s c b d v , mtc j 12, 2017 mtc abag baaqmd...
TRANSCRIPT
MTC BAAQMD BCDCABAG
SONOMA COUNTY BRIEFING
DAVID VAUTIN, MTC – JUNE 12, 2017
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/frank_schulenburg/8152540815/
WHAT IS VITAL SIGNS?
Vital Signs tracks 40 performance indicators to understand if the Bay Area is (or is not) making progress towards key regional goals.
WHAT IS VITAL SIGNS?
This initiative recognizes that transportation is not siloed – land use, the economy, the environment, and social equity intersect with it.
WHAT IS VITAL SIGNS?
The interactive Vital Signs website allows residents to explore trends on the regional, county, city, and even neighborhood levels.
vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov
WHAT IS VITAL SIGNS?
The interactive Vital Signs website allows residents to explore trends on the regional, county, city, and even neighborhood levels.
vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov
KEY FINDINGS – SONOMA COUNTY
Sonoma County saw a significant housing boom during the 20th century, but this has slowed significantly in recent years.1
2
3
4
5
The county’s job market has roughly paralleled the region, with unemployment rates nearing natural levels.
Economic challenges continue to impact county residents, including low wages, displacement risk, and unaffordability.
Transportation investments have paid off by reducing traffic congestion (e.g., US-101), but modal shifts have been limited.
Critical differences exist between (and within) the various cities and towns of Sonoma County.
Bay Area population now exceeds 7.6 million.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Popul
ation (in
mill
ions)
POPULATION – BAY AREA & SONOMA COUNTY
2016
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
POPULATION
7.6M
Source: California Department of Finance
502K
Bay Area
Sonoma County
Sonoma County’s population growth has slowed over time.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
ANNUAL PERCENT POPULATION GROWTH – BAY AREA & SONOMA COUNTY
2016
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
POPULATION
+1.0%
Source: California Department of Finance
+0.5%Bay Area
Sonoma County
North Bay counties have similar growth trajectories; regional growth has been increasingly concentrated in the core.
LOCAL FOCUS
POPULATION165
147
62
13
(25)
113
423
37 58
32
100
14
20
(37)
30
230
63 9
5
171
147
8 12 4
5
62
203
104
89
160
141
16
13 4
9
55
179
53
69
73 1
04
6 13 32
13
105
21
27
118
74
10
6
61
48
146
18
18
ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA
MARIN NAPA SAN FRANCISCO
SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA SOLANO SONOMA
NOMINAL CHANGE BY COUNTY (IN THOUSANDS)
1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s
Source: California Department of Finance; note: 2010s spans six years between 2010 and 2016
Growth in cities like Santa Rosa and Brentwood has slowed post-Recession, while growth in South Bay cities has sped up.
LOCAL FOCUS
POPULATION
Source: California Department of Finance
0 25 50 75 100
Sunnyvale
Milpitas
Redwood City
Antioch
Dublin
Hayward
Fremont
Oakland
San Francisco
San Jose
Population Growth in Thousands
CITIES THAT ADDED THE MOST PEOPLE 2010-2016
0 50 100 150 200
Livermore
Fairfield
Hayward
San Ramon
Antioch
Fremont
Brentwood
Santa Rosa
San Francisco
San Jose
Population Growth in Thousands
CITIES THAT ADDED THE MOST PEOPLE 1990-2010
Permitting has declined on the regional and county levels.
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
HOUSING GROWTH
Source: Construction Industry Research Board (1967-2010); California Homebuilding Foundation (2011-2015)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1967 1973 1979 1985 1991 1997 2003 2009 2015
Thousa
nds
of
Perm
itte
d U
nits
PERMITTED UNITS BY YEAR – BAY AREA
Single-Family Units Multi-Family Units
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1967 1973 1979 1985 1991 1997 2003 2009 2015Thousa
nds
of
Perm
itte
d U
nits
PERMITTED UNITS BY YEAR – SONOMA COUNTY
Single-Family Units Multi-Family Units
Outside the North Bay, permitting has accelerated noticeably.
LOCAL FOCUS
HOUSING GROWTH
Source: California Homebuilding Foundation (2011-2015)
2,2
00
1,1
00
10
0
20
0
2,0
00
80
0
3,2
00
40
0
60
0
5,0
00
2,4
00
10
0
30
0
3,7
00
1,5
00
4,9
00
1,4
00
40
0
ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA
MARIN NAPA SAN FRANCISCO
SAN MATEO SANTA CLARA SOLANO SONOMA
ANNUAL HOUSING UNITS PERMITTED (SINCE 2010)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Greenfield development has slowed across the region over time; greenfield protection policies have made a difference.
-
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
2-Y
ear
Gro
wth
in
Deve
loped L
and in
Acr
es
TWO-YEAR CHANGE IN REGIONAL GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT(CHANGE IN DEVELOPED LAND)
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT
Source: Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Sonoma County
Rest of Region
Sonoma County has significantly slowed its development of greenfield lands, especially since 2010.
-1,000 4,000 9,000 14,000 19,000 24,000
CONTRA COSTA
SANTA CLARA
SONOMA
ALAMEDA
SOLANO
NAPA
SAN MATEO
MARIN
SAN FRANCISCO
NET CHANGE IN GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT (ACRES)
COUNTY GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT GROWTH AND DECLINE BY DECADE
1990-2000 2000-2010 2010-2014
LOCAL FOCUS
GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT
Source: Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
PM2.5
Major investments in wetland restoration in the mid-2000s resulted in thousands of new acres of Bay surface area.
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
BAY RESTORATION
Source: BCDC Annual Report, 2015
-1,000
1,000
3,000
5,000
7,000
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Acr
es
of
Annual C
hang
e
ANNUAL CHANGE IN SAN FRANCISCO BAY SURFACE AREA
Major wetland restorations in Sonoma
County, Solano County, and Hayward
Major wetland
restorations in Novato
Major wetland
restorations in Redwood
City and North Bay
Major wetland
restorations in
Solano County
KEY FINDINGS – SONOMA COUNTY
Sonoma County saw a significant housing boom during the 20th
century, but this has slowed significantly in recent years.1
2
3
4
5
The county’s job market has roughly paralleled the region, with unemployment rates nearing natural levels.
Economic challenges continue to impact county residents, including low wages, displacement risk, and unaffordability.
Transportation investments have paid off by reducing traffic congestion (e.g., US-101), but modal shifts have been limited.
Critical differences exist between (and within) the various cities and towns of Sonoma County.
Bay Area employment now exceeds the year 2000 peak.
-
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Popul
ation (in
mill
ions)
JOBS – BAY AREA & SONOMA COUNTY
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
JOBS
3.7M
Source: California Department of Finance
134K
Bay Area
Sonoma County
Sonoma County tied the region for job growth rate in 2015.
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
ANNUAL PERCENT JOBS GROWTH – BAY AREA & SONOMA COUNTY
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
JOBS
+3.6%
Source: California Department of Finance
Bay Area
Sonoma County
Excluding the early 2000s, Sonoma County’s unemployment rate has closely mirrored the region as a whole.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Unem
plo
ym
ent Rate
UNEMPLOYMENT – BAY AREA AND SONOMA COUNTY
LOCAL FOCUS
UNEMPLOYMENT
Source: Employment Development Department
Bay Area
Sonoma County 4%
Sonoma County is a small but growing component of the overall regional economy.
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
GRP (in
bill
ions
of
2015 d
olla
rs)
GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT BY SUB-REGION
LOCAL FOCUS
ECONOMIC OUTPUT
Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis (inflation-adjusted to 2015 dollars)
Note: GRP is reported at the MSA level; the San Jose MSA include Santa Clara County and San Benito County
Napa CountySolano CountySonoma County
San Jose MSA
(2 counties)
San Francisco MSA
(5 counties)
$7$15$22
$133
$331
$9$17$24
$145
$360 $371
$173
$22$17$8
$9$20$26
$235
$432
Silicon Valley is booming, widening the gap in per capita GRP between northern and southern parts of the Bay Area.
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Per
Capita G
RP (in
tho
usa
nds
of
2015 d
olla
rs)
GROSS REGIONAL PRODUCT PER CAPITA
LOCAL FOCUS
ECONOMIC OUTPUT
Napa County
Solano CountySonoma County
San Jose MSA
San Francisco MSA
Sources: Bureau of Economic Analysis (inflation-adjusted to 2015 dollars); Department of Finance
Note: GRP is reported at the MSA level; the San Jose MSA include Santa Clara County and San Benito County
KEY FINDINGS – SONOMA COUNTY
Sonoma County saw a significant housing boom during the 20th
century, but this has slowed significantly in recent years.1
2
3
4
5
The county’s job market has roughly paralleled the region, with unemployment rates nearing natural levels.
Economic challenges continue to impact county residents, including low wages, displacement risk, and unaffordability.
Transportation investments have paid off by reducing traffic congestion (e.g., US-101), but modal shifts have been limited.
Critical differences exist between (and within) the various cities and towns of Sonoma County.
With a slight but steady decline in middle-wage jobs, the Bay Area has seen a long-term trend of job polarization.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Share
of
Regio
nal Jo
bs
REGIONAL SHARE OF JOBS BY WAGE LEVEL
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
JOBS BY WAGE LEVEL
Middle-Wage
Low-Wage
High-Wage
Sources: Employment Development Department; U.S. Census Bureau/American Community Survey, 2015
37%
45%
18%
High-wage jobs are now the plurality of jobs in all areas –with the notable exception of the North Bay.
2001 2015
EAST BAY
LOCAL FOCUS
JOBS BY WAGE LEVEL
2001 2015
WEST BAY
2001 2015
NORTH BAY
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
2001 2015
Share
of
Jobs
SOUTH BAY
High-Wage
Low-Wage
Middle-Wage
Note: South Bay is Santa Clara + San Benito; West Bay is Marin, San Francisco + San Mateo; East Bay is Alameda + Contra Costa; North Bay is Sonoma, Solano + Napa counties
Sources: Employment Development Department; U.S. Census Bureau/American Community Survey, 2015
SHARE OF JOBS BY WAGE LEVEL BY SUBREGION
Median worker earnings in San Francisco and Silicon Valley have increased noticeably compared to the rest of the region.
$30
$35
$40
$45
$50
$55
$60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Media
n W
ork
er
Earn
ings
(in thousa
nds
of
2015
dolla
rs)
MEDIAN WORKER EARNINGS BY COUNTY
LOCAL FOCUS
INCOME
Santa Clara
San Mateo
Marin
San Francisco
Contra Costa
Alameda
NapaSolanoSonoma
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau/American Community Survey (inflation-adjusted to 2015 dollars); Bureau of Labor Statistics
Rural poverty remains a serious issue – Solano, Sonoma and Napa counties have the highest poverty rates in the region.
30%28% 28%
25% 25% 24%
21% 21%19%
SOLANO SONOMA NAPA SAN FRANCISCO
ALAMEDA CONTRA COSTA
SANTA CLARA SAN MATEO MARIN
Share
Of
Popul
ation In
Pove
rty (200%
Leve
l)
2015 POVERTY RATE BY COUNTY
LOCAL FOCUS
POVERTY
Source: U.S. Census Bureau/American Community Survey, 2015
Note: poverty is defined as living below twice the national poverty level
Bay Area Regional Poverty Rate – 24%
Once a relatively minor issue in Sonoma County, displacement risk today is on par with San Francisco.
0%
20%
40%
60%
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Sha
re o
f Lo
wer-
Inco
me H
ouse
hold
s at Risk
DISPLACEMENT RISK BY COUNTY
LOCAL FOCUS
DISPLACEMENT RISK
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau/American Community Survey; Longitudinal Tract Database; note that recent data relies upon 5-year rolling averages; only 2010 and 2015 are shown for clarity
San Francisco
San Mateo
Solano
Marin
Alameda
Santa Clara
Sonoma
Contra Costa
Napa
San Francisco
San Mateo
Solano
Marin
Alameda
Santa Clara
Sonoma
Contra Costa
Napa
North Bay residents are increasingly moving out of the region and are being replaced by new arrivals from the West Bay.
28
LOCAL FOCUS
MIGRATION
Sources: American Community Survey/U.S. Census Bureau – County-to-County Migration Data; note that data relies upon 5-year rolling averages; immigration from abroad not shown for simplicity
2014 NET MIGRATION BY SUBREGION
SAN FRANCISCO + SILICON VALLEY EAST BAY NORTH BAY
East Bay:
-14,100 people
Out of Region:
-5,900 people
SF +
Silicon Valley:
+14,100 people
North Bay:
-3,600 people
North Bay:
+600 people
Out of Region:
-9,100 people
SF +
Silicon Valley:
+3,600 people
East Bay:
-600 people
Out of Region:
-1,800 people
Sonoma County home prices have risen since the end of the recession but remain below their 2005 peak.
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012 2015
Media
n H
om
e S
ale
Price
(in
tho
usa
nds
of
2015
dolla
rs)
MEDIAN HOME SALE PRICE BY COUNTY
LOCAL FOCUS
HOME PRICES
San Francisco
San Mateo
MarinSanta Clara
Alameda
NapaSonomaContra Costa
Solano
Sources: Zillow (inflation-adjusted to 2015 dollars); Bureau of Labor Statistics
Compared to booming rental markets elsewhere in the region, rents in Sonoma County have been more stable.
$1,100
$1,200
$1,300
$1,400
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Media
n M
onth
ly R
ent Paym
ent
MEDIAN RENT PAYMENTS BY COUNTY
LOCAL FOCUS
RENT PAYMENTS
San MateoSanta Clara
Marin
San Francisco
AlamedaContra Costa
Napa
Sonoma
Solano
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau/American Community Survey (inflation-adjusted to 2015 dollars); Bureau of Labor Statistics
Sonoma County’s housing affordability – as a share of income – has closely tracked regional trends since 1980.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Share
of
House
hold
s
SHARE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING – BAY AREA
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Less than 20% of Income
20% to 34% of Income
At least 35% of Income 31%
32%
37%48%
30%
22%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau/American Community Survey
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015Share
of
House
hold
s
SHARE OF HOUSEHOLD INCOME SPENT ON HOUSING – SONOMA COUNTY
Less than 20% of Income
20% to 34% of Income
At least 35% of Income 33%
31%
36%46%
30%
24%
KEY FINDINGS – SONOMA COUNTY
Sonoma County saw a significant housing boom during the 20th
century, but this has slowed significantly in recent years.1
2
3
4
5
The county’s job market has roughly paralleled the region, with unemployment rates nearing natural levels.
Economic challenges continue to impact county residents, including low wages, displacement risk, and unaffordability.
Transportation investments have paid off by reducing traffic congestion (e.g., US-101), but modal shifts have been limited.
Critical differences exist between (and within) the various cities and towns of Sonoma County.
Congestion spiked during construction along US-101, but Sonoma County is now benefiting from those projects.
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
9%
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Congest
ed S
hare
of
Freew
ay V
MT
MILES TRAVELED IN CONGESTION – BAY AREA AND SONOMA COUNTY
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
MILES TRAVELED IN CONGESTION
Source: Iteris/PeMS, 2015
Bay Area
Sonoma County
6%
1%
Commute times have ticked upward regionally in recent years, while remaining stable in Sonoma County.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Media
n C
om
mute
Tim
e
COMMUTE TIMES – BAY AREA AND SONOMA COUNTY
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
COMMUTE TIME
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Bay Area
Sonoma County24 min.
31 min.
Thanks to the county’s relative affordability, most Sonoma County workers are able to avoid a long-distance commute.
LOCAL FOCUS
COMMUTE PATTERNS
Source: U.S. Census Bureau – Census Transportation Planning Package
Sonoma County91%
Marin County2%
Other Bay Area
Counties4%
Outside the Bay Area
3%
Other9%
COMMUTE ORIGINS OF SONOMA COUNTY WORKERS
Sonoma County83%
Marin County
8%
San Francisco3%
Other Bay Area Counties
5%
Outside the Bay Area
1%
Other17%
COMMUTE DESTINATIONS OF SONOMA COUNTY RESIDENTS
Of course, weekday congestion hotspots do remain –notably, the Marin-Sonoma Narrows and in Santa Rosa.
LOCAL FOCUS
TIME SPENT IN CONGESTION
Source: MTC, 2016
Of the 162 congested segments in the Bay Area, seven
are located in Sonoma County. All are along US-101.
AM Peak Period:
65. Southbound from Redwood Hwy to Petaluma Blvd
86. Northbound from Santa Rosa Ave to SR-12
PM Peak Period:
48. Northbound from Novato to Petaluma (Narrows)
53. Southbound from River Rd to SR-12
77. Northbound from Golf Course Dr to Baker Ave
154. Southbound near SR-12 Interchange
161. Northbound near SR-12 Interchange
On SR-37, new weekday hotspots have emerged in
neighboring Marin & Solano counties (ranked 115 & 137).
The Bay Area has made slight but meaningful gains in reducing auto dependence, mostly in the central Bay Area.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
COMMUTE MODE SHARE – BAY AREA
Auto Transit Walk, Bike, Other Work at Home
70%
81%79%
75%
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
COMMUTE MODE CHOICE
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
COMMUTE MODE SHARE – SONOMA COUNTY
Auto Transit Walk, Bike, Other Work at Home
76%86% 87% 86%
PM2.5
Per-capita GHG emissions from transportation have remained relatively steady in the Bay Area over the past five years.
1
2
3
4
5
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Ann
ual Per-
Capita G
HG
Em
issions
(in
metr
ic tons)
PER-CAPITA GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM TRANSPORTATION
REGIONAL PERFORMANCE
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS FROM FUEL SALES
Sources: California Energy Commission, 2015; American Community Survey; note that 2010 and 2011 data use an older methodology; * = Napa County variations are due to small sample size
San Francisco
San Mateo
Solano
Marin
Alameda
Santa Clara
Sonoma
Contra Costa
Napa*
Bay Area
KEY FINDINGS – SONOMA COUNTY
Sonoma County saw a significant housing boom during the 20th
century, but this has slowed significantly in recent years.1
2
3
4
5
The county’s job market has roughly paralleled the region, with unemployment rates nearing natural levels.
Economic challenges continue to impact county residents, including low wages, displacement risk, and unaffordability.
Transportation investments have paid off by reducing traffic congestion (e.g., US-101), but modal shifts have been limited.
Critical differences exist between (and within) the various cities and towns of Sonoma County.
Sonoma County:City Comparison
• Measured by the share of residents who use a non-auto mode to get to work on a typical day
• Healdsburg, Sebastopol, and Sonoma are in the lead, thanks to their above-average rates of walking and telecommuting
LOCAL FOCUS
COMMUTE MODE CHOICE
12%
11%
21%
15%
9%10%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; city data limited to 5-year rolling average
20%
19%
11%
County Average:
Regional Average:
14%
25%
Cloverdale
Healdsburg
Windsor
Sebastopol
Cotati
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
PetalumaSonoma
Sonoma County:City Comparison
• Measured by (door-to-door) median commute time for all modes by place of residence
• All Sonoma County cities and towns have commute times shorter than the regional average
• Santa Rosa has the fifth-shortest commute time of any Bay Area city
LOCAL FOCUS
COMMUTE TIME
28
22
22
29
2728
23
25
25
County Average:
Regional Average:
24
31
Cloverdale
Healdsburg
Windsor
Sebastopol
Cotati
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
PetalumaSonoma
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; city data limited to 5-year rolling average
Sonoma County:City Comparison
• Measured by the three-year rolling-average pavement condition index (PCI)
• Overall, Sonoma County has the worst road conditions of any Bay Area county
• Petaluma has the second-worst streets of any Bay Area city – only surpassed by Larkspur
LOCAL FOCUS
STREET PAVEMENT CONDITION
61
60
61
46
7152
Source: StreetSaver, 2016
58
73
75
County Average:
Regional Average:
55
67
Cloverdale
Healdsburg
Windsor
Sebastopol
Cotati
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
PetalumaSonoma
Sonoma County:City Comparison
LOCAL FOCUS
HOUSING GROWTH
131
1.7k
107
1.1k
10213
Source: CIRB/CHF, 2010-2015
68
140
55
County Total:
Regional Total:
3.7k
99.7k
Cloverdale
Healdsburg
Windsor
Sebastopol
Cotati
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
PetalumaSonoma
• Measured by the number of housing units permitted between 2010 and 2015
• Santa Rosa and Petaluma combined account for three-quarters of all Sonoma County housing development since the end of the recession
Sonoma County:City Comparison
LOCAL FOCUS
INCOME
$64k
$61k
$66k
$80k
$58k$62k
$58k
$63k
$85k
County Average:
Regional Average:
$67k
$89k
Cloverdale
Healdsburg
Windsor
Sebastopol
Cotati
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
PetalumaSonoma
• Measured by median household income based on place of residence
• Windsor and Petaluma have the highest annual incomes in the county
• Neighboring cities often have surprisingly different income levels
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; city data limited to 5-year rolling average
Sonoma County:City Comparison
LOCAL FOCUS
HOME PRICES
$404k
$448k
$590k
$536k
$359k$420k
Source: Zillow, 2015
$662k
$572k
$514k
County Average:
Regional Average:
$475k
$708k
Cloverdale
Healdsburg
Windsor
Sebastopol
Cotati
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
PetalumaSonoma
• Measured by median home sale prices
• Rohnert Park is the most affordable Sonoma County city to purchase a home
• Santa Rosa falls in the middle of the pack, whereas Sebastopol and Healdsburg are the most expensive cities for buying
Sonoma County:City Comparison
LOCAL FOCUS
POVERTY
31%
31%
30%
22%
33%28%
19%
19%
18%
County Average:
Regional Average:
28%
24%
Cloverdale
Healdsburg
Windsor
Sebastopol
Cotati
Santa
Rosa
Rohnert
Park
PetalumaSonoma
• Measured based on share of population below 200% federal line
• Four Sonoma County cities have more than 30 percent of their population living below the 200% poverty line
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2015; city data limited to 5-year rolling average
MTC BAAQMD BCDCABAG
DAVID VAUTIN, [email protected]
UPCOMING DATA RELEASES:JUNE 2017 – TRANSPORTATION
SUMMER 2017 – ENVIRONMENT
Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/isolino/8338786790/
vitalsigns.mtc.ca.gov
QUESTIONS?