factor allocates more affordable housing to areas with high job growth in an effort to
reduce the distance between the workplace and home for lower-income households.
The Jobs/Housing Adjustment uses a flat rate allocation as a starting point and applies an adjustment
factor for the ratio of jobs to housing. The Jobs/Housing Adjustment provides an upward or downward
adjustment in the number of affordable housing units based on the projected number of jobs in 2040.
Jurisdictions with a higher proportion of projected jobs receive an upward adjustment in the number of
affordable units and jurisdictions with a lower proportion of projected jobs receive a downward
adjustment. For the purposes of this analysis, only non-agricultural jobs are considered.
The following steps were used to calculate the affordable allocations for each jurisdiction using the
Jobs/Housing Adjustment (see Table 5). (Note: The letters in parentheses correspond with the columns
in Table 5.)
1. The Jobs/Housing Adjustment is derived from each jurisdiction’s ratio of jobs (A) to units (B) in
2040, taken from the 2040 TCAG Forecast. A floor of 0.68 and a ceiling of 1.27 (one standard
deviation above and below the regional average of 0.97) is applied to each jobs/housing ratio (C)
so that no jurisdiction receives an exorbitantly high or low adjustment. The jobs/housing
variance (D) is calculated by subtracting the countywide average jobs/housing ratio of 0.97 from
each jurisdiction’s jobs/housing ratio (C) and then multiplying that ratio by 0.5.
2. The flat rate affordable allocation (G) is calculated by multiplying each jurisdiction’s total RHNA
(E) by 40.41 percent (F) (i.e., the existing countywide average percentage of affordable
households).
3. The jobs/housing adjustment (H) is calculated by multiplying the flat rate affordable allocation
(G) by the jobs/housing variance (D). The adjustment (H) is then proportionally scaled to add up
to zero. This ensures that the countywide affordable units do not change between
methodologies.
4. The affordable allocation (I) is calculated by adding the jobs/housing adjustment (H) to the flat
rate affordable allocation (G).
16
54,309
216,885
65,167
222,535
B
9,152
5,451
4,106
4,953
26,296
29,600
74,637
3,173
0.83
0.97
C
1.27
0.67
0.70
1.27
1.14
1.05
0.97
0.81
-7.0%
0.0%
D
15.0%
-15.0%
-13.5%
15.0%
8.5%
4.0%
0.0%
-8.0%
Variance
from 0.97
J/H Ratio
Average *
0.5
8,469
31,482
1,151
739
553
692
3,737
4,202
11,502
437
E
Total RHNA
(Net New
Housing
Units 20142023)
40.41%
40.41%
F
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
Regional
Average
Percentage
of
Affordable
Units
465
298
223
280
1,510
1,698
4,648
177
3,422
12,722
G
Flat Rate
Affordable
Allocation
Sources:
Column A and B: TCAG 2040 Demographic Forecast (2013)
Column C: Column A divided by Column B using a floor of 0.67 and a ceiling of 1.27 (one standard deviation above and below 0.97 average)
Column D: Countywide average of 0.97 subtracted from Column C
Column E: Total housing units in 2014 subtracted from total housing units in 9/30/2023 (See Table 1)
Column F: 2007-2011 American Community Survey (existing countywide average)
Column G: Column E multiplied by Column F
Column H: Column D multiplied by Column G and then proportionally adjusted to sum to zero
Column I: Column G added to Column H
Column J: Column I divided by Column E
Total
Unincorporated
County
Woodlake
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
Lindsay
Farmersville
Exeter
Dinuba
A
12,620
3,612
2,882
7,556
29,984
31,144
72,222
2,556
2040
Jobs
Jobs/
Housing
2040
(with
Housing
floor
and
ceiling)
Adjustment Factor Derivation
Table 5: Methodology B - Jobs/Housing Adjustment Factor
September 17, 2013
-232
+0
H
+72
-44
-29
+43
+132
+70
+0
-14
Jobs/Housing
Adjustment
3,190
12,722
537
255
194
323
1,642
1,768
4,648
163
I
17
37.67%
40.41%
J
46.69%
34.52%
35.16%
46.68%
43.95%
42.08%
40.41%
37.32%
Percent
Affordable
Affordable
Allocation
Allocation
September 17, 2013
Methodology C – Transit Adjustment
The Transit Adjustment is based on the planning objective to direct more affordable housing to areas
with more transit service. With no existing or planned light rail, Tulare County residents rely on local and
regional bus systems for public transportation. The Transit Adjustment allocates more affordable
housing in areas that are well served by the bus network within Tulare County in an effort to increase
public transit use and reduce VMT.
Methodology C uses a flat rate affordable allocation as a starting point and applies an adjustment for
the number of bus stops relative to each jurisdiction’s total RHNA. The following steps were used to
calculate the affordable allocations for each jurisdiction using Methodology C (see Table 6). (Note: the
letters in parentheses correspond with the columns in Table 6.)
1. The Transit Adjustment is derived from each jurisdiction’s existing number of bus stops (B) and
Total RHNA (net new housing units from 1/1/14 – 9/30/2023) (A). The bus stops to total RHNA
ratio (C) is calculated by dividing the number of bus stops (B) by Total RHNA (A). Column D
applies a floor of 0.011 and a ceiling of 0.045 (one standard deviation above and below the
regional average of 0.028) to Column C. This ensures no jurisdiction receives an exorbitantly
high or low adjustment relative to the other jurisdictions.
2. Transit variance (E) is calculated by subtracting the countywide average bus stops to Total RHNA
ratio of 0.028 from each jurisdiction’s ratio (D) and then multiplying that value by two. The
transit variance (E) is multiplied by two because the ratios are very small, resulting in little
variation.
3. The flat rate affordable allocation (G) is calculated by multiplying each jurisdiction’s total RHNA
(A) by 40.41 percent (F) (i.e., the existing countywide average percentage of affordable
households).
4. The transit adjustment (H) is calculated by multiplying the flat rate affordable allocation (G) by
the transit variance (E). The adjustment (H) is proportionally scaled to add up to zero. This
ensures that the countywide affordable units do not change between methodologies.
5.
The affordable allocation (I) is calculated by adding the transit adjustment (H) to the flat rate
affordable allocation (I).
18
31,482
Total
1,009
0.028
0.040
0.030
0.036
0.010
0.042
0.030
0.050
0.005
0.006
C
Bus Stops
to Total
RHNA
Ratio
0.028
0.040
0.030
0.036
0.011
0.042
0.030
0.045
0.011
0.011
D
E
0.0%
2.4%
0.4%
1.6%
-3.4%
2.8%
0.4%
3.4%
-3.4%
-3.4%
Transit
Variance
from
Regional
Average * 2
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
F
Regional
Average
Percentage
of
Affordable
Units
12,722
465
298
223
280
1,510
1,698
4,648
177
3,422
G
Flat Rate
Affordable
Allocation
+0
+8
+1
+3
-13
+31
+5
+117
-8
-146
H
12,722
473
299
226
267
1,541
1,703
4,765
169
3,277
I
2014-2023
Affordable
RHNA
Allocation
Sources:
Column A: Total housing units in 2014 subtracted from total housing units in 9/30/2023 (See Table 1)
Column B: Estimated using data from Tulare County Area Transit, City of Porterville, City of Visalia, Dinuba Area Rapid Transit, and TCAG staff
Column C: Column B divided by Column A
Column D: Column Column A divided by Column B using a floor of 0.011 and a ceiling of 0.045 (one standard deviation above and below 0.028 average)
Column E: Column D subtracted from regional average in Column D (0.028) and then multiplied by 2
Column F: 2007-2011 American Community Survey (existing countywide average)
Column G: Column A multiplied by Column F
Column H: Column E multiplied by Column G and then proportionally adjusted to sum to 0
Column I: Column H added to Column G
Column J: Column I divided by Column A
Woodlake
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
Lindsay
Farmersville
Exeter
46
22
20
7
158
125
576
2
53
B
A
1,151
739
553
692
3,737
4,202
11,502
437
8,469
Dinuba
Existing
Bus
Stops
Bus Stops
to Total
RHNA Ratio
(with floor
and ceiling)
Adjustment Factor Derivation
Table 6: Methodology C - Transit Adjustment Factor
Total RHNA
(Net New
Housing
Units 20142023)
September 17, 2013
Transit Adjustment
19
40.41%
41.12%
40.51%
40.95%
38.60%
41.25%
40.53%
41.43%
38.69%
38.69%
J
Percent
Affordable
Allocation
September 17, 2013
Methodology D – Jobs/Housing and Transit Adjustment
Methodology D adds the adjustments from Methodology B and Methodology C together to form a
hybrid methodology. Methodology D is based on the planning objective to direct more affordable
housing to areas that are both closer to jobs and have more transit service.
Methodology D uses a flat rate affordable allocation as a starting point and applies both the
Jobs/Housing Adjustment from Methodology B and the Transit Adjustment from Methodology C. The
following steps were used to calculate the affordable allocations for each jurisdiction using Methodology
D (see Table 7). (Note: the letters in parentheses correspond with the columns in Table 7.)
1. The flat rate affordable allocation (C) is calculated by multiplying each jurisdiction’s total RHNA
(A) by 40.41 percent (B) (i.e., the existing countywide average percentage of affordable
households).
2. The Jobs/Housing Adjustment (D) is taken directly from Column H in Table 5 (see Methodology
B).
3. The Transit Adjustment is (E) is taken directly from Column H in Table 6 (see Methodology C).
4. The Combined Adjustment (F) is calculated by adding the Jobs/Housing Adjustment (D) to the
Transit Adjustment (E).
5. The affordable allocations (G) is calculated by adding the Combined Adjustment (F) to the flat
rate affordable allocation (C).
6. The percent affordable allocation is calculated by dividing the affordable allocations (G) by total
RHNA (A).
20
172,134
Total
40.41%
69,561
2,872
1,740
1,315
1,559
8,216
9,257
22,392
1,005
21,206
C
Flat Rate
Affordable
Allocation
Sources:
Column A: Total housing units in 2014 subtracted from total housing units in 9/30/2023 (See Table 1)
Column B: 2007-2011 American Community Survey (existing countywide average)
Column C: Column A multiplied by Column B
Column D: Jobs Housing Adjustment from Methodology B (see Table 5)
Column E: Transit Adjustment from Methodology C (see Table 6)
Column F: Column D added to Column E
Column G: Column C added to Column F
Column H: Column G divided by Column A
Woodlake
Visalia
Tulare
Porterville
Lindsay
Farmersville
Exeter
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
40.41%
B
A
7,106
4,305
3,253
3,858
20,331
22,908
55,411
2,486
52,477
Dinuba
Regional
Average
Percentage of
Affordable Units
Total RHNA (Net
New Housing
Units 2014-2023)
Jobs/Housing
Adjustment
+0
+72
-44
-29
+43
+132
+70
+0
-14
-232
D
+0
+8
+1
+3
-13
+31
+5
+117
-8
-146
E
Transit
Adjustment
+0
+80
-43
-26
+31
+163
+75
+117
-21
-378
F
69,561
2,952
1,697
1,289
1,590
8,379
9,333
22,509
983
20,828
G
Affordable
Allocation
Table 7: Methodology D - Jobs/Housing and Transit Adjustment Factor
September 17, 2013
Combined
Adjustment
40.41%
41.54%
39.42%
39.61%
41.21%
41.21%
40.74%
40.62%
39.56%
39.69%
H
Percent
Affordable
Allocation
21
September 17, 2013
22
Appendix C: California Government Code Section
65584 and 65584.04
California Government Code Section 65584
(a) (1) For the fourth and subsequent revisions of the housing element pursuant to Section 65588,
the department shall determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region pursuant
to this article. For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, the share of a city or county of the
regional housing need shall include that share of the housing need of persons at all income levels
within the area significantly affected by the general plan of the city or county.
(2) While it is the intent of the Legislature that cities, counties, and cities and counties should
undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to
accommodate the entire regional housing need, it is recognized, however, that future housing
production may not equal the regional housing need established for planning purposes.
(b) The department, in consultation with each council of governments, shall determine each region's
existing and projected housing need pursuant to Section 65584.01 at least two years prior to the
scheduled revision required pursuant to Section 65588. The appropriate council of governments, or
for cities and counties without a council of governments, the department, shall adopt a final regional
housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each city, county, or city and
county at least one year prior to the scheduled revision for the region required by Section 65588.
The allocation plan prepared by a council of governments shall be prepared pursuant to Sections
65584.04 and 65584.05 with the advice of the department.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the due dates for the determinations of the
department or for the councils of governments, respectively, regarding the regional housing need
may be extended by the department by not more than 60 days if the extension will enable access to
more recent critical population or housing data from a pending or recent release of the United States
Census Bureau or the Department of Finance. If the due date for the determination of the
department or the council of governments is extended for this reason, the department shall extend
the corresponding housing element revision deadline pursuant to Section 65588 by not more than
60 days.
(d) The regional housing needs allocation plan shall be consistent with all of the following
objectives:
(1) Increasing the housing supply and the mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability in all cities
and counties within the region in an equitable manner, which shall result in each jurisdiction
receiving an allocation of units for low and very low income households.
(2) Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, the protection of environmental and
agricultural resources, and the encouragement of efficient development patterns.
(3) Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.
(4) Allocating a lower proportion of housing need to an income category when a jurisdiction already
has a disproportionately high share of households in that income category, as compared to the
countywide distribution of households in that category from the most recent decennial United States
census.
(e) For purposes of this section, "household income levels" are as determined by the department as
of the most recent decennial census pursuant to the following code sections:
(1) Very low incomes as defined by Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) Lower incomes, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(3) Moderate incomes, as defined by Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code.
(4) Above moderate incomes are those exceeding the moderate income level of Section 50093 of the
Health and Safety Code.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, determinations made by the department, a council
of governments, or a city or county pursuant to this section or Section 65584.01, 65584.02,
65584.03, 65584.04, 65584.05, 65584.06, or 65584.07 are exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code).
California Government Code Section 65584.04
(a) At least two years prior to a scheduled revision required by Section 65588, each council of
governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, shall develop a proposed methodology for
distributing the existing and projected regional housing need to cities, counties, and cities and
counties within the region or within the subregion, where applicable pursuant to this section. The
methodology shall be consistent with the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584.
(b) (1) No more than six months prior to the development of a proposed methodology for
distributing the existing and projected housing need, each council of governments shall survey each
of its member jurisdictions to request, at a minimum, information regarding the factors listed in
subdivision (d) that will allow the development of a methodology based upon the factors established
in subdivision (d).
(2) The council of governments shall seek to obtain the information in a manner and format that is
comparable throughout the region and utilize readily available data to the extent possible.
(3) The information provided by a local government pursuant to this section shall be used, to the
extent possible, by the council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, as source
information for the methodology developed pursuant to this section. The survey shall state that
none of the information received may be used as a basis for reducing the total housing need
established for the region pursuant to Section 65584.01.
(4) If the council of governments fails to conduct a survey pursuant to this subdivision, a city,
county, or city and county may submit information related to the items listed in subdivision (d) prior
to the public comment period provided for in subdivision (c).
(c) Public participation and access shall be required in the development of the methodology and in
the process of drafting and adoption of the allocation of the regional housing needs. Participation by
organizations other than local jurisdictions and councils of governments shall be solicited in a
diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community. The
proposed methodology, along with any relevant underlying data and assumptions, and an
explanation of how information about local government conditions gathered pursuant to
subdivision (b) has been used to develop the proposed methodology, and how each of the factors
listed in subdivision (d) is incorporated into the methodology, shall be distributed to all cities,
counties, any subregions, and members of the public who have made a written request for the
proposed methodology. The council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall
conduct at least one public hearing to receive oral and written comments on the proposed
methodology.
(d) To the extent that sufficient data is available from local governments pursuant to subdivision (b)
or other sources, each council of governments, or delegate subregion as applicable, shall include the
following factors to develop the methodology that allocates regional housing needs:
(1) Each member jurisdiction's existing and projected jobs and housing relationship.
(2) The opportunities and constraints to development of additional housing in each member
jurisdiction, including all of the following:
(A) Lack of capacity for sewer or water service due to federal or state laws, regulations or regulatory
actions, or supply and distribution decisions made by a sewer or water service provider other than
the local jurisdiction that preclude the jurisdiction from providing necessary infrastructure for
additional development during the planning period.
(B) The availability of land suitable for urban development or for conversion to residential use, the
availability of underutilized land, and opportunities for infill development and increased residential
densities. The council of governments may not limit its consideration of suitable housing sites or
land suitable for urban development to existing zoning ordinances and land use restrictions of a
locality, but shall consider the potential for increased residential development under alternative
zoning ordinances and land use restrictions. The determination of available land suitable for urban
development may exclude lands where the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) or the
Department of Water Resources has determined that the flood management infrastructure designed
to protect that land is not adequate to avoid the risk of flooding.
(C) Lands preserved or protected from urban development under existing federal or state programs,
or both, designed to protect open space, farmland, environmental habitats, and natural resources on
a long-term basis.
(D) County policies to preserve prime agricultural land, as defined pursuant to Section 56064, within
an unincorporated area.
(3) The distribution of household growth assumed for purposes of a comparable period of regional
transportation plans and opportunities to maximize the use of public transportation and existing
transportation infrastructure.
(4) The market demand for housing.
(5) Agreements between a county and cities in a county to direct growth toward incorporated areas
of the county.
(6) The loss of units contained in assisted housing developments, as defined in paragraph (9) of
subdivision (a) of Section 65583, that changed to non-low-income use through mortgage
prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or termination of use restrictions.
(7) High-housing cost burdens.
(8) The housing needs of farmworkers.
(9) The housing needs generated by the presence of a private university or a campus of the
California State University or the University of California within any member jurisdiction.
(10) Any other factors adopted by the council of governments.
(e) The council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, shall explain in writing how
each of the factors described in subdivision (d) was incorporated into the methodology and how the
methodology is consistent with subdivision (d) of Section 65584. The methodology may include
numerical weighting.
(f) Any ordinance, policy, voter-approved measure, or standard of a city or county that directly or
indirectly limits the number of residential building permits issued by a city or county shall not be a
justification for a determination or a reduction in the share of a city or county of the regional
housing need.
(g) In addition to the factors identified pursuant to subdivision (d), the council of governments, or
delegate subregion, as applicable, shall identify any existing local, regional, or state incentives, such as
a priority for funding or other incentives available to those local governments that are willing to
accept a higher share than proposed in the draft allocation to those local governments by the council
of governments or delegate subregion pursuant to Section 65584.05.
(h) Following the conclusion of the 60-day public comment period described in subdivision (c) on
the proposed allocation methodology, and after making any revisions deemed appropriate by the
council of governments, or delegate subregion, as applicable, as a result of comments received
during the public comment period, each council of governments, or delegate subregion, as
applicable, shall adopt a final regional, or subregional, housing need allocation methodology and
provide notice of the adoption of the methodology to the jurisdictions within the region, or delegate
subregion as applicable, and to the department.
(i) (1) It is the intent of the Legislature that housing planning be coordinated and integrated with the
regional transportation plan. To achieve this goal, the allocation plan shall allocate housing units
within the region consistent with the development pattern included in the sustainable communities
strategy.
(2) The final allocation plan shall ensure that the total regional housing need, by income category, as
determined under Section 65584, is maintained, and that each jurisdiction in the region receive an
allocation of units for low and very low-income households.
(3) The resolution approving the final housing need allocation plan shall demonstrate that the plan is
consistent with the sustainable communities strategy in the regional transportation plan.
Appendix D: Public Outreach and Participation
Program
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS)
Public Participation Plan
for the
Prepared by:
210 N. Church Street, Suite B
Visalia, CA 93291
(559) 623-0450
Tularecog.org
Adopted
November 19, 2012
I. Introduction to Senate Bill 375
SB 375 (Steinberg), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, is a
California state law that became effective January 1, 2009. This bill looks to reduce emissions
from automobiles and light-duty trucks in the state of California. One of the implementing arms of
the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), implementation of the bill is expected to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions by 5 million metric tons statewide.
This new law requires California's Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop regional reduction
targets for greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) for the years 2020 and 2035. California’s 18
Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating Sustainable
Communities Strategies (SCSs) and Alternative Planning Strategies (APS), if applicable. The
goal of the SCS is to design a comprehensive regional plan that will reduce emissions from
vehicle operation within each MPO region. The MPOs are required to develop an SCS through
integrated land use, housing, and transportation planning and demonstrate an ability to attain the
targets set by ARB in 2020 and 2035. If those targets are unable to be met via an SCS, an APS
may be prepared.
II. Role of the Tulare County Association of Governments (TCAG)
TCAG is the designated MPO for the Tulare County region. Each MPO is required to develop a
public participation plan for the Sustainable Communities Strategy and Alternative Planning
Strategy, if applicable. Elements of the plan will include: outreach efforts to encourage the active
participation of a broad range stakeholder groups in the planning process, consultation with
various transportation agencies, public workshops throughout the region, preparation and
circulation of a draft SCS (and APS, if applicable), a minimum of three public hearings on the
draft SCS and a process for members of the public to request to receive notices. This document
complies with the public participation plan preparation requirements of SB 375.
III. SCS Public Participation Plan and Related Outreach
The Sustainable Communities Strategy is one component of the Regional Transportation Plan
(RTP) for the Tulare County Region. Outreach in addition to those items outlined here will be
undertaken throughout the region for purposes of RTP development. TCAG also has an adopted
comprehensive Public Participation Plan (2009) which can be found on the agency’s website at
www.tularecog.org. The 2009 Public Participation Plan was created to comply with SAFETEALU, the transportation authorization bill that was in place until replaced by MAP-21 in 2012. This
document does not replace or supersede any elements in the 2009 comprehensive Public
Participation Plan, but should be seen as complementary.
1
IV. Sustainable Communities Strategy Public Participation Plan
A. Notifications
TCAG will provide the public with the opportunity to request to receive notices and
information regarding Tulare County’s SCS in the following ways:
i. Members of the public will be able to use the “Notify Me” feature on TCAG’s website
after December 1, 2012. This feature allows members of the public to provide an
email address and other information for use in a database that TCAG will utilize to
send out notices as needed.
ii. TCAG may be contacted by phone or at the physical office location listed below:
210 N. Church Street, Suite B
Visalia, CA 93291
Phone: (559) 623-0450
iii. Requests for information can be directed to any member of TCAG staff, but should
primarily be directed to:
Ted Smalley, Executive Director at [email protected]
Roberto Brady, SCS Project Manager [email protected]
B. Stakeholder Outreach
TCAG will undertake significant outreach efforts to encourage active participation from a
number of stakeholder groups, including but not limited to: affordable housing advocates,
transportation advocates, neighborhood and community groups, environmental advocates,
home builder representatives, broad-bases business organizations, landowners, commercial
property interests and homeowner associations. TCAG will also seek out input from the local
federally recognized Native American tribe.
i. TCAG will create, appoint, and facilitate an RTP Roundtable. The Roundtable will
provide input on a number of issues related to the 2014 RTP; however, the primary
focus of the Roundtable will be the development of the SCS.
2
ii. TCAG will provide information to various civic clubs, organization, community action
groups and any other interested parties with which TCAG or it’s consultant have
contact. TCAG staff will be available for presentations, meetings, etc. with groups in the
community that request such information.
C. Public Agency Consultation
TCAG will consult with transportation agencies and other public agencies. A position on the
RTP Roundtable will be reserved for Caltrans District staff.
D. Public Hearings and Workshops
TCAG will conduct public workshops and public hearings throughout the Tulare County region.
In addition to the elements specifically outlined below, TCAG will comply with all regulations
regarding presentations and approvals to and by elected bodies and the governing board of
TCAG. More outreach than described below is expected to be undertaken by TCAG staff;
however, at a minimum TCAG will:
i. Prior to release of a draft SCS, conduct a workshop within the Tulare County region to
provide the public with the information and tools necessary to provide a clear
understanding of the issues and policy choices.
ii. Hold two public hearings on the draft SCS (and APS, if applicable).
E. Informational Meetings with Local Elected Bodies
TCAG will conduct a minimum of one informational meeting to present a draft of the SCS (and
APS, if applicable) to Tulare County and it’s incorporated cities. The meeting must be
attended by representatives of the County Board of Supervisors and city council members
representing a majority of the cities representing a majority of the incorporated population
within the county. Notice of the meeting will be provided to each agency’s clerk.
F. Circulation of Draft and Adoption
TCAG will prepare and circulate the draft SCS (and APS, if applicable) a minimum of 55 days
prior to the adoption of the final Regional Transportation Plan.
3

Final Regional Housing Needs Plan - Tulare County Association of

Transcription

Similar documents

r.6o)ic

PROJECTh omeless - United Way of Tulare County

Flyer

20 acs_Navel_Oranges.indd

Jobs-Housing Fit in the Bay Area

SEM-FIB Tescan Lyra

Using the GPS Visualizer and Bing Map (Ptl. Brian A

The Big Picture Project: - Central Corridors Funders Collaborative

Our Growing Workforce Shortage

300 Lion Heart Manor, right of Manor Avenue in Cohoes