Plan Bay Area 2050 utilized this single data layer to inform the Plan Bay Area 2050 Equity PriorityCommunities (EPC).

This data set was developed using American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 data for eight variables considered.

This data set represents all tracts within the San Francisco Bay Region and contains attributes for the eight Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities tract-level variables for exploratory purposes. These features were formerly referred to as Communities of Concern.

Plan Bay Area 2050 Equity Priority Communities (tract geography) are based on eight ACS 2014-2018 (ACS 2018) tract-level variables:

People of Color (70% threshold) Low-Income (less than 200% of Federal poverty level, 28% threshold) Level of English Proficiency (12% threshold) Seniors 75 Years and Over (8% threshold) Zero-Vehicle Households (15% threshold) Single-Parent Households (18% threshold) People with a Disability (12% threshold) Rent-Burdened Households (14% threshold)

If a tract exceeds both threshold values for Low-Income and People of Color shares OR exceeds thethreshold value for Low-Income AND also exceeds the threshold values for three or more variables, it is a EPC.

Detailed documentation on the production of this feature set can be found in the MTC Equity Priority Communities project documentation.

This data set represents American Community Survey (ACS) 2014-2018 tract information related to Equity Priority Communities (EPCs) for Plan Bay Area 2050+.The Plan Bay Area 2050+ Equity Priority Communities incorporate EPCs identified with 2014-2018 ACS data, as well as EPCs identified with 2018-2022 ACS data into a single consolidated map of Plan Bay Area 2050+ Equity Priority Communities.This data set was developed using American Community Survey 2014-2018 data for eight variables considered.This data set represents all tracts within the San Francisco Bay Region, and contains attributes for the eight Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities tract-level variables for exploratory purposes. Equity Priority Communities are defined by MTC Resolution No. 4217-Equity Framework for Plan Bay Area 2040.As part of the development of the [DRAFT] Equity Priority Communities - Plan Bay Area 2050+ features, the source Census tracts had portions that overlapped either the Pacific Ocean or San Francisco Bay removed. The result is this feature set has fewer Census tracts than the unclipped tract source data.Plan Bay Area 2050+ Equity Priority Communities (tract geography) are based on eight ACS 2014-2018 (ACS 2018) tract-level variables:People of Color (70% threshold)Low-Income (less than 200% of Federal poverty level, 28% threshold)Level of English Proficiency (12% threshold)Seniors 75 Years and Over (8% threshold)Zero-Vehicle Households (15% threshold)Single-Parent Households (18% threshold)People with a Disability (12% threshold)Rent-Burdened Households (14% threshold)If a tract exceeds both threshold values for Low-Income and People of Color shares OR exceeds the threshold value for Low-Income AND also exceeds the threshold values for three or more variables, it is a EPC.Detailed documentation on the production of this feature set can be found in the MTC Equity Priority Communities project documentation.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR
Poverty (EQ5)

FULL MEASURE NAME
The share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit

LAST UPDATED
January 2023

DESCRIPTION
Poverty refers to the share of the population living in households that earn less than 200 percent of the federal poverty limit, which varies based on the number of individuals in a given household. It reflects the number of individuals who are economically struggling due to low household income levels.

DATA SOURCE
U.S Census Bureau: Decennial Census - http://www.nhgis.org
1980-2000

U.S. Census Bureau: American Community Survey - https://data.census.gov/
2007-2021
Form C17002

CONTACT INFORMATION
vitalsigns.info@mtc.ca.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a national poverty level (or household income) that varies by household size, number of children in a household, and age of householder. The national poverty level does not vary geographically even though cost of living is different across the United States. For the Bay Area, where cost of living is high and incomes are correspondingly high, an appropriate poverty level is 200% of poverty or twice the national poverty level, consistent with what was used for past equity work at MTC and ABAG. For comparison, however, both the national and 200% poverty levels are presented.

For Vital Signs, the poverty rate is defined as the number of people (including children) living below twice the poverty level divided by the number of people for whom poverty status is determined. The household income definitions for poverty change each year to reflect inflation. The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or non-cash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid and food stamps).

For the national poverty level definitions by year, see: US Census Bureau Poverty Thresholds - https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html.

For an explanation on how the Census Bureau measures poverty, see: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty - https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html.

American Community Survey (ACS) 1-year data is used for larger geographies – Bay counties and most metropolitan area counties – while smaller geographies rely upon 5-year rolling average data due to their smaller sample sizes. Note that 2020 data uses the 5-year estimates because the ACS did not collect 1-year data for 2020.

To be consistent across metropolitan areas, the poverty definition for non-Bay Area metros is twice the national poverty level. Data were not adjusted for varying income and cost of living levels across the metropolitan areas.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR
Housing Permits (LU3)

FULL MEASURE NAME
Permitted housing units

LAST UPDATED
February 2023

DESCRIPTION
Housing growth is measured in terms of the number of units that local jurisdictions permit throughout a given year. A permitted unit is a unit that a city or county has authorized for construction.

DATA SOURCE
California Housing Foundation/Construction Industry Research Board (CIRB) - https://www.cirbreport.org/
Construction Review report (1967-2022)

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) – Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) - https://data.bayareametro.gov/Development/HCD-Annual-Progress-Report-Jurisdiction-Summary/nxbj-gfv7
Housing Permits Database (2014-2021)

Census Bureau Building Permit Survey - https://www2.census.gov/econ/bps/County/
Building permits by county (annual, monthly)

CONTACT INFORMATION
vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator)
Bay Area housing permits data by single/multi family come from the California Housing Foundation/Construction Industry Research Board (CIRB). Affordability breakdowns from 2014 to 2021 come from the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) – Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Housing Permits Database.

Single-family housing units include detached, semi-detached, row house and town house units. Row houses and town houses are included as single-family units when each unit is separated from the adjacent unit by an unbroken ground-to-roof party or fire wall. Condominiums are included as single-family units when they are of zero-lot-line or zero-property-line construction; when units are separated by an air space; or, when units are separated by an unbroken ground-to-roof party or fire wall. Multi-family housing includes duplexes, three-to-four-unit structures and apartment-type structures with five units or more. Multi-family also includes condominium units in structures of more than one living unit that do not meet the single-family housing definition.

Each multi-family unit is counted separately even though they may be in the same building. Total units is the sum of single-family and multi-family units. County data is available from 1967 whereas city data is available from 1990. City data is only available for incorporated cities and towns. All permits in unincorporated cities and towns are included under their respective county’s unincorporated total. Permit data is not available for years when the city or town was not incorporated.

Affordable housing is the total number of permitted units affordable to low and very low income households. Housing affordable to very low income households are households making below 50% of the area median income. Housing affordable to low income households are households making between 50% and 80% of the area median income. Housing affordable to moderate income households are households making below 80% and 120% of the area median income. Housing affordable to above moderate income households are households making above 120% of the area median income.

Permit data is missing for the following cities and years:
Clayton, 1990-2007
Lafayette, 1990-2007
Moraga, 1990-2007
Orinda, 1990-2007
San Ramon, 1990

Building permit data for metropolitan areas for each year is the sum of non-seasonally adjusted monthly estimates from the Census Building Permit Survey. The Bay Area values are the sum of the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward MSA and the San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara MSA. The counties included in these areas are: San Francisco, Marin, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and San Benito.

Permit values reflect the number of units permitted in each respective year. Note that the data columns come from difference sources. The columns (SFunits, MFunits, TOTALunits, SF_Share and MF_Share) are sourced from CIRB. The columns (VeryLowunits, Lowunits, Moderateunits, AboveModerateunits, VeryLow_Share, Low_Share, Moderate_Share, AboveModerate_Share, Affordableunits and Affordableunits_Share) are sourced from the ABAG Housing Permits Database. Due to the slightly different methodologies that exist within each of those datasets, the total units from each of the two sources might not be consistent with each other.

As shown, three different data sources are used for this analysis of housing permits issued in the Bay Area. Data from the Construction Industry Research Board (CIRB) represents the best available data source for examining housing permits issued over time in cities and counties across the Bay Area, dating back to 1967. In recent years, Annual Progress Report (APR) data collected by the California Department of Housing and Community Development has been available for analyzing housing permits issued by affordability levels. Since CIRB data is only available for California jurisdictions, the U.S. Census Bureau provides the best data source for comparing housing permits issued across different metropolitan areas. Notably, annual permit totals for the Bay Area differ across these three data sources, reflecting the limitations of needing to use different data sources for different purposes.

This data set represents all urbanized tracts within the San Francisco Bay Region, and contains attributes for the eight Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC) tract-level variables for exploratory purposes. These features were formerly referred to as Communities of Concern (CoC).MTC 2018 Equity Priority Communities (tract geography) is based on eight ACS 2012-2016 tract-level variables: Persons of Color (70% threshold) Low-Income (less than 200% of Fed. poverty level, 30% threshold) Level of English Proficiency (12% threshold) Elderly (10% threshold) Zero-Vehicle Households (10% threshold) Single Parent Households (20% threshold)Disabled (12% threshold) Rent-Burdened Households (15% threshold) If a tract exceeds both threshold values for Low-Income and Person of Color shares OR exceeds the threshold value for Low-Income AND also exceeds the threshold values for three or more variables, it is a EPC.Detailed documentation on the production of this feature set can be found in the MTC Equity Priority Communities project documentation.

The present work applies for the first time a foraminiferal morphology-based approach (M) and eDNA-based metabarcoding sequencing (G), along with geochemical data to assess the ecological quality status (EcoQS) in the Sepetiba (SE Brazil)

Highlights:

Foraminiferal eDNA and morphology are used to infer EcoQS in coastal SE Brazil

Biotic and abiotic indices show poor/bad EcoQS in the inner area of the Sepetiba Bay

High/good EcoQS are found in the outer area of the Sepetiba Bay

Molecular and morpho-methods provide similar EcoQS

Important Note:The metadata description below mentions the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (or RHNA). Part of meeting RHNA Eligibility is satisfying a list of criteria set by the State of California that needs to be met in order to qualify. This dataset contains both RHNA Eligible and non-RHNA Eligible sites. Non-RHNA Eligible sites are those that didn't quite meet the eligibility criteria set by the state, but will be still eligible for Rezoning per Department of Regional Planning guidelines, and thus represents a full picture of ALL sites that are eligible for Rezoning. The official Housing Element Rezoning layer that was certified by the State of California is located here, but it should be noted that this layer only contains sites that are RHNA Eligible.IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:12/18/24 - Following the completion of the annexation to the City of Whittier on 11/12/24, 27 parcels were removed along Whittier Blvd which contained 315 Very Low Income units and 590 Above Moderate units. Following a joint County-City resolution of the RHNA transfer to the city, 247 Very Low Income units and 503 Above Moderate units were taken on by Whittier. 10/23/24 - Modifications were made to this layer during the updates to the South Bay and Westside Area Plans following outreach in these communities. In the Westside Planning area, 29 parcels were removed and no change in zoning / land use policy was proposed; 9 Mixed Use sites were added. In the South Bay, 23 sites were removed as they no longer count towards the RHNA, but still partially changing to Mixed Use.5/31/22 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*SitusAddress - Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Vacant / Nonvacant – Parcels that are vacant or non-vacant per the Use Code from the Assessor Data*Units Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Max Year - Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*Current LUP (Description) – This is a brief description of the land use category. In the case of multiple land uses, this would be the land use category that covers the majority of the parcel*Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross) - Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaProposed LUP – Final – The proposed land use category to increase density.Proposed LUP (Description) – Brief description of the proposed land use policy.Prop. LUP – Final (Min Density) – Minimum density for the proposed land use category.Prop. LUP – Final (Max Density) – Maximum density for the proposed land use category.Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Current Zoning (Description) - This is a brief description of the zoning category. In the case of multiple zoning categories, this would be the zoning that covers the majority of the parcel*Proposed Zoning – Final – The proposed zoning category to increase density.Proposed Zoning (Description) – Brief description of the proposed zoning.Acres - Acreage of parcelMax Units Allowed - Total Proposed Land Use Policy UnitsRHNA Eligible? – Indicates whether the site is RHNA Eligible or not. Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates

Background: Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) taxes are a promising strategy to decrease SSB consumption, and their inequitable health impacts, while raising revenue to meet social objectives. In 2016, San Francisco passed a one cent per ounce tax on SSBs. This study compared SSB consumption in San Francisco to that in San José, before and after tax implementation in 2018. Methods & findings: A longitudinal panel of adults (n = 1,443) was surveyed from zip codes in San Francisco and San José, CA with higher densities of Black and Latino residents, racial/ethnic groups with higher SSB consumption in California. SSB consumption was measured at baseline (11/17–1/18), one (11/18–1/19), and two years (11/19-1/20) after the SSB tax was implemented in January 2018. Average daily SSB consumption (in ounces) was ascertained using the BevQ-15 instrument and modeled as both continuous and binary (high consumption: ≥6 oz (178 ml) versus low consumption: <6 oz) daily beverage intake measures. Weighted generalized linear models (GLMs) estimated difference-in-differences of SSB consumption between cities by including variables for year, city, and their interaction, adjusting for demographics and sampling source. In San Francisco, average SSB consumption in the sample declined by 34.1% (-3.68 oz, p = 0.004) from baseline to 2 years post-tax, versus San José which declined 16.5% by 2 years post-tax (-1.29 oz, p = 0.157), a non-significant difference-in-differences (-17.6%, adjusted AMR = 0.79, p = 0.224). The probability of high SSB intake in San Francisco declined significantly more than in San José from baseline to 2-years post-tax (AOR[interaction] = 0.49, p = 0.031). The difference-in-differences of odds of high consumption, examining the interaction between cities, time and poverty, was far greater (AOR[city*year 2*federal poverty level] = 0.12, p = 0.010) among those living below 200% of the federal poverty level 2-years post-tax. Conclusions: Average SSB intake declined significantly in San Francisco post-tax, but the difference in differences between cities over time did not vary significantly. Likelihood of high SSB intake declined significantly more in San Francisco by year 2 and more so among low-income respondents.

IntroductionThis metadata is broken up into different sections that provide both a high-level summary of the Housing Element and more detailed information about the data itself with links to other resources. The following is an excerpt from the Executive Summary from the Housing Element 2021 – 2029 document:The County of Los Angeles is required to ensure the availability of residential sites, at adequate densities and appropriate development standards, in the unincorporated Los Angeles County to accommodate its share of the regional housing need--also known as the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Unincorporated Los Angeles County has been assigned a RHNA of 90,052 units for the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period, which is subdivided by level of affordability as follows:Extremely Low / Very Low (<50% AMI) - 25,648Lower (50 - 80% AMI) - 13,691Moderate (80 - 120% AMI) - 14,180Above Moderate (>120% AMI) - 36,533Total - 90,052NOTES - Pursuant to State law, the projected need of extremely low income households can be estimated at 50% of the very low income RHNA. Therefore, the County’s projected extremely low income can be estimated at 12,824 units. However, for the purpose of identifying adequate sites for RHNA, no separate accounting of sites for extremely low income households is required. AMI = Area Median IncomeDescriptionThe Sites Inventory (Appendix A) is comprised of vacant and underutilized sites within unincorporated Los Angeles County that are zoned at appropriate densities and development standards to facilitate housing development. The Sites Inventory was developed specifically for the County of Los Angeles, and has built-in features that filter sites based on specific criteria, including access to transit, protection from environmental hazards, and other criteria unique to unincorporated Los Angeles County. Other strategies used within the Sites Inventory analysis to accommodate the County’s assigned RHNA of 90,052 units include projected growth of ADUs, specific plan capacity, selected entitled projects, and capacity or planned development on County-owned sites within cities. This accounts for approximately 38 percent of the RHNA. The remaining 62 percent of the RHNA is accommodated by sites to be rezoned to accommodate higher density housing development (Appendix B).Caveats:This data is a snapshot in time, generally from the year 2021. It contains information about parcels, zoning and land use policy that may be outdated. The Department of Regional Planning will be keeping an internal tally of sites that get developed or rezoned to meet our RHNA goals, and we may, in the future, develop some public facing web applications or dashboards to show the progress. There may even be periodic updates to this GIS dataset as well, throughout this 8-year planning cycle.Update History:1/7/25 - Following the completion of the annexation to the City of Whittier on 11/12/24, 27 parcels were removed along Whittier Blvd which contained 315 Very Low Income units and 590 Above Moderate units. Following a joint County-City resolution of the RHNA transfer to the city, 247 Very Low Income units and 503 Above Moderate units were taken on by Whittier. 10/16/24 - Modifications were made to this layer during the updates to the South Bay and Westside Area Plans following outreach in these communities. In the Westside Planning area, 29 parcels were removed and no change in zoning / land use policy was proposed; 9 Mixed Use sites were added. In the South Bay, 23 sites were removed as they no longer count towards the RHNA, but still partially changing to Mixed Use.5/31/22 – Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors adopted the Housing Element on 5/17/22, and it received final certification from the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on 5/27/22. Data layer published on 5/31/22.Links to other resources:Department of Regional Planning Housing Page - Contains Housing Element and it's AppendicesHousing Element Update - Rezoning Program Story Map (English, and Spanish)Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Regional Housing Needs AssessmentCalifornia Department of Housing and Community Development Housing Element pageField Descriptions:OBJECTID - Internal GIS IDAIN - Assessor Identification Number*SitusAddress - Site Address (Street and Number) from Assessor Data*Use Code - Existing Land Use Code (corresponds to Use Type and Use Description) from Assessor Data*Use Type - Existing Land Use Type from Assessor Data*Use Description - Existing Land Use Description from Assessor Data*Vacant / Nonvacant – Parcels that are vacant or non-vacant per the Use Code from the Assessor Data*Units Total - Total Existing Units from Assessor Data*Max Year - Maximum Year Built from Assessor Data*Supervisorial District (2021) - LA County Board of Supervisor DistrictSubmarket Area - Inclusionary Housing Submarket AreaPlanning Area - Planning Areas from the LA County Department of Regional Planning General Plan 2035Community Name - Unincorporated Community NamePlan Name - Land Use Plan Name from the LA County Department of Regional Planning (General Plan and Area / Community Plans)LUP - 1 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 1 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 2 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*LUP - 3 (% area) - Land Use Policy from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Land Use Policy (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one Land Use Policy category present)*Current LUP (Description) – This is a brief description of the land use category. In the case of multiple land uses, this would be the land use category that covers the majority of the parcel*Current LUP (Min Density - net or gross) - Minimum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaCurrent LUP (Max Density - net or gross) - Maximum density for this category (as net or gross) per the Land Use Plan for this areaProposed LUP – Final – The proposed land use category to increase density.Proposed LUP (Description) – Brief description of the proposed land use policy.Prop. LUP – Final (Min Density) – Minimum density for the proposed land use category.Prop. LUP – Final (Max Density) – Maximum density for the proposed land use category.Zoning - 1 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 1 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Primary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 2 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Secondary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Zoning - 3 (% area) - Zoning from Dept. of Regional Planning - Tertiary Zone (% of parcel covered in cases where there are more than one zone category present)*Current Zoning (Description) - This is a brief description of the zoning category. In the case of multiple zoning categories, this would be the zoning that covers the majority of the parcel*Proposed Zoning – Final – The proposed zoning category to increase density.Proposed Zoning (Description) – Brief description of the proposed zoning.Acres - Acreage of parcelMax Units Allowed - Total Proposed Land Use Policy UnitsRHNA Eligible? – Indicates whether the site is RHNA Eligible or not. NOTE: This layer only shows those that are RHNA Eligible, but internal versions of this layer also show sites that were not-RHNA eligible, or removed during the development of this layer in 2020 – 2022.Very Low Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Very Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementLow Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Low Income level as defined in the Housing ElementModerate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementAbove Moderate Income Capacity - Total capacity for the Above Moderate Income level as defined in the Housing ElementRealistic Capacity - Total Realistic Capacity of parcel (totaling all income levels). Several factors went into this final calculation. See the Housing Element (Links to Other Resources above) in the following locations - "Sites Inventory - Lower Income RHNA" (p. 223), and "Rezoning - Very Low / Low Income RHNA" (p231).Income Categories - Income Categories assigned to the parcel (relates to income capacity units)Lot Consolidation ID - Parcels with a unique identfier for consolidation potential (based on parcel ownership)Lot Consolidation Notes - Specific notes for consolidationConsolidation - Adjacent Parcels - All adjacent parcels that are tied to each lot consolidation IDsShape_Length - Perimeter (feet)Shape_Area - Area (sq feet)*As it existed in 2021

The feature set indicates the locations, and tenant characteristics of public housing development buildings for the San Francisco Bay Region. This feature set, extracted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, is from the statewide public housing buildings feature layer provided by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD itself extracted the California data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) feature service depicting the location of individual buildings within public housing units throughout the United States.

According to HUD's Public Housing Program, "Public Housing was established to provide decent and safe rental housing for eligible low-income families, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. Public housing comes in all sizes and types, from scattered single family houses to high-rise apartments for elderly families. There are approximately 1.2 million households living in public housing units, managed by some 3,300 housing agencies. HUD administers federal aid to local housing agencies that manage the housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. HUD furnishes technical and professional assistance in planning, developing and managing these developments.

HUD administers Federal aid to local Housing Agencies (HAs) that manage housing for low-income residents at rents they can afford. Likewise, HUD furnishes technical and professional assistance in planning, developing, and managing the buildings that comprise low-income housing developments. This feature set provides the location, and resident characteristics of public housing development buildings.

Location data for HUD-related properties and facilities are derived from HUD's enterprise geocoding service. While not all addresses are able to be geocoded and mapped to 100% accuracy, we are continuously working to improve address data quality and enhance coverage. Please consider this issue when using any datasets provided by HUD. When using this data, take note of the field titled “LVL2KX” which indicates the overall accuracy of the geocoded address using the following return codes:

‘R’ - Interpolated rooftop (high degree of accuracy, symbolized as green) 
‘4’ - ZIP+4 centroid (high degree of accuracy, symbolized as green) 
‘B’ - Block group centroid (medium degree of accuracy, symbolized as yellow) 
‘T’ - Census tract centroid (low degree of accuracy, symbolized as red) 
‘2’ - ZIP+2 centroid (low degree of accuracy, symbolized as red) 
 ‘Z’ - ZIP5 centroid (low degree of accuracy, symbolized as red) 
‘5’ - ZIP5 centroid (same as above, low degree of accuracy, symbolized as red) 
Null - Could not be geocoded (does not appear on the map) 

For the purposes of displaying the location of an address on a map only use addresses and their associated lat/long coordinates where the LVL2KX field is coded ‘R’ or ‘4’. These codes ensure that the address is displayed on the correct street segment and in the correct census block. The remaining LVL2KX codes provide a cascading indication of the most granular level geography for which an address can be confirmed. For example, if an address cannot be accurately interpolated to a rooftop (‘R’), or ZIP+4 centroid (‘4’), then the address will be mapped to the centroid of the next nearest confirmed geography: block group, tract, and so on. When performing any point-in polygon analysis it is important to note that points mapped to the centroids of larger geographies will be less likely to map accurately to the smaller geographies of the same area. For instance, a point coded as ‘5’ in the correct ZIP Code will be less likely to map to the correct block group or census tract for that address. In an effort to protect Personally Identifiable Information, the characteristics for each building are suppressed with a -4 value when the “Number_Reported” is equal to, or less than 10.

HCD downloaded the HUD data in April 2021. They sourced the data from https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/fedmaps::public-housing-buildings.

To learn more about Public Housing visit: https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/public_indian_housing/programs/ph/.