HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - August 13, 2002 SSCITY OF LODI
INFORMAL INFORMATIONAL MEETING
"SHIRTSLEEVE" SESSION
CARNEGIE FORUM, 305 WEST PINE STREET
TUESDAY, AUGUST 13, 2002
An Informal Informational Meeting ("Shirtsleeve" Session) of the Lodi City Council was held Tuesday,
August 13, 2002 commencing at 7:03 a.m.
A. ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members — Hitchcock, Howard, Nakanishi, and Mayor Pennino
Absent: Council Members — Land
Also Present: City Manager Flynn, City Attorney Hays, and City Clerk Blackston
B. CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR UPDATE
City Clerk Blackston reviewed the weekly calendar (filed).
C. TOPIC(S)
C-1 "Regional Housing Needs Allocation"
Community Development Director Bartlam explained that the San Joaquin Council of
Government's (SJCOG) mission is stipulated in state housing law and it is charged with
distributing regional housing needs throughout the County. He reported that at the end of
2002 SJCOG is expected to approve an allocation process and method that the City will
use to accomplish its housing element update. The methodology that San Joaquin
County uses was derived from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). The
ABAG model looks at both housing and employment projections to determine what each
community's fair share of future housing needs might be. He stated that the housing
element update is a "planning exercise" and is not meant to be a production goal. The
City is not expected to have to build all the units that will be shown as its fair share of
housing needs.
Council Member Howard pointed out that SB 910 relates to penalties on jurisdictions that
fail to achieve certification of their housing element.
Mr. Bartlam replied that Lodi's current housing element is not certified by the State
Housing Community Development Department. He acknowledged that the senate bill
adds a penalty phase and gives the State Housing Community Development Department
far more power than what it has had in the past. He noted that SB 910 is being vigorously
opposed by local government and the League of California Cities. The bill was recently
delayed in the Assembly Housing Committee.
With the aid of overheads (filed) J. D. Hightower, City Planner, reported that in 1990 there
was a projected need of 36,277 dwelling units that need to be constructed within the
County according to the growth models employed by the State Housing Community
Development Department. It is projected that by 2008 there will be 23,103 households in
Lodi and approximately 35,000 jobs. Using this projection, Lodi's fair share of housing
would be 4,014 dwelling units. It was determined that a family of four with low income
could afford $887 per month, and those considered very low income could afford $554
per month on housing. Mr. Hightower reported that 26.3% of owner -occupied units in
Lodi spend more than 30% of their income on housing and 44.2% of renters spend more
than 30% of their income on rent.
Mayor Pennino commented that 30% of average social security income for senior citizens
amounts to $210 per month.
Continued August 13, 2002
Mr. Hightower continued his report and noted that Lodi is under no obligation to provide
the fair share units; however, it is a goal that the City should try to accomplish. He stated
that there is enough capacity under the Citys growth allocation plan to accommodate the
units and commented that no obstacle exists, it is based on the market.
In response to Mayor Pennino, Mr. Bartlam reported that Lodi has 55% homeowners and
45% renters. He explained that during the decade of the 1990s there were no multi -family
rental housing projects approved or built. Older single family dwellings are not being
resold for owner occupancy, they are being rented.
In answer to Mayor Pro Tempore Hitchcock, Mr. Bartlam stated that the City mirrors the
County percentages. He reported the following 2000 census statistics for Lodi: 24.7%
very low income; 17.17% low income; 18.52% moderate; and 39.62% above moderate.
Mr. Bartlam explained that the next step is for each of the communities in the County to
make comments relative to the allocation process. The SJCOG board will then take up
the matter for final adoption at the end of the year. Once the City has the SJCOG
adopted number for the community, staff can update the housing element. During this
period, staff will begin the consultant selection process. He noted that the current year's
budget has funds available to hire a housing specialist to assist staff in generating the
housing element, which needs Council adoption by December 2003.
Council Member Howard suggested that Lodi's comments include: 1) continued
opposition to SB 910, and 2) emphasis of the fact that Lodi has adopted a 2% growth
rate, which should be recognized in the process for compiling the data.
In response to Council Member Nakanishi, Mr. Bartlam believed that focus should be
placed on actually producing housing, rather than housing elements. He stated that a unit
for a two- or four -person family in Lodi cannot be built and rented for $400 a month
without either subsidizing the land cost, construction, or cost to provide services.
Council Member Nakanishi commented on the following obstacles and issues related to
affordable housing:
• NIMBY (not in my backyard) — residents are often opposed to apartments being built
near their property. An effort should be made to educate the public about the need
for apartments.
• State law requires prevailing wages, which increases costs.
• Insurance issues inhibit construction of condominiums.
• City ordinances add burdens to building homes; he suggested not charging permit
fees for affordable housing.
• Bay area homes are priced high because of greenbelts, and the influx of these
residents into the valley has increased home prices here.
• Interest rates are increasing.
Mayor Pennino asked Mr. Bartlam to present today's topic information to the Board of
Realtors and get input from them.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
• Eileen St. Yves did not believe that any communities in California would be able to
meet the desired housing and element plans that the State would like them to have.
Five bills are currently pending, which may serve to put rental housing owners out of
business. She reported that rental housing owners provide 60% of the housing for
the population of California.
In reply to Mayor Pennino, Ms. St. Yves stated that her one -bedroom apartments rent
for $595 and $615 per month. The citywide average is $680.
2
Continued August 13, 2002
Debbie Olson representing the League of California Cities warned that a bill similar to
SB 910 is being considered tomorrow and encouraged a City staff member to attend
the committee meeting.
• John Beckman reported that a $3.5 billion State housing bond will be on the ballot in
November for the purpose of subsidizing projects, with priority given to infill and
Brownfield projects.
Mr. Bartlam pointed out that State housing bond money goes to communities with
adopted housing elements, consequently it is a source of funds which Lodi has no
ability to tap.
Tammy Jenks stated that she and her husband own a couple of rental properties in
Lodi and are members of the Renters Association of California. She noted that some
of the pending laws will discourage people from getting into the rental business. Most
members of the Association are older individuals who are tired of fighting the
government. She projected that when their children inherit their parent's properties
they will sell them immediately, which will make housing affordability issues even
worse in the future.
D. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC ON NON -AGENDA ITEMS
None.
E. ADJOURNMENT
No action was taken by the City Council. The meeting was adjourned at 8:16 a.m.
ATTEST:
Susan J. Blackston
City Clerk
Mayor's & Council Member's Weekly Calendar
WEEK OF AUGUST 13, 2002
Tuesday, August 13, 2002
7:00 a.m. Shirtsleeve Session
1. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (CD).
11:00 a.m. Pennino. 241h Annual Blessing of the Grapes at Woodbridge
Winery.
Wednesday, August 14, 2002
5:30 - 7:00 p.m. Pennino, Hitchcock, and Land. Grand Re -Opening and
Ribbon Cutting for the Discovery Center at Lodi Lake Park.
Thursday, August 15, 2002
5:30- 7:30 p.m. PenniAo and Howard. Reception to honor citizen volunteer
service and retirements on various boards and commissions,
committees and organizations. Wine & Roses - Outdoor
Pavilion.
6:00 p.m. Hitchcock. CVD Quarterly Dinner Meeting hosted by the
City of Chowchilla.
Friday, August 16, 2002
10:00 a.m. LAFCO Committee meeting. Board of Supervisors
Chambers, 71h Floor Courthouse, 222 East Weber Avenue,
Stockton,
9:30 - 12:30 p.m. Hitchcock and Land. Policy Committee Meeting at
Sacramento Convention Center, 1440 J Street, Sacramento.
6:00 p.m. Pennino, Hitchcock, and land. Lodi Grape Festival Annual
President's Dinner in C.S. Jackson Hall on the Festival Grounds.
Saturday, August 17, 2002
Sunday, August 18, 2002
Monday, August 19, 2002
Disclaimer: This calendar contains only information that was provided to the City Clerk's ofrce
counciAmisOrnealndr.doc
CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
MEETING DATE: August 13, 2002 (Shirtsleeve Session)
PREPARED BY: Konradt Bartlam, Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Comment on the Regional Housing Needs Allocation developed
by the Council of Governments.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Regional Housing Needs Allocation is set by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).
Essentially this allocation represents an estimate of total housing
units that need to be built within a region to accommodate
expected growth.
The attached memo from the Council of Governments outlines the regulatory context for the allocation
process. This goal then is divided amongst the individual cities by size. Lodi's "fair share" of this regional
goal is 4,041 or 505 units per year. Last year, 2001, the Lodi market produced 325 units (321 single
family and 4 duplex). The ten-year average supply of units produced is 240 units per year. While private
development has not supplied this amount in the past there is no evidence to point towards a greater
market demand. However, it is important to recognize that the growth ordinance has enough capacity, in
the form of unused allocations, to accommodate our "fair share".
In determining a proportionate fair share, the Ripon City Council inquired about the impacts created by
slight modification of the model that the COG used in drafting the allocations for each city. The current
COG model assumes that every city should move 50% towards the countywide average of affordable
units for very low, low and moderate families. Ripon inquired into the impact of each city moving towards
the average 20% and 40%. As indicated on the last table, the impact to Lodi is minimal with a total
difference of 15 units overall — 3,999 to 4,014 dwelling units respectively.
The next step is to start work on the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element needs
to be certified by HCD by December 2003. This state agency checks the Housing Element for
consistency with our "fair share" of the regional housing allocation. As a mandatory element of the
General Plan, a new housing element may have impacts to other elements of the General Plan. The
question is the extent of the impacts and if a new housing element will necessitate policy amendments to
other elements of the General Plan. Staff recommends that the City start the consultant selection
process for the Housing Element in the two to three month timeframe, so that work can commence once
COG adopts the final allocation number by the end of this calendar year.
The undertaking of a certified housing element is an important task for a number of reasons. The
housing element provides the framework of how Lodi will respond to the need for affordable housing for
residents. As a job rich area, we need to develop a plan of how to house the people working in our
community. Ideally the home prices in Lodi would correspond to the wages earned by families.
APPROVED:
H. Dixon Flynn -- City Manager
regional housing allocation shirtsleave.doc 08107102
Council Communication
Meeting Date: August 13, 2002
Page 2
Having a balance between the wages earned and the price of housing is a key towards the three points
of sustainable development — environment, economic and social. Environmentally having this balance
would help reduce the air pollutants emitted and the run-off associated with ever widening roadways.
Having housing affordable to a wide range of workers is a key factor in site location for industry as well
as allowing residents to have additional discretionary income to spend in town. Most importantly, by not
having to commute from other cities, people can spend more time with their families and establish an
affinity for Lodi.
FUNDING: None required.
Konradt Bartlam
Community Development Director
Prepared by:
JDH
Attachments
SAN JOAQUIN COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
6 South El Dorado St, Suite 400 • Stockton, California 95202
1W RECEIVED
209.468.3913 • .?09.468.1084 ( f z�:)WA
wwwsjcog.org JUN 27
2002
COMMUNITY OY VE OP NT DEPT.
Alichael P Resrucria MEMORANDUM
LODI
C H A 1 RNIAN
J,rlk Suglork TO: Community Development Direc rs
Ju/err E. Crun FR: Andrew T. Chesley, De pu ive erector
r.xr.r.o"nvr: DI HlREr.c
AlemberAgencier RE: Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2001-08
CITIES OF
ESCA I.(1N.
LAIHIIIII-. DT: June 21, 2002
IA)1) I.
NIAII'LCA.
leiPU F,
"C R:11:1
'.The The COG is mandated by California government code section 65584 to allocate
'.
A.' 11 housing needs to its local jurisdictions. The law was recently amended to establish a
1 111' 1 1 1 "' staggered four year preparation cycle for regions around the state and a new due date
.1:,V JUdQCIS
for the allocation per region. By state law, COG must submit an allocation to the
California Department ofHousing and Community Development (HCD) by December
31, 2002. Local jurisdictions are required to incorporate the final allocation into an
updated general plan housing element which must be submitted to HCD by December
31, 2003.
Enclosed is the draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2001-08 that COG is
circulating to its member jurisdictions for review and comment. Comments and
requests for revisions must be received by COG no later than August 22, 2002
at 5 p.m.
We appreciate the input that your staff has provided us in preparing this draft
allocation. We look forward to receiving any additional comments you may have. If
you have any questions about this matter, or would like to discuss it further, please feel
free to contact Steve VanDenburgh, Senior Regional Planner of COG staff at (209)
468-3913. He would be happy to discuss the regional housing needs process with you.
1�
2uis
Draft Regional Housing Needs Allocation, 2001-08
1.0 Introduction \ Background. Preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation is
mandated by California government code section 65584. The law requires that the California
Department ofHousing and Community Development (HCD) project housing construction needs at
the county level. HCD utilizes population and employment projections from the COU s Regional
Transportation Plan and the Department of Finance's most recent projections as the basis for, their
projections. COG is mandated to allocate the housing needs prepared by HCD to the unincorporated
area and municipalities within the county by income category. For this cycle, the allocation covers the
period from January 2001 through June 2008. Units built between January 1, 2001 and adoption of
the plan will be credited towards the allocation. COG's allocation must be received by HCD by
December 31, 2002. Local jurisdictions are required to incorporate the allocation into an updated
general plan housing element, which must be submitted to HCD by December 31, 2003.
1.1 Previous Allocation. The last time a housing needs allocation was adopted by COG was in
1991. It covered the period 1990-1997 and was called the "Fair Share Housing Plan". Changes in the
law in the mid-1990s exempted COGs from preparing an allocation for the mid-1990s cycle. The law
was recently amended to establish a staggered four year preparation cycle for regions around the
state, and a new due date per region. Six of the San Joaquin Valley counties are in the current cycle.
Fresno and Kern counties and the Sacramento region adopted their local -level allocations in the fall of
2001. The Bay Area allocation was adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
in March 2001.
1.2 Projected Housing Need for San Joaquin County. HCD notified COG on January 14, 2002
that the range of housing unit needs for San Joaquin County for the period 2001-08 is between
39,569 and 45,621 units. This distribution is a 13% and 5% reduction in units, respectively,
compared to the preliminary determination of housing needs presented to COG in September 2001.
The reduction resulted from a letter San Joaquin COG sent to HCD in late December asking that they
reconsider the units distributed to San Joaquin County. The COG pointed out that HCD based their
preliminary determination on the Department of Finance's population projections, which are higher
than the projections that have been adopted by the COG Board for use in the Regional Transportation
Plan and air quality conformity determination. The COG also pointed out that the county has a
significant in -migration population from the Bay Area, impacting the number of high end houses that
are built in the county, which can create a perception that there is a greater projected need for low
income housing than is actually justified by demand.
HCD distributed the housing units among four household income categories using historic rates of
household formation (see Section 4.0, Regional Housing Needs Determination). For example, the
2000 census shows that 24% of the households in San Joaquin County had "very low" incomes based
on a regional household income of $41,282. Therefore 24% of the housing units allocated for the
2001-08 period must be accessible to households in this income category. The COG must maintain
these percentages and the corresponding number of units on a countywide basis as it allocates units to
the local jurisdictions.
1.3 Household Income Category Definitions. The household income category definitions that
units were distributed to are :
1-1
Very Low: Income not exceeding 50 % median family income in the county
Low: Income between 50% and 801/9 of median family income
Moderate: Income between 80% and 120% of median family income
Above Moderate: Income above 120% of median family income
1.4 Units are Goal Numbers. The units to be allocated are not a forecast of building or housing
permits, nor are local agencies responsible for constructing housing. The numbers are "goal numbers"
and are not meant to match, and often exceed anticipated growth in housing units.
1.5 Factors for Consideration. The law requires that COG take into consideration, among other
things:
• the market demand for housing
• employment opportunities
• the availability of suitable housing sites and public facilities
• commuting patterns
• the type and tenure of housing need
• farm housing needs
COG is not allowed to consider local constraints that may prevent jurisdictions from receiving a "fair
share' allocation of housing units. These constraints include local growth ordinances. The statute
also requires that the allocation not perpetuate the concentration of low income housing in any
jurisdiction within the region.
1.6 Methodology for Allocation to Local Jurisdictions. COG has prepared a draft allocation
using the "low' end of the housing unit range. The methodology used was adapted from the nine -
county Association ofBay Area Governments' allocation process. The goals ofthe methodology are
to promote a jobslhousing balance by equal weighting the allocation to jurisdictions based on where
employment growth is expected to occur in the county and where household growth is expected to
occur. The methodology also requires each jurisdiction to move 50% of the way towards the regional
average of each household income category over the 2001-08 period to avoid perpetuating the over -
concentration of low income units in any one jurisdiction. Minor manual adjustments are made to the
local allocations resulting from the formula methodology to exactly match the countywide household
income percentages and units distributed by HCD.
Applying this methodology to the low end of the acceptable range, COG staff has calculated the draft
regional housing needs allocation shown in Section 5.0. Draft Allocation,
A worksheet showing the calculations for each jurisdiction and supporting data are attached. Per the
requirements of the statute, COG has also attached government code section 65584 and HCD's
projection of housing needs for San Joaquin County.
1.7 COG Contact. Persons with questions regarding the draft allocation and allocation process
may contact Steve VanDenburgh, Senior Regional Planner at (209) 468-3913.
1-2
Regional Housing Needs Determination
January 2001 - July 2008
for
San Joaquin County
Using 2000 Census Household Income Data
Housing Units
By Income Distribution Lm middle
Very Low 24% 9,497 10,949
Low 16% 6,331 7,299
Moderate 18% 7,122 8,212
Above Moderate 42A 16,61,9 19"161
100% 39,569 45,621
11 1
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, 2001-08
Using Census 2000 Data
Household
Income Categafy
ESCALON
LATHROP
LODI
MANTECA
RIPON
STOCKTON
TRACY
UNINCORP.
AREA
TOTAL SJC
REGION
Very Low
109
188
990
785
228
4 934
1,178
1,085
9-1497
Low
1 78
158
664j
651
181
2,972
914
714
6,331
Moderate
84
189
7381
7451
206
3,V7
1,054
829
7,122
Above Moderate
219
494
1,622
1,643
593
6,897
3,323
1,828
16,619
Totals
4911
1,0291
4,014.
3.823
1,2081
18,0811
6,4691
4 455
39,569
io,wnm
Attachment M.a.
Calculations* for Determination of "low" Regional Housing Need
for San Joaquin County
for January 2001 to July 2008
Calculate Housing Units Needed for End of Planniur Period:
1)
July 2008 Owner Households - July 2008 households * Ownership Rate in 2000
222,927 households for July 2008 using the 'Low" series for county
60.381/6 is the 2000 ownership share
134,603 Owner Households = 222,927 households' 6028%
July 2008 Owner Units Needed - July 2008 Owner Households 1(100% - owner vacancy rate)
The vacancy allowance is calculated using the lesser of 2% or the average 1990/2000 vacancy rzte
of 1-50%
136,652 owner units =134,603 Owner Households /(100%-1500/.)
2)
July 2008 Renter households = July 2008 households * Rentership Rate in 2000
222.927 households for July 2008 using the "Low" series for county
39.62% is the 2000 rcatership share for county
88,324 Renter Households - 222,927 households * 39.62%
July 2008 Renter Units Needed = July 2008 Renter Households / (100% - vacancy rate for renters )
The vacancy allowance is calculated using the lesser of 6% or an average 19902000 vacancy Yate
of 4.20%
92,197 renter units - 88X4 renter households / (100•/.-t,20Y.)
3)
Needed Permanent Housing Stock in July 2008 = ( Owner Units Needed + Renter Units Needed )
228,849 permanent housing units -136,652 Owner Units + 92,197 Renter Units
Calculate Additional Units Needed for Permanent Housing:
4)
Permanent Housing Stock in 2000 = ( Owner Occupied Units 2000 + Renter Occupied Units 2000 +
Vacant Owner Units 2000 +vacant Rental Units 2090 )
Owner Occupied Units 2000 =
109,667
Rental Occupied Units 2000 =
71,962
Owner Vacant Units 2000 -
1,354
Rental Vacant Units 2000 -
2.868
Permanent Stock =
185,851
5)
Permanent Units as share of Housing Stock - Permanent Units 1 Total Housing units 2000
189,160 = Total Housing units 2000
Permanent Housing Share 9825% =185,851 Peramucut Stock / 189,160 Total 2000 Housing
Units
Page 1 of 3
Calculations use data particular to this county. See Key Variables section of Attachment IV, Methodology.
Modified Low forS2n Joaquin County
6)
Permanent Housing Stock in January 2001 - Total Units on January 2901 ' Permanent Ho using
Stock Share from 2000
188,905 Permanent Housing units in 2001=192,268 Total DOF Units January 01 * 98.25%
7)
Additional Units Needed of Permanent Housing = Permanent Housing Stock in July 2008 (from step
#3) - Permanent housing Stock in January 2001(fmm step #6)
39,944 Net New Units Needed = 228,849 permanent units in 7/2008 —188,903 those in. 2001
Calculate Units Needed to Replace Normal Loss of Units 2001 to 7!2008:
Annual Average of units eidsting 2001 to 7/2008 = (Units in 2001 +Units in 712008)12
208,877 average units annually - (188,905 units in 2001 + 228,849 units in 712008) / 2
Loss of Units per year = (Average a fisting units 2001 to 712008) * (Removal Factor 0.002)
Total years for January 2001 to July 2008 - 7.5 years
418 removals per year - 208,877 average units • ,002
9)
Normal Loss of Units 2001 to 712008 = Loss per year * 7.5 years, Capped at 25% of Need
3,133 Replacement Units Needed over planning period — 418 removals per year * 7.5
3,133 Replacement Units Capped at 25% of Need - lesser of 3,133 or (25 * 39,944 from step
Calculate Units, if any historically, that would be provided an American Indian Tribal Lands:
10)
0 Units on Tribal lands in 2000 = 0.00% % share of the 2000 permanent stock 185,851 (from
step #4)]
0 Tribal Units as share of Need for 2001-712008 -
0.00%%' ( 39,944 Net Units Needed from sap #7 + 3,133 Market Removals step #9)
Determine Regional Housing Need 2001 to 7/2008
11)
Regional Housing Need 2001-701008 = Net Units Needed for Permanent Housing Stock (step #7) +
Replacement for Market Removals 2001 to7/2008 (step #9) — Units for Tribal Lands (from step 010)
43.07 Regional Need = 39,944 Units Needed + 3,133 Replacements - 0 Tribal Unit Share
Modification of Regional Need Based upon Projections by the County:
Reduce the Regional Need by the relationship of the County's Households to the adjusted DOF
Households:
a) County's projection for total population is accepted if it is not less than 93% ofDOF's
projection far 2010
On this basis, 682.239 is considered the total 2010 projectedpopulation.
Modified Low for San Joaquin County
b) Bring 2010 Household Population back to 2008:
Household Population of 663,468 - Total Pop of 682,239 minus 18,771 population in
group quarters
Apply the ratio of 2008/2010 ofDOF unadjusted households to the Household population
above:
The ratio equals 0.9259 where ( 666,147 / 719,455 )
2008 population of 614,308 — 663,468 ' 09259
c) Calculate projected Households by dividing by the. mid-pohzt Households Per Capita of
DOF's householdpn4cctions
Total Households 204,769 - 2008 population 614,3081 3 of the "Middle" per capita
households
d) The Comparison ratio of this Household number to that of the Low Households calculated
from DOF numbers is used to modify the Determination of Regional Housing Need-
Comparison
eed
Comparison ratio of 0.92 - Modified households of ( 204,769 / 222,927 )
Modified Low Housing Need of 39.569 — comparison ratio 0.92 * 43,078 regional
housing need determinadon ( from step # 1 I)
Pagc 3 of 3
Modified Low for San .Joaquin Counry
Attachment IIIb.
Calculations for Determination of ` Middle" Regional Housing Nerd
for San Joaquin County
for January 2001 to July 2008
Calculate Housing Units Needed for End of Planning Period:
1)
July 2008 Owner Households = July 2008 huscholds a Ownership Rate in 2000
225,386 households for July 2008 using the "Middle series for county
6038% is the 2000 ownership share
136,087 Owner Households = 225,386 households * 6038 %
July 2008 Owner Units Needed = July 2008 Owner Households / (100% - owner vacancy rate)
The vacancy allowance is calculated using the lesser of 2% or the average 1990/2000 vacancy rate
Of 1509'0
138,160 owner units =136,087 Owner Households /(100%-150%)
2)
July 2008 Renter bouseholds = July 2008 households * Rentership Rate is 2000
225,386 households for July 2008 using the 'Widdle" series for county
39.62% is the 2000 rentership share for county
89,299 Renter Households= 225,386 households * 39.62%
July 2008 Renter Units Needed = July 2008 Renter Households ! (100 % - vacancy rate for renters )
The vacancy allowance is calculated using the lesser of 6% or tate average 199012000 vacancy rate:
of 420%
93,214 renter units = 89,299 renter households / (100%-4.20%)
3)
Needed Permanent Housing Stock In July 2008 = ( Owner Units Needed + Renter Units Needed )
231,373 permanent housing units-- 138,160 Owner Units + 93,234 Renter Units
Calculate Additional Units Needed for Permanent Housing:
4)
Permanent Housing Stock in 2000 = ( Owner Occupied Units 2000 + Renter Occupied Units 2000 4 -
Vacant
Vacant Owner Units 2000 + Vacant Rental Units 2000 )
Owner Occupied Units 2000 —
109,667
Rental Occupied Units 2000 =
71,962
Owner Vacant Units 2000 =
1,354
Rental Vacant Units 2000 =
x.868
Permanent Stock =
185,851
Permanent Units as share of Housing Stock = Permanent Units 1 Total Housing units 2000
189,160 = Total Housing units 2000
Permanent Housing Share 9815% = 185.851 Permanent Stock / 189,160 Toud 2000 Housing
Units
Page 1 of 2
Calculations use data particular to this county. See Key Vatiabics section of Aaachment IV, Methodology.
Medium for San Joaquin County
r- n
6)
Permanent Housing Stock in January 2001= Total Units on January 2001 * Permanent Housing
Stock Share from 2000
188905 Permanent Housing units in 2001=192,268 Total DCF Units January 01 * 98.25%
7)
Additional Units Needed of Permanent Housing = Permanent Housing Stock in July 2009 (from step
113) - Permanent Horsing Stock in January 2001 (from step #6)
42,469 Net New Units Needed = 231,373 permanent units in 712008 — 1 88,905 those in 2001
Calculate Units Needed to Replace Normal i ons of Units 2001 to 7/2008:
8)
Annual Average of units eadstmg 2001 to 7/2008 = (Units in 2001 + Units in 7/2008)/2
210,139 average units annually = (188,905 units in 2001 + 231,373 units in 7/2008)12
Loss of Units per year = (Average existing units 2001 to 7!2008)'' (Removal Factor 0.002)
Total years for January 2001 to July 2008 = 7S yews
420 removals per year = 210,139 average units * .002
9)
Normal Loss of Units 2001 to 7/2008 = Loss per year * 7.5 years, Capped at 25 % of Need
3,152 Replacement Units Needed over planning period = 420 removals per year * 7.5
3,152 Replacement Units Capped at 25% of Need = lesser of 3,152 or (.25 s 42,469 from step
Calculate Units, if any historically, that would be provided on American Indian Tn'bal Lands.
10)
0 Units on Tribal lands in 2000 = 0.00% % share of the 2000 permanent stock 185,851 (from
step #4)]
0 Tribal Units as share of Need for 2001-7/2008 =
0.00%% * ( 42,469 Net Units Needed from step #7 + 3,152 Market Removals from #9)
Determine Regional Rounny-Need 2001 to 72008
11)
Regional Housing Need 2001-7/2008 = Net Units Needed for Permanent Housing Stock (step 47) +
Replacement for Market Removals 2001 to7/2008 (step #9) — Units for Tribal Lands (from step *10)
45.621_ Regional Need = 42.,469 Units Needed + 3,152 Replacements - 0 Tribal Unit Share
Page 2 of 2
Medium for5an Joaquin County
F_F
J.t. J"s J.b R.o.ad shwo d
208 201 Gr.ii JN Gr wu Ab Gr.w1Y
35.132 - 31.597 3.535 22.931 13.42%
Shan of 8ban.f BCD Tei
Job wakht How "dd w.181d R.a.wal Pnp_td
Gww16 r"W GrowtY Fa~ Mod Nnd
lie. . Catq ry
28" 11"Wbold
2i0 H.w.eM4d
LODI
Bo dwe
lwc.nd
F1.dwl skm of
Hoawelww
Bwt»l6
Bwluld
Hwbobf HwMN
208
201
G
GronIY Growth
23,103
- 21,583
1,520
30.362 5.01%
J.t. J"s J.b R.o.ad shwo d
208 201 Gr.ii JN Gr wu Ab Gr.w1Y
35.132 - 31.597 3.535 22.931 13.42%
Shan of 8ban.f BCD Tei
Job wakht How "dd w.181d R.a.wal Pnp_td
Gww16 r"W GrowtY Fa~ Mod Nnd
lie. . Catq ry
28" 11"Wbold
2i0 H.w.eM4d
201 HawrY.Y
Bo dwe
lwc.nd
Aopwv l
lww
Unit
P.ra.wt.v
lace. P.rwwtq.
P.r l"If
AD.wtl.w
JURISDICTION
RRGIO14
JURISDICTION
Very law
24.70%
24.32%
24.51%
990
Low
17.17%
1S.71%
16.44%
664
Moderde
15.52%
18.31%
18.42%
744
Abm
Moderate
39.62%
41.66%
40.64%
1,642
TOTAL
100.01%
100.00%
100.01%
4.611
7-3
DRAFT (Uuadjm66d) REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, 2001-08
CATEGORY
ESCALON
LATHROP
LODI
MANTECA
RIPON
STOC[TON
TRACY
UNINCORP.ARRA
TOTAL SJC
REGION
% '
Very Low
108
186
990
775
225
4,934
1,163
1,071
9.452
23.890/.
Low
69
140
664
578
161
2,972
912
714
6.111
15.44%
Moderate
85
191
744
751
208
3
1,063
836
7,183
18.150/6
Above
Moderate
222
S00
1,642
1,663
600
6.902
5,3641,850
16,822
42.51%
Totals
483
1016
4,041
3,768
1,194
18,194
6 4O3
4,471
39,569
100.00Yo
21-AgM
7-9
ADJUSTMENTS TO
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, 2001-08
z,-durvs
1s
UNINCORP.
TOTAL SJC
CATEGORY
ESCALON
LATHROP
LODI
MANTECA
RIPON
STOCKTON
TRACY
AREA
REGION
%
Very Low
fornula
108
186
990
775
225
4,934
1,163
1,071
9,452
23,89'/.
adjust
1
2
10
3
15
14
45
Allocation
109
188
990
785
228
4,934
1,178
1,085
9,497
24.000/9
Low
foanula
69
140
664
576
161
7,972
812
714
6,110
15.44%
adjust
9
18
73
20
102
221
Allocation
78
158
664
651
181
2,972
914
714
6 331
16.00%
Moderate
formula
85
191
744
751
208
3,306
1,063
816
7,184
1&16%
adjust
-1
-2
-6
-6
-2
-29
-9
-7
-a
Allocation
84
189
738
745
206
3,277
1,054
1 829
7,122
1 18.000/0
Above Moderate
fomu,la
222
50o
1,642
1,663
600
6,982
3,364
1,850
16,623
42,5Y/+
adjust
-3
-6
-20
-20
•7
-a
41
-22
-201
Allocation
219
494
1,622
1,643
593
6,897
3,323
1,828
16,619
42.00%
Tots%
fomaila
484
1,017
4,040
3,767
1,194
18,194
6,402
4,471
39,569
100.00%
adjust
7
12
A
56
14
-113
67
-16
0
Allocation
491
1,029
4,014
3,823
1,208
1 18,081
1 6,469
1 4,455
1 39,569
1 100.00016
z,-durvs
HOUSEHOLD GROWTH
Year
Esealon I
1.,dmp
Lodi
Manteca
Ripon
Stockwo
Tracy
Uniaco rated Area
Total S C Remim
2901
7,072
Z934
31
17,106
3
83,475
17,921
40,538
189
2902
128
3PS9
21,900
17,601
845
85 568
I 957
41,909
193A33
2m
2,194
U44
27,017
14,095
4,023
V,661
19 993
40,752
197X9
2004
2.240
7
3%112
lkm
4,201
89,754
21,02949,959
43,227214,774
2805
2.2%
Isp
4451
19_085
478
91848
AM
40 966
218,051
2986
2,353
710
22,669
19
4
93,941
101
41,073
210.993
2007
2,409
865
886
20,07S
4,734
96,034
24,137
41,181
212,912
El
2008
Z465
020 1
23,103
1 20,S70
4,911
1 9 127 I
2S 173
41AS
219 657
S.. Dain d Gam sJCOG sa.d AM. d Popal m P jl (1000.202 mid A,..p Hoa Wd Si.. fiom US Caw B-
RMPLOYMRNT (TOSS) GROWTH
Year
Escalon
Ladwoo
Lodi
Manteca
Ri
Stocktm
T
Unincorporated Area
ToW SIC Region
2001
2,352
3,194
31
Is,643
3M
89
17
41 48
2D4,949
2m
2,389
3AO
A102
1%893
1046
90,996
17
41,909
2603
2,427
3
32,W7
16,143
4,110
n428
t7,922
4Z$67
21
2004
2,464
7
3%112
16X3
4,173
93'm
1 199
43,227214,774
2005
Z,502
3,M
2N617
1 3
4,237
95,291
19,477
4 886
218,051
20%
2,W
%449
34,122
i6,893
4,301
K723
187%
44,545
221
200
627
17,143
4
98,IS4
19,032
Aim
224
El
2008
615
3351
4132
1 17A93
4,428
99
19,310
4%964
227 879
So Dair.d fiom SJCC4a Bond Apptar 4 Bmplopn.MPmj.:uoa (1000.2025)
7-11
COG Board Approved
Population Projection (2000-2025)
AREA
2000
2005
2030
2015
2020
2025
S.J. County
566,600
633,348
700,095
766,843
1 821,851
900,338
Escalon
5,825
6,637
7,448
8,260
8,929
9,883
Lathrop
9,975
12,760
15,546
18,331
20,627
23,902
Lodi
57,900
60,843
63,787
66,730
69,156
7'1,617
Manteca
49,5W
56,874
64,248
71,622
1 77,699
86,370
Ripon
10,40
13,047
15,695
18,342
20,524
23,637
Stockton
247,400
279,216
311,033
342,849
374,631
406,482
Tracy
54,200
70,828
87,456
104,084
117,788
137,341
Unincorporated
131,400
133,141
134,881
136,622
- 138,056
140,103
aoutce: pan )oaq= t-ouncu of uovemments, cwt.
COG Board Approved
Employment Projections (2000-2025)
AREA
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025,
S.J. County
201,671
218,051
234,430
250,810
267,189
283,569
Escalon
2,314
2,502
2,690
2,878
3,066
3,254
Lathrop
3,143
3,398
3,653
3,909
4,164
4,419
Lodi
31,092
33,617
36,142
38,667
41,193
43,718
Manteca
15,393
16,643
17,893
1 19,144
20,394
21,644
Ripon
3,919
4,237
4,555
4,873
5,192
5,510
Stockton
88,133
95,291
102,449
109;607
116,765
123,923
Tracy
17,089
18,477
19,865
21,253
22,640
24,028
Unincorporated
40,589
43,886
47,183
50,479
53,776
57,073
source: aaa oaqum t,ouncu or uovemments, ZwU.
7-12
California Government Code Section
65584. Regional Housing Needs
(a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section
65583, the share of a city or county of the
regional housing needs includes that share of
the housing need of persons at all income
levels within the area significantly affected by a
general plan of the city or county. The
distribution of regional housing needs shall,
based upon available data, take into
consideration market demand for housing,
employment opportunities, the availability of
suitable sites and public facilities, commuting
patterns, type and tenure of housing need, the
loss of units contained in assisted housing
developments, as defined in paragraph (8) of
subdivision (a) of Section 65583, that changed
to non -low-income use through mortgage
prepayment, subsidy contract expirations, or
termination of use restrictions, and the housing
needs of farmworkers. The distribution shall
seek to reduce the concentration of lower
income households in cities or counties that
already have disproportionately high
proportions of lower income households.
Based upon population projections produced
by the Department of Finance and regional
population forecasts used in preparing regional
transportation plans, and in consultation with
each council of governments, the Department
of Housing and Community Development shall
determine the regional share of the statewide
housing need at least two years prior to the
second revision, and all subsequent revisions
as required pursuant to Section 65588. Based
upon data provided by the department relative
to the statewide need for housing, each council
of governments shall determine the existing
and projected housing need for its region.
Within 30 days following notification of this
determination, the department shall ensure that
this determination is consistent with the
statewide housing need. The department may
revise the determination of the council of
governments if necessary to obtain this
consistency. The appropriate council of
governments shall determine the share for each
city or county consistent with the criteria of
this subdivision and with the advice of the
department subject to the procedure
established pursuant to subdivision (c) at least
one year prior to the second revision, and at
five-year intervals following the second
revision pursuant to Section 65588. . The
council of governments shall submit to the
department information regarding the
assumptions and methodology to be used in
allocating the regional housing need. As part
of the allocation of the regional housing need,
the council ofgovernments, or the department
pursuant to subdivision (b), shall provide each
city and county with data describing the
assumptions and methodology used in
calculating its share of the regional housing
need. The department shall submit to each
council of governments information regarding
the assumptions and methodology to be used
in allocating the regional share of the statewide
housing need. As part of its determination of
the regional share of the statewide housing
need, the department shall provide each
council of governments with data describing
the assumptions and methodology used in
calculating its share of the statewide housing
need. The councils of governments shall
provide each city and county with the
department's information. The council of
governments shall provide a subregion with its
share of the regional housing need, and
delegate responsibility for providing
allocations to cities and a county or
counties in the subregion to a subregional
entity if this responsibility is requested by a
county and all cities in the county,
a joint powers authority established pursuant
to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 6500)
of Division 7 of Title 1, or the governing body
of a subregional agency established by the
council of governments, in accordance with an
agreement entered into between the
8-1
council of governments and the subregional
entity that sets forth the process, timing, and
other terms and conditions of that delegation
of responsibility.
(b) For areas with no council of
governments, the department shall
determine housing market areas and define the
regional housing need for cities and counties
within these areas pursuant to the provisions
for the distribution of regional housing needs
in subdivision (a). If the department
determines that a city or county possesses the
capability and resources and has agreed to
accept the responsibility, with respect to_ its
jurisdiction, for the identification and
determination of housing market areas and
regional housing needs, the department shall
delegate this responsibility to the cities and
counties within these areas.
(c) (1) Within 90 days following a
determination of a council of governments
pursuant to subdivision (a), or the
department's determination pursuant to
subdivision (b), a city or county may propose
to revise the determination of its share of the
regional housing need in accordance with the
considerations set forth in subdivision (a). The
proposed revised share shall be based upon
available data and accepted planning
methodology, and supported by adequate
documentation.
(2) Within 60 days after the time period for
the revision by the city or county, the council
of governments or the department, as the case
may be, shall accept the proposed revision,
modify its earlier determination, or indicate,
based upon available data and accepted
planning methodology, why the proposed
revision is inconsistent with the regional
housing need.
(A) If the council of governments or the
department, as the case may be, does not
accept the proposed revision, then the city or
county shall have the right to request a public
(C) The county's share of low-income and
hearing to review the determination within 30
days.
(B) The city or county shall be notified
within 30 days by certified mail, return receipt
requested, of at least one public hearing
regarding the determination.
(C) The date of the hearing shall be at least
30 days from the date of the notification.
(D) Before making its final determination,
the council of governments or the department,
as the case may be, shall consider comments,
recommendations, available data, accepted
planning methodology, and local geological
and topographical restraints on the production
of housing.
(3) If the council of governments or the
department accepts the proposed revision or
modifies its earlier determination, the city or
county shall use that share. If the council of
governments or the department grants a
revised allocation pursuant to paragraph (1),
the council of governments or the department
shall ensure that the current total housing need
is maintained. If the council of governments
or the department indicates that the proposed
revision is inconsistent with the regional
housing need, the city or county shall use the
share that was originally determined by the
council of governments or, the department.
(4) The determination of the council of
governments or the department, as the case
may be, shall be subject to judicial review
pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of
Civil Procedure.
(5) The council of governments or the
department shall reduce the share of regional
housing needs of a county if all of the
following conditions are met:
(A) One or more cities within the county
agree to increase its share or their shares in an
amount that will make up for the
reduction.
(B) The transfer of shares shall only occur
between a county and cities within that county.
very low income housing shall be reduced only
8-2
in proportion to the amount by which the
county's share of moderate- and above
moderate -income housing is reduced.
(D) The council of governments or the
department, whichever assigned the county's
share, shall have authority over the approval
of the proposed reduction, taking into
consideration the criteria of subdivision (a).
(6) The housing element shall contain an
analysis of the factors and circumstances, with
all supporting data, justifying the revision.
All materials and data used to justify any
revision shall be made available upon request
by any interested party within seven days upon
payment of reasonable costs of reproduction
unless the costs are waived due to economic
hardship.
(d) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2),
any ordinance, policy, or standard of a city or
county that directly limits, by number, the
building permits that may be issued for
residential construction, or limits for a set
period of time the number ofbuildable lots that
may be developed for residential purposes,
shall not be a justification for a determination
or a reduction in the share of a city or county
of the regional housing need.
(2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any city
or county that imposes a moratorium on
residential construction for a specified
period of time in order to preserve and protect
the public health and safety. If a moratorium
is in effect, the city or county shall, prior to a
revision pursuant to subdivision (c), adopt
findings that specifically describe the threat to
the public health and safety and the reasons
why construction of the number of units
specified as its share of the regional housing
need would prevent the mitigation of that
threat.
(e) Any authority to review and revise the
share of a city or county of the regional
housing need granted under this section shall
not constitute authority to revise, approve, or
disapprove the manner in which the share of
the city or county of the regional housing
need is implemented through its housing
program.
(f) A fee may be charged to interested
parties for any additional costs caused by the
amendments made to subdivision (c) by
Chapter 1684 ofthe Statutes of 1984 reducing
from 45 to 7 days the time within which
materials and data shall be made available to
interested parties.
(g) Determinations made by the department,
a council of governments, or a city or county
pursuant to this section are exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act, Division
13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code
8-3
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCA'T'ION, 2001-08
ASSUMING 20%, 40% and 50% MOVEMENT TOWARDS COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD INCOME AVERAGE
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
UNINCORP.
TOTAL SJC
CATEGORY
ESCALON
LATHROP
LODI
MANTECA
RIPON
STOCKTON
TRACY
AREA
REGION
%
Very Low
20%
107
156
995
723
194
5,240
971
1,111
9,497
24.00"/
40"/e
108
178
992
764
216
5,036
1,110
1,093
9,497
24.00"/
50%
109
188
990
785
228
4,934
1,178
1,085
9,497
24.00%
LOW
20%
75
151682
6?0
173
3,040
819
721
6,331
16.00"/
401A
76
155
670
I 657
178
2,995
883
717
6,331
16.U(YYe
50%
78
158
l64
651
181
2,972
914
714
6331
16.00"/
_
Moderate
_
_
20010
83
194
743
786
201
3,278
994
843
7,122
18.00"/
*M
83
191
740
758
I
205
3,278
1,034
833
7,122
law/.
500/0
84
189
738
745
206
3,277
1,054
829
7,122
1&00%n
Above Moderate
2011.
228
532
1,579
1,676
645
6,468
3,692
1,799
16,619
42.00%
4111/0
222
507
1,607
1,654
610
6,753
3,447
1,819
16,619
42.00%
50%
219
494
1,622
1,643
593
6,897
3,323
1,828
16619
42.00"/
Totals
201/a
493
1,033
3,999
3,855
1,213
18,194
6,402
4,474
39,569
100.00°/
411/0
489
1,031
4,W9
3,833
1,209
18,062
6,474
4,462
39,569
100MI%
50010
490
1,029
4,014
3,824
1,208
18,080
6,469
4,456 1
39,569
100.00"/0
9
U
N
U
c
m
5
c
cc c
CU
0
n
0 o e Z \ \ \ e c- � e�
O O O O O O O O O O O
O Q CO LO I M N r
r-
9BBIU93aad 41MOaE)
c—�
r
Ll
'
0
o
l0 t0
b
w
M LLQ
N
co
H
�
=
0 0 0
o
O
Ul
c
N vs
H
.moil
�
i
i
�
0 O
LL.
o o
L0
QJL
C
4N �+
O
Q
O (D (D
LU
O
O Lr)- IC)
Ll
LO
Qr)
O 0 0
H
rLp.l, t-- o
M
-
m
H
�
'
Lu
o
Ln 0 0
C
q It::- N
CO
ti
C
N M
Z
O O O .
o
O O O
NN
o 114-
Q
N
of
O �,o �o
of
L
d
O I 16
CQ
o
V
V
�
T
n �
� 0 0
o 0
CO
�
O
O
O
v u
°
3 3
N
O
�
LL-
a
U
E
q COO tOfl C M N O O
96e}ueWad 41MOJE)
:5
O
J
NM V
C
a" cv O
�QD
gTOZ\ tdN
1yl{
N � �
.Q 2.4 4�-;
a�
LIE
C
DRAFT (L;—djwted) REGIONAL14OL'SING NEEDS ALLOCATION, 2001-08
CATEGORY I8SCAL04
LAiiiROP
LODI IMA-,,-mCA
RIPON 13POCYTON
I
TRACY I UNIAICORP, AREA I
TCYTALREGIOS.NIC I
%
Verviow
I 108 I
186
990 I
775
225 I
4,9:-4
1,163 (
1;071 i
9,452
23.W/. .
Low
69
140
664
578
161
2,972
812
714
6.111
15.44`/
Moderate
I 85
191
744
751
I 208
I 3.306
1,063
836
I 7,183
18.15%
Above
Moderate
500
1,642
1,663
600
6,982
3364
1,850
16,822
42.51%
Total
483
1,016
4,041
3,768
1,194
18,194
6,403
4,471
39,569
100.00'/9
7
tP)
N
11
jI!
1
I
< c
ry rj
C � V
N N
y�
P P
V� ` V
t� N r
� �.• V
A n
C
I
-
b :2
1
N h
� C �•
ro^
�� "1
� O
~
I
=I
N
I
U
1
f
0011�
-
a
P�
� T 5551
I
4�
-ZI
TI
1
0
1
q
000Tg
b $
0bs. s�-1ass
+ rs
is
VJ U W
N C In
yz N r v1
N p LA
Ni Q Ln
L1 N T N
7 Z
'
i
c
I
SI." .9 Shue .1 BCD S.t.1
3.► waght H. i ld W.1OLt ReO;...t p J..t.i
Gr.. Facts Gr . F.Nr N'-4 Nevi
15.42% X 03 + 5.01-1• x 0.5 X 39369 s 4.040
1.e C.Upry
2000 R.r..L.1i
2001 H..r:.:i
LOD]
;;..Aug
1�
figw*1
R.O -IA
Share .[
H..WAwdl
H....L.Wr
H"Whow
H.ta.L.W
Hoff b w
2001
2001
Gr.wtL
Grwth
Gr—&
23,103
- 21,583
1.520
30,362
5.01%
Low
1217%
15.71%.
16.4,.
664
J.L.
3w.
3.4
R-Oi...1
3h.n .1
2001
2001
Grwth
i Grwth
3.L Crwth.
35,132
- 31357 .
3,535
2931
15.427.
SI." .9 Shue .1 BCD S.t.1
3.► waght H. i ld W.1OLt ReO;...t p J..t.i
Gr.. Facts Gr . F.Nr N'-4 Nevi
15.42% X 03 + 5.01-1• x 0.5 X 39369 s 4.040
1.e C.Upry
2000 R.r..L.1i
2001 H..r:.:i
2601 r—4—W
;;..Aug
1�
figw*1
i�
U ft
Perceeta8e
I—M Perw.tw
Peres uv
Ali.e.tl.a
imusDicnox
REGION
JURISDicnoN
Vey Low
24.70%
24.32%
24.51%
990
Low
1217%
15.71%.
16.4,.
664
Modelle
18.5:%
18.31%
;8.427:
744
Abaft
Moderate
35.6274
41.66%
40.64%
1,642
TOTALI
10101%
14: m
100.Q1X
4441
AI)JUS'rMENTS TO
DRAFT REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION, 2001-08
14M'I'lt,
i3NINCORI'.
'TOTAL SJC
CATEGORY
ESCALON
I.KrUROI'
WDI
MANIMCA
RIPON
STOCKYON
RACY
AREA
REGION
a/.
Very Low
famlWa
108
186
990
715
225
4,934
1,163
11071
9,452
23.89•/.
wdrnl.
1
2
10
3
IS
14
4S
Allocation
109
188
990
785
228 _
4,934
1,178
1,085
9,497
24.006/1
Low
found►
69
1.10
664
578
161
2,972
812
714
6,110
15.44%
.dint.
9
18
73
20
102
221
Allocation
78
158
664
651
181
2,972
914
714
6,331
16.00%
Moderate
fom,da
85
191
744
751
208
3,306
1,063
836
7,184
18.16%
adjual.
-1
-2
-6
-6
-2
-29
-9
-7
-62
Allocation
84
189
738
745
206
3,277
_ 1,054
829
7,122
18.00%1
Above Moderate
fomnJa
222
SINE
1,642
1,663
600
6,982
3,364
1,850
16,823
4252/.
wdju.ti
-3
4
-20
-20
.7
-81
-41
-22
-204
-
Allocation
219
494
1622
1,643
593
6,897
3,323
1,828
16,619
42.00%
Totals
foumda
484
1,017
4,040
3,767
1,194
14194
6,402
4,471
39,569•
100.00'/.
adjust.
7
12
-26
56
14
•113
67
46
0
Allocation
491
1,029 1
4,014 1
311823__
1,208
18,081
6,469
4,455
39,569
100.00%
14M'I'lt,
!C
to
o�
Ln
Ln
O
z�.
z
NN
V
H
O
en
�
N
N
4
r6rd,
`S
M
v7
O
.�4
O
1
1
O
co
N
++
N
cn
t�
co
N
r~i
(�
n
to
n
.
m
M1
o
a
-
ol
F.�
1
1
ItI
U
O
u
�
v
M
u
� u
a
O
a
es
V
CSS
Regional Housing Needs Determination
January 2001 -July 2008
for
San Joaquin County
F—Using 2000 Census Household Income Data
Housing Units
Ey Income Distribution
%
yr Middle
Very Low
24%
9,497 10,949
Low
16%
6,331 7,299
Moderate;
18%
7,122 8,212
Above Moderate
°La
16.619 19.161
100%
39,569 45,621
HOUSEHOLD GROWM
Y.1
Baealoa I
Lthso
I..&
I M.. I
RiPOR
Stockton
Tracy
I Unineormmted Area
TOW SIC Re&n
I i
II•
28011
2072 1
2934 1
21583
1 17,1061
3.668
1 83,475
17921
1 40.538
189295
i
I
t
2802
2,128 i
3,D89
21,300
I 17,601
3.86
85.568
18 957
I 40.W5
193.61L 33
I
I
1
I
I
2883
2184
3244
22017
18,095 1
4.0'3
I 87,661 I
19.995
40752 I
197
I
k
I
I
i
f
2864
'240
3,399
=21
18590 I
4201
89'54
21,029
40.859
202306
I I
I
I I
I
2803 i
2296
3,554 1
21,451
I 19,085
4.371
91,848
=065
I 40,966
206,643
I
i
I I
I
I
12o96T
2353
3,710
=669
1 19580
4.556
1 93,941
23,101
I' 41.073
210,983
t
I
I I
I
2807 I
2409
3.865
22.886
20.075
4,734
1 94034
24,137
41.I91
212.912
I
I
I
I k
I 1
I I
2888
'465
4.020
23,103
20,570
4.911
98,127
25173
41x188
219,657
Z..- =ai-d Som 1 =G T --d hnmo..e ?opwanen moi cdon C20W-2025) —d A...p Si.. 6om U-& Ceti— B--
0535 1.71,43 1 1 .. `1 : a mipvim
IYear
FscL a I
Ltiuo
Ldi
M—we* I
Ripos
I Stoektoa
T."
Uu6co sated Area
Tocol SIC Re ' n
I i
2081 I
2.352
3.194
31597
15,643
3,M
I 39,56
17.367
41.249
204 949
i
I
t
2082
?,389 1
3.245 I
32,102
15.8934.046
90,996
i7-644
I 4± 908
209M
I
I
1
2803
2,427 I
3.2%
32,607
f 16.143 I
4.110
I 91428
17,92_^
I 42.567
211500
k
k I
f
1 2004
2464
I 3547 I
33,112
r 16.393 I
4:73
93.159 j
18,199
I 43:7 I
214.774
I I
I I
! #
r 200- I
2502
I 3398 I
33,6I7
! 16.643
4M7
I 95.291 1
13,477
443
218,051
I I
I
I I
I
I
2006 I
2.540
3,449
14893
4301
96.723 (
1B,755
1 44.545 I
=1328
t
I I
I
12907 I
1577
I 3,500
( ?4,627
I 17,143
4,364
98,154
19"032
45205
224,602
I
I
I 1
1 I
I r
2808
2615
I - 3,551
35,13--
17393
4.428
99586 I
1"10
45.864
'-T7.879
Saw llc.ed r-- SJCOG (100MOI-S)
COG Board Approved
Population Projection (2000-2025)
A=- k I
2000 I
2005 I
2010
I 2015
2020
2025
S.J. County.
566,600 I
633,348 I
100,095
I 166,843
821,851
900,338
Exmaon
5,825 I
6,637
7,448
I 8,260
8,929
9,883
Lathrop
9,975
1-760
15,546
18,331 (
20,627
23,902
Lodi
57,900 I
60,843 I
63,787
` 66,730 '
69,156 I
72,617
1�lanteca
49,500
56,874
I 65,248
(_ 11,623
11,699 .
86 370
Ripon
10;40Q I.
_13,047
I 15,695
I 18,x2
1 20,524:
' 23,637
I Stockton
247,400
279,216
( 311,033
1 342,849
I 374,631
M 406,482
Tru.
! 54,200 I
70,828
( 87,456
I 104,084
117,788
I 13-1,341
I Unincorporated
131,400
I33,141
I 134,881
13G,6�?
I' 1381056
( 140,105
Souret: San Joaautn (_puna! of Governments, "1U01.
COG Board Approved
Employment Projections (2000-2025)
AR A I
2000
200; (
20:0
gals
2020
2021-5.
S.I. County I
201,671
I 218,051
I 214,530
I 250,810
267,189
I 283,569
E&=Jon I
2,314
2502
' 3,690
i 2,878
3,066 I
3,254
Lathrop I
3,143
3,:98
I 3,653
I 3,909
I 4,164
I 4,419
.Lodi I
31,092
I 33,617
36,142
i 38,667
I -1,193
f 43,718
Yahte= I
15,393
I 16,643
i7,893
I 19,144
20,394
:,644
Ripon I
3,919
I 4,57
4,555
( 4,873
5,192
I 5,510•
Stockton I
88,153 J
95,291
I 102,449
109;607
1 1I6,765
123,923
Tray I
17,089
I 18,417
I 19,865
21,253
I 22 640
( 24,028
Unincorporated I
40,389
! 43,886
I 47,183
I 50,479
1 33,776
j 57,073
,Sou. -C= San Joaamn l.onoCtl or �Jove:nmcnts, _00v.
BY COMPONENTS*:
TABLE 3
BASIC CONSTRUCTION NEEDS
JANUARY 1, 1990 TO JULY 1, 1997
Ha_usina Units
Household Increase
32,657
1990 Vacancy Need
-991
1997 Vacancy Need
1,835
Replacement Need 1990-1997
2,776
Total
36,277
BY INCOME GROUP:
Housina Units
Very Low
9,042
Other Lower
6,190
Moderate
7,283
Above Moderate
13,762
Total
36,277
Basic Construction Needs were calculated using the formulas shown in Appendix 3 of the State of California
Office of Housing and Community Development publication "Developing a Regional Housing Needs Plan.'
The following were used in the calculations: a vacant -not -for -sale -or -rent percentage of 2. 1, and an annual
I Ova) rate of .002. Estimates for 1990 homeownership rates for jurisdi ctiars were derived by using 1980
ownership rates by unit type by community. These rates were then applied to new units by type by
community as listed in county building permit summaries fron 1980 to 1989. Estimates of 1996
homeownership rates were then calculated based on the addition of new units to the 1980 base.
TABLE 4
BASIC CONSTRUCTION NEEDS AND NEW HOUSEHOLDS BY JURISDICTION
JANUARY 1, 1990 TO JULY1, 1997
HOUSEHOLDS
HOUSING UNITS
1990-1997
1990-1997
JURISDICTION
INCOME GROUP
NUMBER
PERCENT
UNITS
TRACY
VERY LOW
1056
23.550A
1227
LOW
729
16.27%
848
MODERATE
942
2-1.011/10
1095
ABOVE MODERATE
1757
39.17%
2042
TOTAL
4484
100.00%
5212
STOCKTON
VERY LOW
3900
26.89%
3931
LOW
2538
17.50%
2558
MODERATE
2827
19.49%
2849
ABOVE MODERATE
5239
36.12%
5281
TOTAL
14503
100.00%
14620
RIPON
VERY LOW
93
22.61 %
102
LOW
63
15.45%
69
t✓ODMATE
90
21.96%
99
0V
A3E MODERATE
164
39.98%
ISO
TOTAL
410
100.000/0
450
ESCALON
VARY LOW
71
27.11%
71
LOW
46
17.5 9 0/6
46
M0DERATE
46
17.36%
46
A30VE MODERATE
?00
37.95%
100
TOTAL
252
100.00%
263
LODI
VERY LOW
562
25.14%
857
L OW
456
17.32%
590
MODERATE
521
19.78%
674
ABOVE MODERATE
99 4
37.76°;;
1287
TOTAL
2633
i 00.000/;
3407
MANTECA
VERY LOW
66629
22.13%
724
LOW
455
16.01 %
523
MODERATE
613
21.57°
705
ABOVE MODERATE
1 145
40.29%
1317
TOT AL
2842
100.00%
3269
LATHROP
VERY LOW
293
24.05%
322
LOW
230
18.88%
253
MODERATE
254
20.84%
279
ABOVE MODERATE
442
36.23%
485
TOTAL
1220
100.00%
1339
UNINC.
VERY LOW
1477
23.43%
1808
COUNTY
LOW
1063 '
16.85%
1301
MODERATE
1255
19.91%
. 1536
ABOVE MODERATE
2508
39.79%
3070
TOTAL
5303
100.00%
7716
TOTAL
VERY LOW
8181
25.05%
9042
LOW
5581
17.09%
6190
MODERATE
55:7
20.05%
7263
ABOVE MODERATE
12348
37.81%
13762
TOTAL
32657
100.00°A
'Ag)77