Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I).
2.6 TENURE
The number of residents who own their homes compared to those who rent their homes can help identify the level of housing insecurity – ability for individuals to stay in their homes – in a city and region. Generally, renters may be displaced more quickly if prices increase. In Portola Valley there are a total of 1,685 housing units, and fewer residents rent than own their homes: 22.6% versus
77.4% (see Figure 13). By comparison, 39.8% of households in San Mateo County are renters, while 44% of Bay Area households rent their homes.
Homeownership rates often vary considerably across race/ethnicity in the Bay Area and throughout the country. These disparities not only reflect differences in income and wealth but also stem from federal, state, and local policies that limited access to homeownership for communities of color while facilitating homebuying for white residents. While many of these policies, such as redlining, have been formally disbanded, the impacts of race-based policy are still evident across Bay Area communities. 12 In Portola Valley, 100.0% of Black households owned their homes, while 12 See, for example, Rothstein, R. (2017). The color of law: a forgotten history of how our government segregated America.
New York, NY & London, UK: Liveright Publishing.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-16 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 13: HOUSING TENURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003.
FIGURE 14: HOUSING TENURE BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non-Hispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003(A-I).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-17 homeownership rates were 100.0% for Asian households, 100.0% for Latinx households, and 77.1% for White households. Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
The age of residents who rent or own their home can also signal the housing challenges a community is experiencing. Younger households tend to rent and may struggle to buy a first home in the Bay Area due to high housing costs. At the same time, senior homeowners seeking to downsize may have limited options in an expensive housing market.
In Portola Valley, 0.0% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 26.1% of householders over 65 are (see Figure 15).
FIGURE 15: HOUSING TENURE BY AGE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25007.
In many cities, homeownership rates for households in single-family homes are substantially higher than the rates for households in multi-family housing. In Portola Valley, 84.7% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 17.4% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 16).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-18 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 16: HOUSING TENURE BY HOUSING TYPE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032.
2.7 DISPLACEMENT
Because of increasing housing prices, displacement is a major concern in the Bay Area.
Displacement has the most severe impacts on low- and moderate-income residents. When individuals or families are forced to leave their homes and communities, they also lose their support network.
The University of California, Berkeley has mapped all neighborhoods in the Bay area, identifying their risk for gentrification. They find that in Portola Valley, 0.0% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 0.0% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification.
Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 100.0% of households in Portola Valley live in neighborhoods where low-income households are likely to be excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.13
13 More information about this gentrification and displacement data is available at the Urban Displacement Project’s webpage: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/. Specifically, one can learn more about the different gentrification/ displacement typologies shown in Figure 18 at this link: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/ typology_sheet_2018_0.png. Additionally, one can view maps that show which typologies correspond to which parts of a jurisdiction here: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/san-francisco/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-19 FIGURE 17: HOUSEHOLDS BY DISPLACEMENT RISK AND TENURE
Universe: Households
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources. Categories are combined as follows for simplicity: At risk of or Experiencing Exclusion: At Risk of Becoming Exclusive; Becoming Exclusive; Stable/Advanced Exclusive At risk of or Experiencing Gentrification: At Risk of Gentrification; Early/Ongoing Gentrification; Advanced Gentrification Stable Moderate/Mixed Income: Stable Moderate/Mixed Income Susceptible to or Experiencing Displacement: LowIncome/Susceptible to Displacement; Ongoing Displacement Other: High Student Population; Unavailable or Unreliable Data Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-20
3. HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
3.1 HOUSING TYPES, YEAR BUILT, VACANCY, AND PERMITS
In recent years, most housing produced in the region and across the state consisted of single-family homes and larger multi-unit buildings. However, some households are increasingly interested in “missing middle housing” – including duplexes, triplexes, townhomes, cottage clusters and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). These housing types may open up more options across incomes and tenure, from young households seeking homeownership options to seniors looking to downsize and age-inplace.
It is important to the Town of Portola Valley to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future, as indicated in the Housing Strategic Plan adopted in 2016 that emphasizes the needs of seniors, young people, and workers. High-cost areas, like Portola Valley, often have difficulty attracting and retaining important vital employees such as teachers, fire fighters, health care professionals, food service providers, and other essential workers that are important to the health and well-being of the Town. In 2020, 81.1% of homes in Portola Valley were single family detached, 0.0% were single family attached, 2.1% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and while Census data indicates that 16.8% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units) (see Figure 18). Within the town of Portola Valley, multi-family units are comprised of units located at the Sequoias, a multi-unit buy-in retirement community located in the central portion of the Town along Portola Road. In Portola Valley, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Single-Family Home: Detached.
Production has not kept up with housing demand for several decades in the Bay Area, as the total number of units built and available has not yet come close to meeting the population and job growth experienced throughout the region. In Portola Valley, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built 1960 to 1979, with 763 units constructed during this period (see Figure 19). Since 2010, 4.4% of the current housing stock was built, which is 80 units.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-21 FIGURE 18: HOUSING TYPE TRENDS
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series.
FIGURE 19: HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034. 1,533 38 324 1,562 40 324 0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
1,800
Single-Family
Home:
Attached
Single-Family
Home:
Detached
Multifamily
Housing: Two
to Four Units
Multifamily
Housing: Fiveplus Units
Mobile Homes
Units
2010 2020
763
380 359
164
80 80
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Built 1960 To
1979
Built 1940 To
1959
Built 1980 To
1999
Built 2000 To
2009
Built 2010 Or
Later
Built 1939 Or
Earlier
Units
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-22 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Vacant units make up 7.7% of the overall housing stock in Portola Valley. The rental vacancy stands at 0.0%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 2.8%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is For Seasonal, Recreational, Or Occasional Use (see Figure 20).14 FIGURE 20: VACANT UNITS BY TYPE
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004.
Throughout the Bay Area, vacancies make up 2.6% of the total housing units, with homes listed for rent; units used for recreational or occasional use, and units not otherwise classified (other vacant) making up the majority of vacancies. The Census Bureau classifies a unit as vacant if no one is occupying it when census interviewers are conducting the American Community Survey or Decennial Census. Vacant units classified as “for recreational or occasional use” are those that are held for short-term periods of use throughout the year. Accordingly, vacation rentals and short-term rentals like Airbnb are likely to fall in this category. The Census Bureau classifies units as “other vacant” if they are vacant due to foreclosure, personal/family reasons, legal proceedings, repairs/renovations, abandonment, preparation for being rented or sold, or vacant for an extended absence for reasons such as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration.15 In a region with a thriving economy and housing market like the Bay Area, units being renovated/repaired and prepared for rental or sale are likely to represent a large portion of the “other vacant” category. Additionally, the need for seismic retrofitting in older housing stock could also influence the proportion of “other vacant” units in some jurisdictions.16
14 The vacancy rates by tenure are for a smaller universe than the total vacancy rate first reported, which in principle includes the full stock (7.7%). The vacancy by tenure counts are rates relative to the rental stock (occupied and vacant) and ownership stock (occupied and vacant) - but exclude a significant number of vacancy categories, including the numerically significant other vacant.
15 For more information, see pages 3 through 6 of this list of definitions prepared by the Census Bureau:
https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf.
16 See Dow, P. (2018). Unpacking the Growth in San Francisco’s Vacant Housing Stock: Client Report for the San Francisco Planning Department. University of California, Berkeley.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-23 Between 2015 and 2019, 43 housing units were
issued permits in Portola Valley. 65.1% of
permits issued in Portola Valley were for above
moderate-income housing, 11.6% were for
moderate-income housing, and 23.3% were for
low- or very low-income housing (see Table 2).
3.2 ASSISTED HOUSING
DEVELOPMENTS AT-RISK OF
CONVERSION
While there is an immense need to produce new
affordable housing units, ensuring that the
existing affordable housing stock remains
affordable is equally important. Additionally, it is
typically faster and less expensive to preserve
currently affordable units that are at risk of
converting to market-rate than it is to build new affordable housing.
The data in Table 3 below comes from the California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database, the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing. However, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state, so there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. There are 0 assisted units in Portola Valley in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.0% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.17 17 California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database:
Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable nonprofit, mission-driven developer.
TABLE 2: HOUSING PERMITTING
Income Group Value
Above Moderate-Income Permits 28
Very Low-Income Permits 8
Moderate-Income Permits 5
Low-Income Permits 2
Universe: Housing permits issued between 2015 and 2019
Notes: HCD uses the following definitions for the four income categories: Very Low-Income: units affordable to households making less than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Low-Income: units affordable to households making between 50% and 80% of the AMI for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Moderate-Income: units affordable to households making between 80% and 120% of the AMI for the county in which the jurisdiction is located. Above Moderate-Income:
units affordable to households making above 120% of the AMI for the county in which the jurisdiction is located.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-24 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE 3: ASSISTED UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION
Income Portola Valley San Mateo County Bay Area
Low 0 4,656 110,177
Moderate 0 191 3,375
High 0 359 1,854
Very High 0 58 1,053
Total Assisted Units in Database 0 5,264 116,459
Universe: HUD, Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), USDA, and CalHFA projects. Subsidized or assisted developments that do not have one of the aforementioned financing sources may not be included.
Notes: While California Housing Partnership’s Preservation Database is the state’s most comprehensive source of information on subsidized affordable housing at risk of losing its affordable status and converting to market-rate housing, this database does not include all deed-restricted affordable units in the state. Consequently, there may be at-risk assisted units in a jurisdiction that are not captured in this data table. Per HCD guidance, local jurisdictions must also list the specific affordable housing developments at-risk of converting to market rate uses. This document provides aggregate numbers of at-risk units for each jurisdiction, but local planning staff should contact Danielle Mazzella with the California Housing Partnership at [email protected] to obtain a list of affordable properties that fall under this designation. California Housing Partnership uses the following categories for assisted housing developments in its database: Very-High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate within the next year that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable nonprofit, mission-driven developer. High Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 1-5 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer. Moderate Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in the next 5-10 years that do not have a known overlapping subsidy that would extend affordability and are not owned by a large/stable non-profit, missiondriven developer. Low Risk: affordable homes that are at-risk of converting to market rate in 10+ years and/or are owned by a large/stable non-profit, mission-driven developer.
Source: California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2022).
3.3 SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Housing costs in the region are among the highest in the country, which could result in households, particularly renters, needing to live in substandard conditions in order to afford housing. Generally, there is limited data on the extent of substandard housing issues in a community. However, Census Bureau data gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present, specifically a lack of kitchen and plumbing facilities which is often used as an indicator of substandard housing conditions. Per US Census Data, 31.8% of renters in Portola Valley reported lacking a kitchen and 0% of renters lack plumbing, whereas 1.2% of property owners in the Town report lacking a kitchen and 0% of property owners report lacking plumbing. It is likely that the high number of renters reporting a lack of kitchen facilities in the Town may be attributed to The Sequoias retirement community located off Portola Road. This facility accommodates over 300 senior citizens and offers meal plans/packages to residents as well as studio living arrangements.
In addition to lacking plumbing or kitchen facilities, the age of a community’s housing stock can provide another indicator of overall housing conditions. Typically, housing over 30 years in age is likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. In Portola Valley, the largest proportion of the housing stock was built between 1960 to 1979, with 763 units constructed during this period. While most of the Town’s housing stock was constructed prior to the 30-year benchmark, due to the Town’s high household incomes which allow for routine maintenance and improvements, the age of units in the Town is not believed to contribute to substandard housing conditions. More so, existing homes in the Town are bought and sold, new owners are anticipated to remodel and update housing units. Based on the above data, APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-25 FIGURE 21: SUBSTANDARD HOUSING ISSUES
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Per HCD guidance, this data should be supplemented by local estimates of units needing to be rehabilitated or replaced based on recent windshield surveys, local building department data, knowledgeable builders/developers in the community, or nonprofit housing developers or organizations.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049. staff estimates that approximately 10 ownership units may require rehabilitation, mostly due to long term owners, or children of long-term owners, that may own property but lack discretionary income to fund improvements.
3.4 HOME AND RENT VALUES
Home prices reflect a complex mix of supply and demand factors, including an area’s demographic profile, labor market, prevailing wages, and job outlook, coupled with land and construction costs. In the Bay Area, the costs of housing have long been among the highest in the nation. The typical home value in Portola Valley was estimated at $4,109,050 by December of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were valued between $2M+ (see Figure 22). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,418,330 in San Mateo County and $1,077,230 the Bay Area, with the largest share of units valued $1m-$1.5m (county) and $500k-$750k (region). 1%
32%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
30.0%
35.0%
Kitchen Plumbing
Percent of Units Lacking Amenity
Owner Renter
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-26 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 22: HOME VALUES OF OWNER-OCCUPIED UNITS
Universe: Owner-occupied units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075.
The region’s home values have increased steadily since 2000, besides a decrease during the Great Recession. The rise in home prices has been especially steep since 2012, with the median home value in the Bay Area nearly doubling during this time. Since 2001, the typical home value has increased 184.6% in Portola Valley from $1,443,590 to $4,109,050. This change is above the change in San Mateo County, and above the change for the region (see Figure 23).
Similar to home values, rents have also increased dramatically across the Bay Area in recent years.
Many renters have been priced out, evicted or displaced, particularly communities of color.
Residents finding themselves in one of these situations may have had to choose between commuting long distances to their jobs and schools or moving out of the region, and sometimes, out of the state.
In Portola Valley, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $3000 or more category, totaling 49.4%, followed by 15.3% of units renting in the Rent $1500-$2000 category (see Figure 24).
Looking beyond the city, the largest share of units is in the $3000 or more category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-27 FIGURE 23: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX (ZHVI)
Universe: Owner-occupied housing units
Notes: Zillow describes the ZHVI as a smoothed, seasonally adjusted measure of the typical home value and market changes across a given region and housing type. The ZHVI reflects the typical value for homes in the 35th to 65th percentile range. The ZHVI includes all owner-occupied housing units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. The regional estimate is a household-weighted average of county-level ZHVI files, where household counts are yearly estimates from DOF’s E-5 series For unincorporated areas, the value is a population weighted average of unincorporated communities in the county matched to census-designated population counts.
Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI).
FIGURE 24: CONTRACT RENTS FOR RENTER-OCCUPIED UNITS
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-28 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Since 2009, the median rent has increased by 47.1% in Portola Valley, from $2,000 to $2,940 per month (see Figure 25). In San Mateo County, the median rent has increased 41.1%, from $1,560 to $2,200. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,200 to $1,850, a 54% increase.18
FIGURE 25: MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT
Universe: Renter-occupied housing units paying cash rent Notes: For unincorporated areas, median is calculated using distribution in B25056.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data releases, starting with 2005-2009 through 2015-2019, B25058, B25056 (for unincorporated areas). County and regional counts are weighted averages of jurisdiction median using B25003 rental unit counts from the relevant year.
3.5 OVERPAYMENT AND OVERCROWDING
A household is considered “cost-burdened” if it spends more than 30% of its monthly income on housing costs, while those who spend more than 50% of their income on housing costs are considered “severely cost-burdened.” Low-income residents are the most impacted by high housing costs and experience the highest rates of cost burden. Spending such large portions of their income on housing puts low-income households at higher risk of displacement, eviction, or homelessness. 18 While the data on home values shown in Figure 23 comes from Zillow, Zillow does not have data on rent prices available for most Bay Area jurisdictions. To have a more comprehensive dataset on rental data for the region, the rent data in this document comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, which may not fully reflect current rents. Local jurisdiction staff may want to supplement the data on rents with local realtor data or other sources for rent data that are more current than Census Bureau data.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-29 FIGURE 26: COST BURDEN BY TENURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, B25091.
In Portola Valley, 13.5% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while 12.9% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 27). For example, 71.4% of Portola Valley households making less than 30% of AMI spend the majority of their income on housing. For Portola Valley residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 3.8% are severely cost-burdened, and 90.2% of those making more than 100% of AMI spend less than 30% of their income on housing.
While household incomes within Portola Valley are relatively high when compared to other jurisdictions, there are still households considered some level of cost burdened. In Portola Valley,
17.1% of households spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing and are considered “cost burdened” while 11.7% of households are severely cost burdened and use over 50% of their income for housing. There are disparities in housing cost burden in Portola Valley by tenure, while 20.2% of property owners experience cost burden, 46.9% of renters experience the same. This disparity may be attributed to the Bay Area’s relatively high housing prices, as well as a lack of affordable rental housing options within the Town, relative to need.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-30 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 27: COST BURDEN BY INCOME LEVEL
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability because of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. As a result, they often pay a greater percentage of their income on housing, and in turn, are at a greater risk of housing insecurity.
White, Non-Hispanic residents are the most cost burdened with 14.1% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing, and White, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with
14.4% spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 28).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-31 FIGURE 28: COST BURDEN BY RACE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latinx” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
Large family households often have special housing needs due to a lack of adequately sized affordable housing available. The higher costs required for homes with multiple bedrooms can result in larger families experiencing a disproportionate cost burden than the rest of the population and can increase the risk of housing insecurity.
In Portola Valley, 0.0% of large family households experience a cost burden of 30%-50%, while 0.0% of households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 13.7% of all other households have a cost burden of 30%-50%, with 14.3% of households spending more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-32 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 29: COST BURDEN BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
When cost-burdened seniors are no longer able to make house payments or pay rents, displacement from their homes can occur, putting further stress on the local rental market or forcing residents out of the community they call home. Understanding how seniors might be costburdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 71.4% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on housing. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, 94.5% are not cost-burdened and spend less than 30% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-33 FIGURE 30: COST-BURDENED SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME LEVEL Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Cost burden is the ratio of housing costs to household income. For renters, housing cost is gross rent (contract rent plus utilities). For owners, housing cost is “select monthly owner costs,” which includes mortgage payment, utilities, association fees, insurance, and real estate taxes. HUD defines cost-burdened households as those whose monthly housing costs exceed 30% of monthly income, while severely cost-burdened households are those whose monthly housing costs exceed 50% of monthly income. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
Overcrowding occurs when the number of people living in a household is greater than the home was designed to hold. There are several different standards for defining overcrowding, but this report uses the Census Bureau definition, which is more than one occupant per room (not including bathrooms or kitchens). Additionally, the Census Bureau considers units with more than 1.5 occupants per room to be severely overcrowded.
Overcrowding is often related to the cost of housing and can occur when demand in a city or region is high. In many cities, overcrowding is seen more amongst those that are renting, with multiple households sharing a unit to make it possible to stay in their communities. In Portola Valley, 0.0% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to
0.0% of households that own (see Figure 31). In Portola Valley, 8.1% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 0.0% for those own.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-34 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 31: OVERCROWDING BY TENURE AND SEVERITY
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
Overcrowding often disproportionately impacts low-income households. 0.0% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while 0.0% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 32).
FIGURE 32: OVERCROWDING BY INCOME LEVEL AND SEVERITY
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-35 Communities of color are more likely to experience overcrowding similar to how they are more likely to experience poverty, financial instability, and housing insecurity. People of color tend to experience overcrowding at higher rates than White residents. In Portola Valley, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is White, Non-Hispanic (see Figure 33).
FIGURE 33: OVERCROWDING BY RACE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Notes: The Census Bureau defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room (excluding bathrooms and kitchens), and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. For this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group is also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latinx. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Latinx may have very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and nonHispanic/Latinx, data for multiple white sub-groups are reported here. The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mutually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non-Hispanic” are mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for these groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-36
4. SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Some population groups may have special housing needs that require specific program responses, and these groups may experience barriers to accessing stable housing due to their specific housing circumstances. Government Code section 65583, subdivision (a)(7) requires each jurisdiction to include analyses for the following populations: large households, female-headed households, senior households, persons with disabilities (including developmental disabilities), homeless, and farmworkers.
4.1 LARGE HOUSEHOLDS
Large households often have different housing needs than smaller households. If a city’s rental housing stock does not include larger apartments, large households who rent could end up living in overcrowded conditions. In Portola Valley, for large households with 5 or more persons, most units (89.6%) are owner occupied (see Figure 34). In 2017, 0.0% of large households were very low-income, earning less than 50% of the AMI.
FIGURE 34: HOUSEHOLD SIZE BY TENURE
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009.
The unit sizes available in a community affect the household sizes that can access that community.
Large families are generally served by housing units with 3 or more bedrooms, of which there are 1,374 units in Portola Valley. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 9.9% are owneroccupied and 90.1% are renter occupied (see Figure 35). 214 573 197 200 120199 475269 14 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
1 Person
Household
2 Person
Household
3 Person
Household
4 Person
Household
5 Or More
Person
Household
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-37 FIGURE 35: HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042.
4.2 FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Households headed by one person are often at greater risk of housing insecurity, particularly female-headed households, who may be supporting children or a family with only one income. In Portola Valley, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 64.2% of total, while Female-Headed Households make up 5.8% of all households.
FIGURE 36: HOUSEHOLD TYPE
Universe: Households
Notes: For data from the Census Bureau, a “family household” is a household where two or more people are related by birth, marriage, or adoption. “Non-family households” are households of one person living alone, as well as households where none of the people are related to each other.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. 3333 1,023 215
18 139
88 136
0 200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
0 Bedrooms 1 Bedrooms 2 Bedrooms 3-4 Bedrooms 5 Or More Bedrooms
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-38 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Female-headed households with children may face particular housing challenges, with pervasive gender inequality resulting in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added need for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.
In Portola Valley, 0.0% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 0.0% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 37).
FIGURE 37: FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS BY POVERTY STATUS
Universe: Female Households
Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income (AMI).
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012.
4.3 SENIORS
Senior households often experience a combination of factors that can make accessing or keeping affordable housing a challenge. They often live on fixed incomes and are more likely to have disabilities, chronic health conditions and/or reduced mobility.
Seniors who rent may be at even greater risk for housing challenges than those who own, due to income differences between these groups. The largest proportion of senior households who rent make Greater than 100% of AMI, while the largest proportion of senior households who are homeowners falls in the income group Greater than 100% of AMI (see Figure 38).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-39 FIGURE 38: SENIOR HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME AND TENURE
Universe: Senior households
Notes: For the purposes of this graph, senior households are those with a householder who is aged 62 or older. Income groups are based on HUD calculations for Area Median Income (AMI). HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San JoseSunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County). The AMI levels in this chart are based on the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.
4.4 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES
People with disabilities face additional housing challenges. Encompassing a broad group of individuals living with a variety of physical, cognitive, and sensory impairments, many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes and are in need of specialized care, yet often rely on family members for assistance due to the high cost of care.
When it comes to housing, people with disabilities are not only in need of affordable housing but accessibly designed housing, which offers greater mobility and opportunity for independence.
Unfortunately, the need typically outweighs what is available, particularly in a housing market with such high demand. People with disabilities are at a high risk for housing insecurity, homelessness, and institutionalization, particularly when they lose aging caregivers. Figure 39 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of Portola Valley. Overall, 10.2% of people in Portola Valley have a disability of any kind.19
19 These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.
43% 50%
90%
50%
83%
57% 50%
10%
50%
17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Percent of Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-40 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 39: DISABILITY BY TYPE
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 18 years and over Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed. The Census Bureau provides the following definitions for these disability types:
Hearing difficulty: deaf or has serious difficulty hearing. Vision difficulty: blind or has serious difficulty seeing even with glasses. Cognitive difficulty: has serious difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions. Ambulatory difficulty: has serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. Self-care difficulty: has difficulty dressing or bathing. Independent living difficulty:
has difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.
State law also requires Housing Elements to examine the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities. Developmental disabilities are defined as severe, chronic, and attributed to a mental or physical impairment that begins before a person turns 18 years old. This can include Down’s Syndrome, autism, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and mild to severe mental retardation. Some people with developmental disabilities are unable to work, rely on Supplemental Security Income, and live with family members. In addition to their specific housing needs, they are at increased risk of housing insecurity after an aging parent or family member is no longer able to care for them.20 According to the California Department of Developmental Services, in Portola Valley, of the population with a developmental disability, children under the age of 18 make up 50.0%, while adults account for 50.0%.
20 For more information or data on developmental disabilities in your jurisdiction, contact the Golden Gate Regional Center for Marin, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties; the North Bay Regional Center for Napa, Solano and Sonoma Counties; the Regional Center for the East Bay for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties; or the San Andreas Regional Center for Santa Clara County.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-41 TABLE 4: POPULATION WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BY AGE Age Group Value
Age 18+ 3
Age Under 18 3
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020).
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-04.
The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in Portola Valley is the home of parent /family /guardian.
TABLE 5: POPULATION WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES BY RESIDENCE Residence Type Value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 3
Other 0
Foster /Family Home 0
Intermediate Care Facility 0
Community Care Facility 0
Independent /Supported Living 0
Universe: Population with developmental disabilities
Notes: The California Department of Developmental Services is responsible for overseeing the coordination and delivery of services to more than 330,000 Californians with developmental disabilities including cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, autism, epilepsy, and related conditions. The California Department of Developmental Services provides ZIP code level counts. To get jurisdiction-level estimates, ZIP code counts were crosswalked to jurisdictions using census block population counts from Census 2010 SF1 to determine the share of a ZIP code to assign to a given jurisdiction.
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020).
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table DISAB-05.
4.5 HOMELESSNESS
Homelessness remains an urgent challenge in many communities across the state, reflecting a range of social, economic, and psychological factors. Rising housing costs result in increased risks of community members experiencing homelessness. Far too many residents who have found themselves housing insecure have ended up unhoused or homeless in recent years, either temporarily or longer term. Addressing the specific housing needs for the unhoused population remains a priority throughout the region, particularly since homelessness is disproportionately experienced by people of color, people with disabilities, those struggling with addiction and those dealing with traumatic life circumstances. In San Mateo County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-42 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 75.5% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in transitional housing (see Figure 40).
FIGURE 40: HOMELESSNESS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND SHELTER STATUS, SAN MATEO COUNTY Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019).
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability because of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents. Consequently, people of color are often disproportionately impacted by homelessness, particularly Black residents of the Bay Area. In San Mateo County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents represent the largest proportion of residents experiencing homelessness and account for 66.6% of the homeless population, while making up 50.6% of the overall population (see Figure 41).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-43 FIGURE 41: RACIAL GROUP SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATIONS, SAN MATEO COUNTY Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. HUD does not disaggregate racial demographic data by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness. Instead, HUD reports data on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for people experiencing homelessness in a separate table.
Accordingly, the racial group data listed here includes both Hispanic/Latinx and non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I).
In San Mateo, Latinx residents represent 38.1% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 24.7% of the general population (see Figure 42).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-44 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 42: LATINX SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATIONS, SAN MATEO COUNTY Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. The data from HUD on Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity for individuals experiencing homelessness does not specify racial group identity. Accordingly, individuals in either ethnic group identity category (Hispanic/Latinx or non-Hispanic/Latinx) could be of any racial background.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-I).
Many of those experiencing homelessness are dealing with severe issues – including mental illness, substance abuse and domestic violence – that are potentially life threatening and require additional assistance. In San Mateo County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 305 reporting this condition (see Figure 43). Of those, some 62.0% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-45 FIGURE 43: CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE POPULATION EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, SAN MATEO COUNTY
Universe: Population experiencing homelessness
Notes: This data is based on Point-in-Time (PIT) information provided to HUD by CoCs in the application for CoC Homeless Assistance Programs. The PIT Count provides a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons on a single night during the last ten days in January. Each Bay Area county is its own CoC, and so the data for this table is provided at the county-level. Per HCD’s requirements, jurisdictions will need to supplement this county-level data with local estimates of people experiencing homelessness. These challenges/characteristics are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one challenge/characteristic. These counts should not be summed.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019).
San Mateo County conducted the latest point-in-time (PIT) Count on February 24, 2022. Volunteers were deployed to conduct an observational count of those experiencing unsheltered homelessness.
San Mateo County conducted the unsheltered homeless survey through March 3, 2022. In both 2019 and 2022, Portola Valley had 0 homeless individuals according to the most recent PIT San Mateo County data (https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/2022-one-day-homeless-count) (see Table 6).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-46 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE 6: UNSHELTERED HOMELESS COUNT BY SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTION City/Town
2011
Count
2013
Count
2015
Count
2017
Count
2019
Count 2022 Count
Atherton 1 0 1 0 1 3
Belmont 1 43 11 3 7 13
Brisbane 0 34 21 19 4 6
Burlingame 3 13 7 21 25 10
Colma 1 7 3 1 8 1
Daly City 44 27 32 17 66 49
East Palo Alto 385 119 95 98 107 169
Foster City 0 7 0 6 4 4
Half Moon Bay 41 114 84 43 54 68
Hillsborough 0 0 0 0 0 0
Menlo Park 72 16 27 47 27 56
Millbrae 1 21 8 7 9 9
Pacifica 95 150 63 112 116 161
Portola Valley 16 2 0 1 0 0
Redwood City 233 306 223 94 221 245
San Bruno 14 98 8 26 12 63
San Carlos 9 10 20 28 30 14
San Francisco International
Airport 9 5 1 3 21 14
San Mateo 68 103 82 48 74 60
South San Francisco 122 173 55 33 42 42
Unincorporated 47 46 32 30 73 105
Woodside 0 6 2 0 0 0
Total 1,162 1,299 775 637 901 1,092
Note: Universe: Population experiencing homelessness.
Source: San Mateo County: Annual Point in Time Count Report.
In Portola Valley, there were no reported students experiencing homeless in the 2019-20 school year. By comparison, San Mateo County has seen a 37.5% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness decreased by 8.5%. During the 2019-2020 school year, there were still some 13,718 students experiencing homelessness throughout the region, adding undue burdens on learning and thriving, with the potential for longer term negative effects.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-47 TABLE 7: STUDENTS IN LOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS Academic Year Portola Valley San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 0 1,910 14,990
2017-18 0 1,337 15,142
2018-19 0 1,934 15,427
2019-20 0 1,194 13,718
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The California Department of Education considers students to be homeless if they are unsheltered, living in temporary shelters for people experiencing homelessness, living in hotels/motels, or temporarily doubled up and sharing the housing of other persons due to the loss of housing or economic hardship. The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020).
This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table HOMELS-05.
4.6 FARMWORKERS
Across the state, housing for farmworkers has been recognized as an important and unique concern. Farmworkers generally receive wages that are considerably lower than other jobs and may have temporary housing needs. Finding decent and affordable housing can be challenging, particularly in the current housing market.
In Portola Valley, there were no reported students of migrant workers in the 2019-20 school year.
The trend for the region for the past few years has been a decline of 2.4% in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year. The change at the county level is a 57.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.
TABLE 8: MIGRANT WORKER STUDENT POPULATION
Academic Year Portola Valley San Mateo County Bay Area
2016-17 0 657 4,630
2017-18 0 418 4,607
2018-19 0 307 4,075
2019-20 0 282 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
Notes: The data used for this table was obtained at the school site level, matched to a file containing school locations, geocoded and assigned to jurisdiction, and finally summarized by geography.
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020) This table is included in the Data Packet Workbook as Table FARM-01.
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in San Mateo County has decreased since 2002, totaling 978 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 343 in 2017 (see Figure 44).
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-48 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 44: FARM OPERATIONS AND FARM LABOR BY COUNTY, SAN MATEO COUNTY Universe: Hired farm workers (including direct hires and agricultural service workers who are often hired through labor contractors)
Notes: Farm workers are considered seasonal if they work on a farm less than 150 days in a year, while farm workers who work on a farm more than 150 days are considered to be permanent workers for that farm.
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor.
4.7 NON-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
California has long been an immigration gateway to the United States, which means that many languages are spoken throughout the Bay Area. Since learning a new language is universally challenging, it is not uncommon for residents who have immigrated to the United States to have limited English proficiency. This limit can lead to additional disparities if there is a disruption in housing, such as an eviction, because residents might not be aware of their rights, or they might be wary to engage due to immigration status concerns. In Portola Valley, 1.8% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is below the proportion for San Mateo County. Throughout the region the proportion of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW B-49 FIGURE 45: POPULATION WITH LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Universe: Population 5 years and over
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B16005.
APPENDIX B | HOUSING NEEDS DATA REPORT
B-50 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT This page intentionally left blank
APPENDIX C: PORTOLA VALLEY
FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Report Content and Organization ............................................................................................................1
2. Introduction and Primary Findings ..........................................................................................................2
2.1 What is AFFH? ....................................................................................................................................2
2.2 History of Segregation in the Region..............................................................................................3
2.2.1 History of Portola Valley.......................................................................................................4
2.2.2 Zoning and Land Use Patterns ............................................................................................6
2.2.3 Past Affordable Housing Development Attempts.............................................................8
2.2.4 Primary Findings....................................................................................................................9
3. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity..............................................................................13
3.1 Compliance with State Law............................................................................................................16
4. Integration and Segregation ...................................................................................................................20
4.1 Defining Segregation ......................................................................................................................21
4.2 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area...........................................................................................22
4.3 Segregation and Land Use .............................................................................................................22
4.3.1 Racial Segregation in Portola Valley..................................................................................22
4.3.2 Income Segregation in Town of Portola Valley................................................................42
4.3.3 Segregation of Special Needs Households in Town of Portola Valley..........................51
5. Access to Opportunity..............................................................................................................................62
5.1 Education..........................................................................................................................................62
5.2 Employment.....................................................................................................................................64
5.3 Transportation.................................................................................................................................67
5.4 Environment ....................................................................................................................................68
5.5 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ............................................................................................73
5.6 Disparities Specific to the Population Living with a Disability...................................................76
6. Disproportionate Housing Needs...........................................................................................................79
6.1 Housing Needs ................................................................................................................................79
6.2 Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden..........................................................................................82
6.3 Overcrowding ..................................................................................................................................86
6.4 Substandard Housing .....................................................................................................................89
6.5 Homelessness..................................................................................................................................89
6.6 Displacement...................................................................................................................................91
6.7 Access to Mortgage Loans .............................................................................................................96
7. Site Inventory Analysis .............................................................................................................................98
7.1 Location of Existing Affordable Housing......................................................................................98
7.2 Distribution of Sites in the Sites Inventory ..................................................................................98
7.3 Potential Effect on Patterns of Segregation.................................................................................99
7.4 Potential Effect on Access to Opportunity ...................................................................................99
7.5 Potential Effect on Disproportionate Housing Needs................................................................99
8. Contributing Factors and Fair Housing Action Plan.......................................................................... 100
9. References .............................................................................................................................................. 105 APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-ii AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT List of Figures
Figure 1: Fair Housing Assistance Organizations, San Mateo County ..................................................14 Figure 2. Fair Housing Complaints Filed with HUD by Basis, San Mateo County, 2017-2021 ...........14 Figure 3: Fair Housing Enforcement Summary........................................................................................15 Figure 4: Public Housing Buildings, San Mateo County ..........................................................................18 Figure 5: Housing Choice Vouchers by Census Tract..............................................................................19 Figure 6: Population by Race and Ethnicity, 2019....................................................................................23 Figure 7: Population by Race and Ethnicity, Portola Valley, 2000-2019................................................23 Figure 8: Senior and Youth Population by Race, Portola Valley, 2000-2019 ........................................24 Figure 9: Area Median Income by Race and Ethnicity, Portola Valley, 2019 ........................................24 Figure 10: Poverty Rate by Race and Ethnicity, Portola Valley, 2019.......................................................25 Figure 11: Racial Dot Map of Portola Valley (2020)....................................................................................26 Figure 12: Racial Isolation Index Values for Portola Valley Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ......................................................................................................................28 Figure 13: Percent Non-White Population by Census Block Groups, 2018 ............................................31 Figure 14: White Majority Census Tracts.....................................................................................................32 Figure 15: Asian Majority Census Tracts .....................................................................................................33 Figure 16: Hispanic Majority Census Tracts................................................................................................34 Figure 17: Racial Dot Map of Portola Valley and Surrounding Areas (2020)..........................................35 Figure 18: Racial Demographics of Portola Valley Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020).....36 Figure 19: Comparing the Share of People of Color in Portola Valley and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)....................................................................................................................................37 Figure 20: Neighborhood Segregation by Census Tract, 2019.................................................................39 Figure 21: Diversity Index by Block Group, 2010 .......................................................................................40 Figure 22: Diversity Index by Block Group, 2018 .......................................................................................41 Figure 23: Share of Households by Area Median Income (AMI), 2019....................................................42 Figure 24: Income Dot Map of Portola Valley (2015).................................................................................43 Figure 25: Poverty Status by Census Tract, 2019.......................................................................................44 Figure 26: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Portola Valley Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) .............................................................................................................46 Figure 27: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Portola Valley Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) .............................................................................................................47 Figure 28: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for Portola Valley Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) .............................................................................................................48 Figure 29: Income Dot Map of Portola Valley and Surrounding Areas (2015) .......................................49 Figure 30: Income Demographics of Portola Valley Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015).............................................................................................................................................50 Figure 31: Share of Population by Disability Status, 2019 ........................................................................52 Figure 32: Percent of Population with a Disability by Census Tract, 2019 .............................................53 Figure 33: Share of Households by Type, 2019..........................................................................................54 Figure 34: Share of Households by Presence of Children (Less than 18 Years Old), 2019 ..................54 Figure 35: Share of Households by Size, 2019 ...........................................................................................55 Figure 36: Housing Type by Tenure, Portola Valley, 2019 ........................................................................55 Figure 37: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms and Tenure, Portola Valley, 2019 ........................56 Figure 38: R/ECAPs and Edge R/ECAPs, 2010 .............................................................................................58 Figure 39: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)—Surrounding Communities ...............60 Figure 40: Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)—Regional...............................................61 APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-iii Figure 41: TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Score by Census Tract, 2021 ........................................63 Figure 42: Jobs by Industry, Portola Valley, 2002-2018.............................................................................64 Figure 43: Job Holders by Industry, Portola Valley, 2002-2018................................................................65 Figure 44: Jobs to Household Ratio, Portola Valley, 2002-2018...............................................................65 Figure 45: Jobs Proximity Index by Block Group, 2017 .............................................................................66 Figure 46: TCAC Opportunity Areas Environmental Score by Census Tract, 2021................................69 Figure 47: CalEnviroScreen by Census Tract, 2021....................................................................................70 Figure 48: Healthy Places Index by Census Tract, 2021............................................................................71 Figure 49: TCAC Opportunity Areas Composite Score by Census Tract, 2021.......................................72 Figure 50: Population Living in Moderate and High Resource Ares by Race and Ethnicity, Portola Valley, 2019 .....................................................................................................................73 Figure 51: Social Vulnerability Index by Census Tract, 2018 ....................................................................74 Figure 52: SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities ........................................................................................75 Figure 53: Population by Disability Status, Portola Valley, 2019..............................................................76 Figure 54: Disability by Type for the Non-Institutionalized Population 18 Years and Over, Portola Valley, 2019 .....................................................................................................................76 Figure 55: Disability by Type for Seniors (65 years and over), Portola Valley, 2019..............................77 Figure 56: Employment by Disability Status, Portola Valley, 2019...........................................................77 Figure 57: Population Indexed to 1990 .......................................................................................................79 Figure 58: Housing Units by Year Built, Portola Valley..............................................................................80 Figure 59: Distribution of Home Value for Owner Occupied Units, 2019...............................................80 Figure 60: Zillow Home Value Index, 2001-2020........................................................................................81 Figure 61: Distribution of Contract Rents for Renter Occupied Units, 2019..........................................81 Figure 62: Median Contract Rent, 2009-2019.............................................................................................82 Figure 63: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Jurisdiction, 2019 ..................................................................82 Figure 64: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Area Median Income (AMI), Portola Valley, 2019 .............83 Figure 65: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Tenure, Portola Valley, 2019 ...............................................83 Figure 66: Overpayment (Cost Burden) by Race and Ethnicity, Portola Valley, 2019............................84 Figure 67: Overpayment (Cost Burden) for Renter Households by Census Tract, 2021 ......................85 Figure 68: Occupants per Room by Jurisdiction, 2019 ..............................................................................86 Figure 69: Occupants per Room by Tenure, Portola Valley, 2019 ...........................................................86 Figure 70: Overcrowding by Race and Ethnicity, Portola Valley, 2019 ....................................................87 Figure 71: Overcrowding of All Housing Units by Census Tract, 2021....................................................88 Figure 72: Percent of Units Lacking Complete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities, Portola Valley, 2019 ...............................................................................................................................................89 Figure 73: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, San Mateo County, 2019 .............89 Figure 74: Share of General and Homeless Populations by Race, San Mateo County, 2019...............90 Figure 75: Share of General and Homeless Populations by Ethnicity, San Mateo County, 2019........90 Figure 76: Characteristics of the Population Experiencing Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019 ...............................................................................................................................................91 Figure 77: Location of Population One Year Ago, 2019 ............................................................................91 Figure 78: Tenure by Year Moved to Current Residence, Portola Valley, 2019 .....................................92 Figure 79: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion, 2019 ..............................................................................92 Figure 80: Census Tracts Vulnerable to Displacement..............................................................................94 Figure 81: Location Affordability Index by Census Tract ..........................................................................95 Figure 82: Mortgage Applications by Race and Ethnicity, Portola Valley, 2018-2019 ...........................96 APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-iv AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT List of Tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Portola Valley .....................................27 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Portola Valley...............................29 Table 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within Portola Valley .....................................30 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, Portola Valley, and the Region .................................................36 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .....................................................................................38 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within Portola Valley......................45 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within Portola Valley ...............47 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within Portola Valley...................................48 Table 9 Population by Income Group, Portola Valley, and the Region...............................................49 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures ..................................................................................51 Table 11: Fair Housing Action Plan.......................................................................................................... 101 PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-1
1. REPORT CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION
This Fair Housing Assessment follows the April 2021 State of California State Guidance for AFFH. The study was conducted as part of the 21 Elements process, which facilitates the completion of Housing Elements for all San Mateo County jurisdictions.
26TSection 1. Introduction and Primary Findings
26TSection 2. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity26T reviews lawsuits/enforcement actions/complaints against the jurisdiction; compliance with state fair housing laws and regulations; and jurisdictional capacity to conduct fair housing outreach and education. 26TSection 3. Integration and Segregation26T identifies areas of concentrated segregation, degrees of segregation, and the groups that experience the highest levels of segregation, including racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence.
26TSection 4. Access to Opportunity26T examines differences in access to education, transportation, economic development, and healthy environments.
26TSection 5. Disproportionate Housing Needs26T identifies which groups have disproportionate housing needs including displacement risk.
26TSection 6. Contributing Factors 26Tidentifies the primary factors contributing to fair housing challenges.
26TSection 7. Site Inventory Analysis analyzes the Sites Inventory to ensure sites for lower-income housing are located equitably with fair access to opportunities and resources. 26TSection 8. Policies and Programs26T provides the plan for taking meaningful actions to improve access to housing and economic opportunity.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-2 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
2. INTRODUCTION AND PRIMARY FINDINGS
2.1 WHAT IS AFFH?
The State of California’s 2018 Assembly Bill (AB 686) requires that all public agencies in the state affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) beginning January 1, 2019. Public agencies receiving funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) are also required to demonstrate their commitment to AFFH. The federal obligation stems from the fair housing component of the federal Civil Rights Act mandating federal fund recipients to take “meaningful actions” to address segregation and related barriers to fair housing choice.
AB 686 requires all public agencies to “administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing and take no action inconsistent with this obligation.”0FP0F
1 AB 686 also makes changes to Housing Element Law to incorporate requirements to AFFH as part of the housing element and general plan to include an analysis of fair housing outreach and capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and current fair housing practices.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 14. 1 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 9.
AF F I RM A TIV EL Y FU R TH ER I NG FAI R HO U SI NG
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing” means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. (Gov. Code, § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)” APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-3
2.2 HISTORY OF SEGREGATION IN THE REGION
The United States’ oldest cities have a history of mandating segregated living patterns—and Northern California cities are no exception. ABAG, in its recent Fair Housing Equity Assessment, attributes segregation in the Bay Area to
historically discriminatory practices—highlighting redlining and discriminatory mortgage approvals—as well as
“structural inequities” in society, and “self-segregation” (i.e., preferences to live near similar people).
Researcher Richard Rothstein’s 2017 book The Color of Law:
A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated
America chronicles how the public sector contributed to the segregation that exists today. Rothstein highlights several significant developments in the Bay Area region that played a large role in where the region’s non-White residents
settled.
Pre-civil rights San Mateo County faced resistance to racial integration, yet it was reportedly less direct than in some Northern California communities, taking the form of “blockbusting” and “steering” or intervention by public officials. These local discriminatory practices were exacerbated by actions of the Federal Housing Administration which excluded lowincome neighborhoods, where the majority of people of color lived, from its mortgage loan program.
According to the San Mateo County Historical Association. San Mateo County’s early African Americans worked in a variety of industries, from logging, to agriculture, to restaurants and entertainment.
Expansion of jobs, particularly related to shipbuilding during and after World War II attracted many new residents into the Peninsula, including the first sizable migration of African Americans.
Enforcement of racial covenants after the war forced the migration of the county’s African Americans into neighborhoods where they were allowed to occupy housing—housing segregated into less desirable areas, next to highways, and concentrated in public housing and urban renewal developments.
The private sector contributed to segregation through activities that discouraged (blockbusting) or prohibited (restrictive covenants) integrated neighborhoods. “White only” covenants were common in homeownership developments in San Mateo County, as were large lot and exclusive zoning practices.
A prominent developer who deeds that specified that only “members of the Caucasian or White race shall be permitted” to occupy sold homes—the exception being “domestics in the employ[ment] on the premises”1FP1F
2 P went on to develop many race-restricted neighborhoods in the Bay Area, became president of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), became national president of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), and was inducted into California’s Homebuilding Foundation Hall of Fame. 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm-residential-segregation.html This history of segregation in the
region is important not only to
understand how residential
settlement patterns came
about—but, more importantly, to
explain differences in housing
opportunity among residents
today. In sum, not all residents
had the ability to build housing
wealth or achieve economic
opportunity. This historically
unequal playing field in part
determines why residents have
different housing needs today.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-4 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Residents of color were denied ownership in cases where prices had been raised through “blockbusting.” The segregatory effect of blockbusting activities is well-documented in East Palo Alto.
In 1954, after a White family in East Palo Alto sold their home to an African American family, the thenpresident of the California Real Estate Association set up an office in East Palo Alto to scare White families into selling their homes (“for fear of declining property values”) to agents and speculators.
These agents then sold these homes at over-inflated prices to African American buyers, some of whom had trouble making their payments. Within six years, East Palo Alto—initially established with “whites only” neighborhoods—became 82% African American. The FHA prevented re-integration by refusing to insure mortgages held by White buyers residing in East Palo Alto.
Throughout the county, neighborhood associations and city leaders attempted to thwart integration of communities. Although some neighborhood residents supported integration, most did not, and it was not unusual for neighborhood associations to require acceptance of all new buyers. Builders with intentions to develop for all types of buyers (regardless of race) found that their development sites were rezoned by planning councils, required very large minimum lot sizes, and\or were denied public infrastructure to support their developments or charged prohibitively high amounts for infrastructure.
The timeline of major federal Acts and court decisions related to fair housing choice and zoning and land use appears on the following page. As shown in the timeline, exclusive zoning practices were common in the early 1900s. Courts struck down only the most discriminatory and allowed those that would be considered today to have a “disparate impact” on classes protected by the Fair Housing Act.
For example, the 1926 case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. (272 U.S. 365) supported the segregation of residential, business, and industrial uses, justifying separation by characterizing apartment buildings as “mere parasite(s)” with the potential to “utterly destroy” the character and desirability of neighborhoods. At that time, multi-family apartments were the only housing options for people of color, including immigrants.
The Federal Fair Housing Act was not enacted until nearly 60 years after the first racial zoning ordinances appeared in U.S. cities. This coincided with a shift away from federal control over lowincome housing toward locally-tailored approaches (block grants) and market-oriented choice (Section 8 subsidies)—the latter of which is only effective when adequate affordable rental units are available.
2.2.1 HISTORY OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Portola Valley, California, sits in a peaceful valley astride the San Andreas Fault, one of the most dangerous earthquake faults in the world. Since incorporation in 1964, development has been slow and the town has kept a rural ambiance reminiscent of days gone by. The origins of the modern town of Portola Valley are in the logging Town of Searsville that stood along Sand Hill Road from the 1850s until 1891. It offered services for the men who came to cut the redwoods for the post gold rush building boom.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-5 Major Public and Legal Actions that Influence Fair Access to Housing APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-6 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT At the dawn of the twentieth century, Andrew Hallidie (inventor of San Francisco's cable cars) lived on a large estate extending from Portola Road to the Skyline. He offered a portion of his Eagle Home Farm as a site for a school to replace the one at Searsville, and the small village of Portola developed around it near today's Episcopal church. The area became a place of small farms and large estates.
Immigrants from Ireland, Portugal, Croatia, Italy, China, the Philippines, Chile, and Germany joined the Californios to raise strawberries, herd cattle and cut firewood. The large landowners came from San Francisco to escape the summer fog. A few were year-round residents.
2.2.2 ZONING AND LAND USE PATTERNS
Extensive residential development in Portola Valley did not begin until after World War II and by the early 1960s many residents had become alarmed by increasing pressures for housing and business expansion. Therefore, in 1964 they voted to incorporate to have local control over development. The goals were to preserve the beauty of the land, to foster low-density housing, to keep government costs low by having a cadre of volunteers, and to limit services to those necessary for residents.
The aforementioned goal of ‘fostering low-density housing’ still shapes Portola Valley’s current land use patterns. In a 2020 report, the Othering & Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley found that 100% of residential zoning in Portola Valley is zoned for single-family.P2F 3 P To analyze levels of racial segregation
and composition based on the percentage of single-family zoning, the authors utilized the Divergence Index to compare the relative proportions of racial groups in a locality to those of the larger geographic area, on a scale of zero to one.P3F
4 P Cities with high percentages (90% to 100%) of single-family zoning, such as Portola Valley, have the highest level of divergence from the average racial composition of the Bay Area. While the average of all Bay Area cities is 0.13, the Divergence Index of cities with high single-family zoning cities is 0.21. This indicates that Portola Valley’s current land use designations contribute to high inter-municipal segregation and exhibits how single-family zoning produces racial and economic exclusion.
The report also found that Bay Area cities with high levels of single-family zoning have median incomes $34,000 higher and home values $100,000 higher than those of cities with low levels of single-family zoning. The 2021 median household income in Portola Valley was more than double that of the county average: $250,000+ as compared to approximately $137,000 in San Mateo County.P4F 5,
5F
6 P Single-family
zoning is also associated with higher rates of homeownership. As homeownership serves as a central form of wealth building in the United States, this points to single-family zoning as a cause of wealth disparities between Portola Valley and other cities in the Bay Area. While the rate of homeownership 3 Othering & Belonging Institute, 2020. Residential Zoning, Portola Valley. Available: https://belonging.berkeley.edu/ sites/default/files/portola_valley_zoning_map.png.
4 Othering & Belonging Institute, 2020. Single-Family Zoning in the San Francisco Bay Area. October 7. Available:
https://belonging.berkeley.edu/single-family-zoning-san-francisco-bay-area. 5 U.S. Census Bureau, 2022.QuickFacts San Mateo County, California; United States. Available: https://www.census.gov/ quickfacts/fact/table/sanmateocountycalifornia,US/PST045222. 6 U.S. Census Bureau, 2021. Table S1901 Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2021 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). Available:
https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2021.S1901?q=median+household+income+portola+valley+2021 APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-7 is 80% in Portola Valley, is only 59.8% in the County.P6F 7,
7F
8 P Further, Portola Valley’s limited racial and ethnic diversity in comparison to San Mateo County demonstrates that single-family zoning contributes to wealth disparities between White residents and residents of color in the region at large. In the TCAC Opportunity Map, Portola Valley receives the designation of “Highest Opportunity”, meaning that residents have access to resources, including higher performing schools and safer environmental conditions, largely determined by socioeconomic factors. Therefore, single-family zoning not only excludes lower-income households from affording housing in Portola Valley, but also bars them from accessing these resources.
Residential Zoning in Portola Valley, CA
7 Data USA, 2021. Portola Valley, CA. Available: https://datausa.io/profile/geo/portola-valley-ca 8 Ibid.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-8 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
2.2.3 PAST AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ATTEMPTS
Currently, the only multi-family housing that serves lower income residents is at the Priory School.
The Town does not have any multi-family zoning, and several attempts at developing affordable housing in the town have failed. This section describes four attempts to develop affordable housing in Portola Valley that ultimately were abandoned by Town Council due to various levels of community concerns.
Nathhorst Development
In 2003, an affordable housing development proposed of smaller condo units was approved by the Town Council, as well as a zoning change to permit 5.3 houses per acre. However, the Town held a referendum to defeat it. The Town had an earlier affordable housing plan that was rejected by voters.
In 2003, the council rezoned 3.6 acres near the corner of Alpine and Portola roads for 15 to 20 small homes. Residents concerned about higher housing densities and their presumed effects on property values put a referendum on the ballot, and a narrow majority overturned the zoning decision.
Blue Oaks
To comply with the Town’s inclusionary housing ordinance adopted in 1991, the Blue Oaks developer made several efforts to build eight moderate income housing units in Blue Oaks subdivision. In 1999, unsuccessful in their efforts to build affordable housing, the developer conveyed the lots at Blue Oaks set aside for the moderate-income units to the Town. After extensive conversations with five affordable housing partners as well as consideration of alternative locations within the Blue Oaks subdivision, the Town determined that the development of eight moderate income housing units was not economically feasible on the Blue Oaks land. There was a negative reaction from the Blue Oaks residents about the implementation of the affordable units. For example, property owners said that potential future residents of the affordable units would not be allowed to use the Homeowners Association’s (HOAs) pool. It was therefore determined that the Town should investigate alternative options that would result in the construction of affordable units.
In 2009, the Town adopted an update to the Housing Element of the Town’s General Plan which included an option of selling the Town’s land in Blue Oaks so that the Town could pursue affordable housing at another site. The Town’s Blue Oaks lots (3 and 5 Buck Meadow Drive) were listed for sale in September 2012. The Town sold one to the Blue Oaks HOA (now permanent open space) and the other one was sold for market rate development. The sales generated $2,790,096 which was deposited to the Town’s Inclusionary Housing Fund to go toward purchasing what would become the Windmill property. Eventually, the $100,000 deposit for the purchase of 900 Portola Road was returned to the Town following the expiration of the purchase and sale agreement for the site. There were some suggestions to locate affordable units on property in Los Trancos, but that idea was not pursued.
Windmill School Property
In June 2012, the Town announced its intent to purchase 900 Portola Road as a potential site for construction of the Housing Element required moderate income housing units. The site was the former location of Al’s Nursery, which had environmental contamination issues. To fund the purchase APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-9 of 900 Portola Road for such housing, the Town would use proceeds from the sale of the Blue Oaks lots. A full Town Council meeting included opponents of the housing plan and advocates for Windmill School, a private preschool that had been considering the site for a permanent home. A notice from the County of San Mateo regarding progress on the hazardous material cleanup had raised concerns.
In addition, Town residents were very concerned to lose the school, citing personal memories from their children attending the school. Others felt Windmill School’s proposed relocation to 990 Portola Road would enable the school to offer more of the programs families desired. Opponents spoke during the oral communications period at the start of the meeting. Speakers for the school and against the housing were well represented. There were not comments in favor of the affordable housing project. Since the matter was not on the formal agenda, the Council could not comment. The site was not pursued for affordable housing and Windmill School eventually gained approval for the preschool to move to the site.
After the Town’s sale of the lots at Blue Oaks and attempt to purchase 900 Portola Road for affordable housing, several residents became aware of and interested in addressing the challenge of affordable housing in the community. The Town Council, therefore, established the Affordable Housing Ad-Hoc Committee to focus on addressing some of the challenges associated with affordable housing in town.
2.2.4 PRIMARY FINDINGS
This section summarizes the primary findings from the Fair Housing Assessment for Portola Valley including the following sections: fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity, integration and segregation, access to opportunity, disparate housing needs, and contributing factors and the Town’s fair housing action plan.
▪ Compared to the county overall, Portola Valley has limited racial and ethnic diversity:
Countywide, racial/ethnic minorities account for 61% of the overall population; however, they only account for 18% in Portola Valley.
▪ Economic diversity is also limited: 73% of households in Portola earn more than 100% AMI compared to 49% in the county overall. All census block groups in the town have median incomes above $125,000 and poverty is low throughout Portola Valley. ▪ Looking at trends over time, although household income has continually increased, the Town has been successful in maintaining diversity in ethnicity, income, disability, and household characteristic—although these residents make up a very small portion of the Town. Between 2010 and 2020, according to estimates from the American Community Survey, Portola Valley’s number of residents of Hispanic descent increased by 43 people. Persons living in poverty increased by 15 people. Persons with disabilities increased by 150 people. Single female heads of household increased by 20 households.
▪ Countywide, racial and ethnic minority populations are disproportionately impacted by poverty, low household incomes, cost burden, overcrowding, and homelessness compared to the non-Hispanic White population. Additionally, racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resources areas and be denied for a home mortgage loan. ▪ Similar disparities are not evident in the Town of Portola Valley, however, in part due to the limited racial/ethnic and economic diversity noted above. In the regional context, Portola Valley APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-10 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT represents a high opportunity area with relatively low accessibility to low- and moderateincome households, which are more likely to be racial/ethnic minorities. ▪ No fair housing complaints were filed in Portola Valley from 2017 to 2021. Even so, the Town of Portola Valley could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on their website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The Town does include information on fair housing but it is located under a “State Housing Element Requirement” heading page.2FP8F 9 P As
part of this Update, a new program proposes elevating fair housing information to the “Housing in Portola Valley” page and identifying it as a resources for residents to understand and report housing discrimination.
▪ Overpayment (cost burden) impacts renters more than homeowners in Portola Valley. There are disparities in housing cost burden in Portola Valley by tenure—but the population of racial minorities is so low that there are not disparities by race/ethnicity. 17.1% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 11.7% of those that own. Additionally, 23.1% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while only 8.4% of owners are severely cost-burdened. Overall, smaller portion of households in Portola Valley (25%) struggle with cost burden compared to the county (37%). The programs in this update include new multi-family and mixed-use zoning districts intended to provide more diverse housing types that would be more affordable.
▪ The vast majority of households (98%) in Portola Valley are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room. Based on ACS 2017-2021 data, 1.46% of the housing units in the census tract the Town is located in is overcrowded.
▪ The composite opportunity score for Portola Valley shows the town to be a “highest resource area” and the Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) ranks the town as “low vulnerability to a disaster (based on four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation). ▪ Portola Valley is entirely contained within a single census tract—the standard geographic measure for “neighborhoods” in U.S. Census data products. As such, the town does not contain any racial/ethnic concentrations, poverty concentrations, nor concentrations of housing problems. ▪ Portola Valley is a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence (RCAA). 82.5% of this RCAA is white with an average median income (AMI) of $237,163. Portola Valley is not unique in this; surrounding communities are also all RCAAs, with an average median income of $140,625-$250,001. The region at large has a lower AMI in comparison to these areas; the AMI in San Mateo County is $122,641.
Portola Valley has consistently had a higher average median income in comparison to the County; in 2010, San Mateo County had an AMI of $85,648 and the Town had an AMI of $167,227. ▪ Accordingly, the Town’s Housing Sites Inventory prioritizes increasing affordable housing opportunities throughout the town. Sites at the edge of the town boundary (Ladera Church, Village SquareVacant Portion of Dorothy Ford Park and Open Space site, Stanford Glen Oaks, Skyline Open Space, and Christ Church) are adjacent to RCAAs outside of Portola Valley.
Additionally, these sites are located outside of geological hazard and very high fire hazard areas and are situated in areas with adequate infrastructure to serve the sites. From a broader regional 9 Town of Portola Valley, undated. Available: https://www.portolavalley.net APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-11 perspective, providing increased lower-income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Portola Valley will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of segregation, disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups, disproportional housing needs, and foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity. The wide distribution of housing sites will provide additional housing options for lower income households to choose housing near amenities and services, including accessibility to parks/trails, schools, shopping, and transportation and near desirable resources such as employment and high-quality education.
▪ Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto. These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County. Program 8-8 in this Housing Element addresses how Portola Valley will continue to perform fair housing training in partnership with Project Sentinel for property owners, real estate agents, and tenants across the region to promote housing mobility.
▪ Portola Valley, 1Tserved by the Sequoia Union High School District and the Portola Valley Elementary School District,1T has very high education outcomes. However, the schools in Portola Valley have the highest share of White students in the County, making them 1Tamong the least racially and ethnically diverse districts.1T Portola Valley has the least diverse faculty and staff in the county, with 59% identifying as White. While Sequoia Union has among the highest rate of graduates who met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school, Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic students in the Sequoia Union district were substantially less likely to meet the admission standards, with rates of 38%, 50%, and 55% respectively. Overall, Sequoia Union High School has one of the highest dropout rates—10% of students—compared to other districts in the county. Still, dropout rates among Hispanic (16%), Black (12%), and Pacific Islander (20%) students are even higher. ▪ Portola Valley lacks a variety of housing types. In 2020, 81.1% of homes in Portola Valley were single family detached, 0.0% were single family attached, 2.1% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 16.8% were medium or large multifamily (5+ units). The medium or large multifamily units are located at The Sequoias. There is no multifamily zoning in Portola Valley. ▪ Portola Valley is home to more single-person households than the County, with 25% of households compared to only 22% in the County. Additionally, there are more married-couple families in Portola Valley (64%) than in the County (55%), offset by fewer single-parent households (6% in Portola Valley, compared to 10% in County) and fewer non-family multipleperson households (3% in Portola Valley, compared to 8% in the County). ▪ Barriers to housing choice are largely related to the town’s very high costs of housing and lack of affordable production. Since 2015, the housing that has received permits to accommodate growth has largely been priced for above moderate-income households.
Approximately 49.4% of the town’s rental units rent for $3,000 or more, compared to 22.1% in San Mateo County and 13.0% in the Bay Area region.
▪ Renters are more likely to be living in 1- and 2-bedroom units than owners, and owners are more likely to be occupying 3- to 4- and 5-bedroom units. To the extent that larger renter APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-12 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT households desire to live in Portola Valley, the lack of rental housing stock to accommodate their needs could limit their access to housing in the town.
▪ Portola Valley has a slight concentration of residents with a disability with 10% of the population compared to 8% in the county. Even so, unemployment among residents living with a disability (3%) in Portola Valley is the same as those without a disability (3%) and similar to the county overall. The approved Willow Commons residential development under construction at 4388 Alpine Road will include nine multi-family supportive housing units for 13 individuals with intellectual developmental disabilities (IDD). The same property owners also control 4394 Alpine Road. The owners plan to use the property to support their philanthropic mission of building permanent affordable housing for adults with IDD (see Program 9-1). ▪ Disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. Hispanic (29% denial rate) and Asian households (19%) had the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019. Conversely, non-Hispanic White (15%) and households of unknown race/ethnicity (11%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-13
3. FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH
CAPACITY
This section discusses fair housing legal cases and inquiries, fair housing protections and enforcement, and outreach capacity.
Fair housing legal cases and inquiries. California fair housing law extends beyond the protections in the Federal Fair Housing Act (FHA). In addition to the FHA protected classes—race, color, ancestry/national origin, religion, disability, sex, and familial status—California law offers protections for age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, genetic information, marital status, military or veteran status, and source of income (including federal housing assistance vouchers).
The California Department of Fair Employment in Housing (DFEH) was established in 1980 and is now the largest civil rights agency in the United States. In July 2022, the department’s name changed to the Civil Rights Department (CRD). According to their website, the CRD’s mission is, “to protect the people of California from unlawful discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations (businesses) and from hate violence and human trafficking in accordance with the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, and Ralph Civil Rights Act.”3FP9F
10 CRD receives, evaluates, and investigates fair housing complaints. CRD plays a particularly significant role in investigating fair housing complaints against protected classes that are not included in federal legislation and therefore not investigated by HUD. CRD’s website provides detailed instructions for filing a complaint, the complaint process, appealing a decision, and other frequently asked questions.4FP10F
11 P Fair housing complaints can also be submitted to HUD for investigation.
Additionally, San Mateo County has a number of local enforcement organizations including Project Sentinel, the Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County, and Community Legal Services of East Palo Alto.
These organizations receive funding from the County and participating jurisdictions to support fair housing enforcement and outreach and education in the County.
From 2017 to 2021, 57 fair housing complaints in San Mateo County were filed with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) though none were in the Town of Portola Valley. Countywide, most complaints cited disability status as the bias (56%) followed by race (19%), and familial status (14%). No cause determination was found in 27 complaints followed by successful conciliation or settlement with 22 complaints. Fair housing inquiries in 2020 were primarily submitted to HCD from the City of San Mateo, Redwood City, Daly City, and Menlo Park. 10 State of California Civil Rights Department, undated. Available: https://calcivilrights.ca.gov 11 State of California Civil Rights Department, undated. Available: https://calcivilrights.ca.gov/complaintprocess/ APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-14 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 1: FAIR HOUSING ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS, SAN MATEO COUNTY Source: Organization Websites
FIGURE 2. FAIR HOUSING COMPLAINTS FILED WITH HUD BY BASIS, SAN MATEO COUNTY, 2017-2021
Source: HUD
Name
Project
Sentinel Northern California
1490 El Camino
Real, Santa Clara,
CA 95050
(800) 339-6043 https://www.housing.org/
Legal Aid
Society of San
Mateo County
San Mateo County
330 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 123,
Redwood City, CA
94065
(650) 558-0915 https://www.legalaidsmc.org/h
ousing-resources
Community
Legal Services
of East Palo
Alto
East Palo Alto,
Menlo Park,
Burlingame,
Mountain View,
Redwood City, and
San Francisco
1861 Bay Road,
East Palo Alto, CA
94303
(650)-326-6440
https://clsepa.org/services/#ho
using
Service Area Address Phone Website
Disability 8 9 3 9 3 32 56%
Race 3 5 2 1 11 19%
Familial Status 4 3 1 8 14%
National Origin 2 1 3 5%
Religion 1 1 2 4%
Sex 1 1 2%
Total cases 17 18 5 11 6 57 100%
2017-2021 Total
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Cases % of Total
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-15 FIGURE 3: FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT SUMMARY
Note: No fair housing inquiries were reported in Portola Valley.
Source: HUD, California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer Fair housing complaints filed with HUD by San Mateo County residents have been on a declining trend since 2018, when 18 complaints were filed. In 2019, complaints dropped to 5, increased to 11 in 2020, and had reached 6 by mid-2021.
Nationally, the National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) reported a “negligible” decrease in the number of complaints filed between 2019 and 2020. The primary bases for complaints nationally were nearly identical to San Mateo County’s: disability (55%) and race (17%). Familial status represented 8% of complaints nationally, whereas this basis comprised 14% of cases in the county.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-16 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT NFHA identifies three significant trends in 2020 that are relevant for San Mateo County:
▪ First, fair lending cases referred to the Department of Justice from federal banking regulators has been declining, indicating that state and local government entities may want to play a larger role in examining fair lending barriers to homeownership.
▪ Second, NFHA identified a significant increase in the number of complaints of harassment—1,071 complaints in 2020 compared to 761 in 2019.
▪ Finally, NFHA found that 73% of all fair housing complaints in 2020 were processed by private fair housing organizations, rather than state, local, and federal government agencies—reinforcing the need for local, active fair housing organizations and increased funding for such organizations.5FP1F 12 Outreach and capacity. The Town of Portola Valley could improve the accessibility of fair housing information on their website and resources for residents experiencing housing discrimination. The Town does include information on fair housing but it is located under a “State Housing Element Requirement” heading page.6FP12F
13 P One proposed policy as part of this Update is to elevate fair housing information to the “Housing in Portola Valley” page and identifying it as a resources for residents to understand and report housing discrimination.
3.1 COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW
Portola Valley is compliant with the follow state laws that promote fair and affordable housing. The Town has not been alleged or found in violation of the following: Housing Accountability Act (Gov.
Code. Section 65589.5) requiring adoption of a Housing Element and compliance with RHNA allocations;
▪ No Net Loss Law (Gov. Code Section 65863) requiring that adequate sites be maintained to accommodate unmet RHNA allocations;
▪ Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.1);
▪ Excessive Subdivision Standards Law (Gov. Code. Section 65913.2); ▪ Limits on Growth Controls Law (Gov. Code. Section 65589.5). 26THousing specific policies enacted locally.26T The Town of Portola Valley identified the following local policies that contribute to the regulatory environment for affordable housing development in the city.
12 https://nationalfairhousing.org/2021/07/29/annual-fair-housing-report-shows-increase-in-housing-harassment/ 13 https://www.portolavalley.net
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-17 27TLocal policies in place to
UencourageU housing development.
Density Bonus Ordinances
Reduced Fees or Waivers
In‐Lieu Fees (Inclusionary
Zoning)
Home sharing programs
ADU Ordinance
27TLocal UbarriersU to affordable housing
development.
Lack of zoning for a variety of housing types
beyond single-family detached homes
Lack of land zoned for multi-family
development
Height limits
Extensive time period/requirements to
develop properties
No local ordinances or procedures to address
reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities
No policies to mitigate displacement of low
income households
27TLocal policies in place to mitigate
or prevent displacement of lowincome households.
▪ Inclusionary zoning
▪ Fair housing legal services
expiring subsidies
27TLocal policies that are NOT in place but have
potential Council interest for further exploration.
▪ Dedicating surplus land for affordable
housing
▪ Establish multi-family zoning districts
▪ Promoting streamlined processing of ADUs
According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer (HCD data viewer), Portola Valley does not have any public housing buildings (see Figure 4). Most of the public housing buildings in the surrounding region are in San Francisco and the East Bay. As illustrated in Figure 5, data are not available on the use of housing choice vouchers in Portola Valley.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-18 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 4: PUBLIC HOUSING BUILDINGS, SAN MATEO COUNTY
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-19 FIGURE 5: HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHERS BY CENSUS TRACT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-20 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
4. INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
This section begins with background information and then analyzes racial segregation first at the neighborhood level within Portola Valley and then at a larger scale to compare regional trends in San Mateo County and Bay Area region to Portola Valley. It then examines income segregation at the neighborhood level and then regional level. The section closes out with the geographic distribution of persons with special housing needs, including persons with disabilities, familial status (large families, DEF I NI TION O F TER M S – GEO GR A P HI ES
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by block groups.1 Block groups are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 residents.
Jurisdiction: Jurisdiction is used to refer to the 109 cities, towns, and unincorporated county areas that are members of ABAG. Though not all ABAG jurisdictions are cities, this report also uses the term “city” interchangeably with “jurisdiction” in some places.
Region: The region is the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, which is comprised of Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, San Francisco County, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, Solano County, and Sonoma County.
Definition of Terms - Racial/Ethnic Groups
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies racial groups (e.g., white or Black/African American) separately from Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.2 This report combines U.S. Census Bureau definitions for race and ethnicity into the following racial groups:
White: Non-Hispanic white
Latinx: Hispanic or Latino of any race3
Black: Non-Hispanic Black/African American
Asian/Pacific Islander: Non-Hispanic Asian or Non-Hispanic Pacific Islander People of Color: All who are not non-Hispanic white (including people who identify as “some other race” or “two or more races”)4
______________________
1 Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts. However, five Bay Area jurisdictions contain only one census tract: Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville. For the 104 jurisdictions with two or more census tracts, segregation measures are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics. Census tract data has greater reliability than block group data and is generally preferable to use for calculations. However, as census tract-based calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract, block group data is used for the segregation measures presented in this report. Accordingly, the segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of this jurisdiction’s block groups to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole.
2 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here: https://www.census.gov/ topics/population/race/about.html.
3 The term Hispanic has historically been used to describe people from numerous Central American, South American, and Caribbean countries. In recent years, the term Latino or Latinx has become preferred. This report generally uses Latinx to refer to this racial/ethnic group.
4 Given the uncertainty in the data for population size estimates for racial and ethnic groups not included in the Latinx, Black, or Asian/Pacific Islander categories, this report only analyzes these racial groups in the aggregate People of Color category.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-21 female-headed no-spouse/no-partners households), and households using Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs).
The majority of the information in this section is provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) in collaboration with UC Merced. Therefore, parenthetical references are used in the same manner as they were quoted in the report they were pulled from, as opposed to footnotes.
4.1 DEFINING SEGREGATION
Segregation is the separation of different demographic groups into different geographic locations or communities, meaning that groups are unevenly distributed across geographic space.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.
This report examines two spatial forms of segregation: neighborhood level segregation within a local jurisdiction and city level segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 31.
There are many factors that have contributed to the generation and maintenance of segregation.
Historically, racial segregation stemmed from explicit discrimination against people of color, such as restrictive covenants, redlining, and discrimination in mortgage lending. This history includes many overtly discriminatory policies made by federal, state, and local governments (Rothstein 2017).
Segregation patterns are also affected by policies that appear race-neutral, such as land use decisions and the regulation of housing development.
Segregation has resulted in vastly unequal access to public goods such as quality schools, neighborhood services and amenities, parks and playgrounds, clean air and water, and public safety (Trounstine 2015). This generational lack of access for many communities, particularly people of color
I NTEGR A TIO N A ND SEGR EGA TION
“Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.
Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area.”
SEGR EGA TIO N FOR M S
Neighborhood level segregation (within a jurisdiction, or intra-city): Segregation of race and income groups can occur from neighborhood to neighborhood within a city. For example, if a local jurisdiction has a population that is 20% Latinx, but some neighborhoods are 80% Latinx while others have nearly no Latinx residents, that jurisdiction would have segregated neighborhoods.
City level segregation (between jurisdictions in a region, or inter-city): Race and income divides also occur between jurisdictions in a region. A region could be very diverse with equal numbers of white, Asian, Black, and Latinx residents, but the region could also be highly segregated with each city comprised solely of one racial group.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-22 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT and lower income residents, has often resulted in poor life outcomes, including lower educational attainment, higher morbidity rates, and higher mortality rates (Chetty and Hendren 2018, Ananat 2011, Burch 2014, Cutler and Glaeser 1997, Sampson 2012, Sharkey 2013).
4.2 SEGREGATION PATTERNS IN THE BAY AREA
Across the San Francisco Bay Area, white residents and above moderate-income residents are significantly more segregated from other racial and income groups (see Appendix 2). The highest levels of racial segregation occur between the Black and white populations. The analysis completed for this report indicates that the amount of racial segregation both within Bay Area cities and across jurisdictions in the region has decreased since the year 2000. This finding is consistent with recent research from the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, which concluded that “[a]lthough 7 of the 9 Bay Area counties were more segregated in 2020 than they were in either 1980 or 1990, racial residential segregation in the region appears to have peaked around the year 2000 and has generally declined since.”7FP13F
14 P However, compared to cities in other parts of California, Bay Area jurisdictions have more neighborhood level segregation between residents from different racial groups. Additionally, there is also more racial segregation between Bay Area cities compared to other regions in the state.
4.3 SEGREGATION AND LAND USE
It is difficult to address segregation patterns without an analysis of both historical and existing land use policies that impact segregation patterns. Land use regulations influence what kind of housing is built in a city or neighborhood (Lens and Monkkonen 2016, Pendall 2000). These land use regulations in turn impact demographics: they can be used to affect the number of houses in a community, the number of people who live in the community, the wealth of the people who live in the community, and where within the community they reside (Trounstine 2018). Given disparities in wealth by race and ethnicity, the ability to afford housing in different neighborhoods, as influenced by land use regulations, is highly differentiated across racial and ethnic groups (Bayer, McMillan, and Reuben 2004).8FP14F
15 P ABAG/MTC plans to issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.
4.3.1 RACIAL SEGREGATION IN PORTOLA VALLEY
Compared to the county overall, Portola Valley has limited racial and ethnic diversity: Countywide, racial/ethnic minorities account for 61% of the overall population; however, they only account for 18% in Portola Valley. Eighty-two percent of the population identifies as non-Hispanic White, 7% identifies as Hispanic, another 7% identifies as Asian, and 4% identifies as other or multiple races.9FP15F 16 P Older
14 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 15 Using a household-weighted median of Bay Area county median household incomes, regional values were $61,050 for Black residents, $122,174 for Asian/Pacific Islander residents, $121,794 for white residents, and $76,306 for Latinx residents. For the source data, see U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B19013B, Table B19013D, B19013H, and B19013I.
16 The share of the population that identifies as African American or American Indian or Alaska Native is less than 1%.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-23 residents are even less diverse with 93% of the population older than 65 years identifying as White compared to 80% of the population for children less than 18 years old.
FIGURE 6: POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
FIGURE 7: POPULATION BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-24 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 8: SENIOR AND YOUTH POPULATION BY RACE, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2000-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
FIGURE 9: AREA MEDIAN INCOME BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Note: Data not available for American Indian or Alaska Native.
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-25 Poverty rates for all racial and ethnic groups are under 3% in Portola Valley.
FIGURE 10: POVERTY RATE BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Note: Sample size for American Indian or Alaska Native populations are too small to report poverty data.
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within Town of Portola Valley) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of Portola Valley in Figure 11 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction.10FP16F 17 P Generally, when the distribution of
dots does not suggest patterns or clustering, segregation measures tend to be lower. Conversely, when clusters of certain groups are apparent on a racial dot map, segregation measures may be higher. The vast majority of dots are blue because Portola Valley is less diverse than the Bay Area as a whole with a population that is 82% White, 6.7% Hispanic or Latinx, 6.5% Asian, and 0.4% Black or African American. While there are very few dots signifying groups of Asian, Latinx, or Other racial groups (and none that signify a group of at least 18 Black residents in any given area), the few that do appear are not concentrated in any one portion of the Town. 17 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census block group data. However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different racial groups live. Census blocks are subdivisions of block groups, and in the Bay Area census blocks contain on average 95 people.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-26 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 11: RACIAL DOT MAP OF PORTOLA VALLEY (2020)
Universe: Population.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for Town of Portola Valley and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
There are many ways to quantitatively measure segregation. Each measure captures a different aspect of the ways in which groups are divided within a community. One way to measure segregation is by using an isolation index:
▪ The isolation index compares each neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole.
▪ This index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that a particular group is more isolated from other groups.
▪ Isolation indices indicate the potential for contact between different groups. The index can be interpreted as the experience of the average member of that group. For example, if the isolation index is .65 for Latinx residents in a city, then the average Latinx resident in that city lives in a neighborhood that is 65% Latinx.
Within Town of Portola Valley the most isolated racial group is white residents. Portola Valley’s isolation index of 0.796 for white residents means that the average white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 79.6% white. Other racial groups are less isolated, meaning they may be more likely to encounter other racial groups in their neighborhoods. The isolation index values for all racial groups in Portola Valley for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-27 racial groups in this jurisdiction, the white population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020.
The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020.1FP17F 18 P The data in this column can be used as a
comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by racial groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 1 indicates the average isolation index value for white residents across all Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.504, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 50.4% white. This is significantly lower than the isolation index for white residents within Portola Valley, which is 0.796, meaning the average white resident in the town lives in a neighborhood that is 79.6% white.
TABLE 1: RACIAL ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN PORTOLA VALLEY Race
Portola Valley
Bay Area
Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.042 0.058 0.080 0.248
Black/African American 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.057
Latinx 0.037 0.044 0.052 0.262
White 0.910 0.877 0.796 0.504
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Similar to Figure 11, Figure 12 below evaluates the racial isolation indices of Bay Area jurisdictions, including Portola Valley, and how these indices are distributed compared to the overall Bay Area average. In this figure, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction with the town of Portola Valley’s indices indicated in a solid black line, and a red, dashed line representing the overall Bay Area average for each racial group. Based on the figure it is evident, just as it was in Figure 1, that the town’s isolation index for white residents is significantly higher than the Bay Area average and many other Bay Area jurisdictions represented by dots. Conversely, the town’s racial isolation indices for non-white racial groups are significantly lower than the Bay Area average of these groups, and that of other jurisdictions, as was also evident in Figure 12.
18 In the reports produced for the 104 jurisdictions with two or more census tracts, this average and all comparisons of segregation measures only include data from these 104 jurisdictions, as measures calculated with census tract data are not comparable to the measures calculated with block group data used in the reports for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville). However, for the reports produced for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract, segregation measures for all 109 jurisdictions were recalculated using block group data to produce Bay Area averages and make comparisons across the region. Therefore, the Bay Area averages presented in these five reports are different from those provided in the other 104 reports.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-28 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 12: RACIAL ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR PORTOLA VALLEY COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
To better evaluate isolation indices for the town of Portola Valley compared to the overall Bay Area, demographic data of the town and the overall Bay Area, can be utilized to achieve a better understanding of segregation trends. For instance, while Portola Valley may have a significantly higher isolation index among white residents than the Bay Area average, and lower values among non-white racial groups this is likely attributed to the town’s overrepresentation of white residents compared to that of the Bay Area as a whole. Whereas the Bay Area’s 2020 population was 35.84% white, 82.3% of Portola Valley’s 2019 population was white. Similarly, while the town’s isolation indices for non-white racial groups are well below regional averages, this is likely due to the underrepresentation of these racial groups within the town, rather than intra-city level segregation trends. Whereas 27.69% of the Bay Area’s 2020 population was Asian/API, just 6.5% of Portola Valley’s 2019 population was. Whereas
24.36% of the Bay Area’s 2020 population was Latinx, just 6.7% of the Town’s 2019 population was.
Therefore, the isolation indices compared within both Figures 1 and 2, when supplemented with demographic data, help illustrate inter-city segregation trends across jurisdictional boundaries in the Bay Area. These trends are evident in the overrepresentation of white residents within the town compared to the overall Bay Area, as well as the underrepresentation of non-white racial groups compared to the overall region.
Another way to measure segregation is by using a dissimilarity index:
▪ This index measures how evenly any two groups are distributed across neighborhoods relative to their representation in a city overall. The dissimilarity index at the jurisdiction level can be interpreted as the share of either group that would have to move neighborhoods to create perfect integration for these two groups.
▪ The dissimilarity index ranges from 0 to 1. Higher values indicate that groups are more unevenly distributed (e.g., they tend to live in different neighborhoods).
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-29 Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values of racial groups within the town, indicating the levels of segregation in Portola Valley between white residents and residents who are Black, Latinx, or Asian/Pacific Islander. The table also provides the dissimilarity index between white residents and all residents of color in the jurisdiction, and dissimilarity indices for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020.
TABLE 2: RACIAL DISSIMILARITY INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN PORTOLA VALLEY Race
Portola Valley
Bay Area
Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.065* 0.041 0.107 0.226 Black/African American vs. White 0.115* 0.280* 0.175* 0.312 Latinx vs. White 0.149* 0.099* 0.060 0.246
People of Color vs. White 0.035 0.035 0.076 0.198
Universe: Population
Note: If a number is marked with an asterisk (*), it indicates that the index is based on a racial group making up less than 5% of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
In Portola Valley, the highest dissimilarity index is between Black and white residents (see Table 2).
Portola Valley’s Black /white dissimilarity index of 0.175 means that 17.5% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a neighborhood of differing racial prominence to create a distribution of Black and white residents in each neighborhood, equal to that of the entire town. However, per HCD guidance included in the above callout box, this dissimilarity index value is not a reliable data point due to the relatively small population size of Black residents as a portion of the entire town population (2%). While the Black/white dissimilarity index in Portola Valley is relatively low and is typically associated with “low segregation” levels per HUD standards, it is not necessarily indicative of high levels of integration within the town. The “Bay Area Average” column is included in this table to also
DI SSIM IL AR I TY I ND EX GU I DA NCE F O R CI TIES
W I TH SM AL L RA CIA L GR O U P POP U L A TI O NS
The analysis conducted for this report suggests that dissimilarity index values are unreliable for a population group if that group represents approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s total population.
HCD’s AFFH guidance requires the Housing Element to include the dissimilarity index values for racial groups, but also offers flexibility in emphasizing the importance of various measures. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 2), jurisdiction staff use the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of their jurisdiction’s neighborhood-level segregation patterns (intra-city segregation).
If a jurisdiction has a very small population of a racial group, this indicates that segregation between the jurisdiction and the region (inter-city segregation) is likely to be an important feature of the jurisdiction’s segregation patterns.
In Town of Portola Valley, the Black/African American group is 0.2 percent of the population so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving this group.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-30 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT provide the average dissimilarity index values for these racial group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation between communities of color are from white residents in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.246, so on average 24.6% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a neighborhood of differing racial prominence within that jurisdiction to create a distribution of Latinx and white residents that resembles that of the larger jurisdiction. This index is nearly 4 times that of Portola Valley’s for the same racial groups in the same year. The Latinx/white dissimilarity index in Portola Valley in 2020 was 0.060, meaning 6% of Latinx (or white residents) in the town would need to move to a neighborhood of differing racial prominence within that town to create a distribution of Latinx and white residents that resembles that of the overall town.
The Theil’s H Index can be used to measure segregation between all groups within a jurisdiction:
▪ This index measures how diverse each neighborhood is compared to the diversity of the whole city. Neighborhoods are weighted by their size, so that larger neighborhoods play a more significant role in determining the total measure of segregation. ▪ The index ranges from 0 to 1. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all neighborhoods within a city have the same demographics as the whole city. A value of 1 would mean each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
▪ For jurisdictions with a high degree of diversity (multiple racial groups comprise more than 10% of the population), Theil’s H offers the clearest summary of overall segregation.
The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood racial segregation in Portola Valley for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 3 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in the table provides the average Theil’s H Index across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. Between 2010 and 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Portola Valley declined, suggesting that there is now less neighborhood level racial segregation within the jurisdiction. In 2020, the Theil’s H Index for racial segregation in Portola Valley was lower than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in Portola Valley is less than in the average Bay Area city.
Since Portola Valley has a low degree of diversity, this measure is not as useful as it would be in more diverse communities. Geospatially, all census tracts (i.e., neighborhoods) in Portola Valley are White majority census tracts.12FP18F
19,
P13FP19F
20 TABLE 3: THEIL’S H INDEX VALUES FOR RACIAL SEGREGATION WITHIN PORTOLA VALLEY Race
Portola Valley
Bay Area
Average
2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil’s H Multi-racial 0.008 0.005 0.004 0.055
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004. 19 Majority census tracts show the predominant racial or ethnic group by tract compared to the next most populous. 20 Redlining maps, otherwise known as Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) maps, are not available for San Mateo County.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-31 FIGURE 13: PERCENT NON-WHITE POPULATION BY CENSUS BLOCK GROUPS, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-32 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 14: WHITE MAJORITY CENSUS TRACTS
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-33 FIGURE 15: ASIAN MAJORITY CENSUS TRACTS
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-34 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 16: HISPANIC MAJORITY CENSUS TRACTS
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-35 Regional Racial Segregation (Between Portola Valley and Other Jurisdictions) At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities instead of between neighborhoods. Racial dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood racial segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore the racial demographic differences between different jurisdictions in the region. Figure 17 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in Portola Valley as well as in nearby Bay Area cities. The map reflects first that Portola Valley has a much less dense population than many of the surrounding cities to the East, and that Asian residents are concentrated in Castro City, Mountain View, and Palo Alto. Latinx and Black residents are concentrated in East Palo Alto. White residents make up the majority of dots in Portola Valley and other less dense areas like Woodside.
FIGURE 17: RACIAL DOT MAP OF PORTOLA VALLEY AND SURROUNDING AREAS (2020) Universe: Population.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for Town of Portola Valley and vicinity.
Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
To understand how each city contributes to the total segregation of the Bay Area, one can look at the difference in the racial composition of a jurisdiction compared to the racial composition of the region as a whole. The racial demographics in Portola Valley for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 4 below. The table also provides the racial composition of the nine-county Bay Area. As of 2020, Portola Valley has a higher share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a much lower share of Latinx, Black, and Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-36 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE 4: POPULATION BY RACIAL GROUP, PORTOLA VALLEY, AND THE REGION Race
Portola Valley Bay Area
2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 4.0% 5.6% 7.7% 28.2%
Black/African American 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 5.6%
Latinx 3.3% 4.0% 5.2% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 1.4% 1.9% 7.4% 5.9%
White 90.8% 88.2% 79.5% 35.8%
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010, Table P4. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Figure 18 below compares the racial demographics in Portola Valley to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions.
Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the population of Town of Portola Valley represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions. Of all Bay Area jurisdictions, Portola Valley is ranked 6P th
P for the highest percentage of
white residents. The Town is near the bottom of the percentage of Black and Latinx residents, with rankings of 107 and 103, respectively.
FIGURE 18: RACIAL DEMOGRAPHICS OF PORTOLA VALLEY COMPARED TO ALL BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2020)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-37 The map in Figure 19 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between Portola Valley and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in Portola Valley and surrounding jurisdictions compares to the Bay Area as a whole:
▪ Jurisdictions shaded orange have a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole, and the degree of difference is greater than five percentage points. ▪ Jurisdictions shaded white have a share of people of color comparable to the regional percentage of people of color (within five percentage points).
▪ Jurisdictions shaded grey have a share of people of color that is more than five percentage points greater than the regional percentage of people of color.
Portola Valley, like many surrounding jurisdictions on the Bay Area peninsula, has a share of people of color that is less than the Bay Area as a whole (greater than five percentage points). People of color are more concentrated in East Palo Alto, Millbrae, Cupertino, and Sunnyvale (among others).
FIGURE 19: COMPARING THE SHARE OF PEOPLE OF COLOR IN PORTOLA VALLEY AND VICINITY TO THE BAY AREA (2020)
Universe: Population.
Note: People of color refer to persons not identifying as non-Hispanic white. The nine-county Bay Area is the reference region for this map.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Table 5 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-38 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Theil’s H index values for racial segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2020. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level racial segregation, these indices were calculated by comparing the racial demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 5, these measures are calculated by comparing the racial demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s racial makeup. For example, looking at the 2020 data, Table 5 shows the white isolation index value for the region is 0.429, meaning that on average white Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 42.9% white in 2020. An example of regional dissimilarity index values in Table 5 is the Black/white dissimilarity index value of 0.459, which means that across the region 45.9% of Black (or white) residents would need to move to a different jurisdiction to evenly distribute Black and white residents across Bay Area jurisdictions. The dissimilarity index values in Table 5 reflect recommendations made in HCD’s AFFH guidance for calculating dissimilarity at the region level.14FP20F
21 P The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the racial diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same racial demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each racial group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for racial segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2020, meaning that racial groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.
TABLE 5: REGIONAL RACIAL SEGREGATION MEASURES
Index Group 2010 2020
Isolation Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.317 0.378
Black/African American 0.144 0.118
Latinx 0.283 0.291
White 0.496 0.429
People of Color 0.629 0.682
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.384 0.369
Black/African American vs. White 0.475 0.459
Latinx vs. White 0.301 0.297
People of Color vs. White 0.296 0.293
Theil's H Multi-racial All Racial Groups 0.103 0.097
Universe: Population.
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS). U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002. Data from 2010 is from U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census of Population and Housing, Table P4.
21 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-39 FIGURE 20: NEIGHBORHOOD SEGREGATION BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-40 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 21: DIVERSITY INDEX BY BLOCK GROUP, 2010
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-41 FIGURE 22: DIVERSITY INDEX BY BLOCK GROUP, 2018
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-42 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
4.3.2 INCOME SEGREGATION IN TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
The household income distribution by percent of area median income (AMI) in Portola Valley reflects a substantially higher share of higher income household than the county overall: 73% of households in Portola earn more than 100% AMI compared to 49% in the county overall.
FIGURE 23: SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
DEF I NI TION O F TER M S – I NCO M E GR O U P S
When analyzing segregation by income, this report uses income group designations consistent with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation and the Housing Element:
Very low-income: individuals earning less than 50% of Area Median Income (AMI) Low-income: individuals earning 50%-80% of AMI
Moderate-income: individuals earning 80%-120% of AMI
Above moderate-income: individuals earning 120% or more of AMI Additionally, this report uses the term “lower-income” to refer to all people who earn less than 80% of AMI, which includes both low-income and very low-income individuals.
The income groups described above are based on U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) calculations for AMI. HUD calculates the AMI for different metropolitan areas, and the nine county Bay Area includes the following metropolitan areas: Napa Metro Area (Napa County), Oakland-Fremont Metro Area (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), San Francisco Metro Area (Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo Counties), San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara Metro Area (Santa Clara County), Santa Rosa Metro Area (Sonoma County), and Vallejo-Fairfield Metro Area (Solano County).
The income categories used in this report are based on the AMI for the HUD metro area where this jurisdiction is located.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-43 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within Portola Valley) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 24, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of Portola Valley below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of income groups within the jurisdiction. As with the racial dot maps, when the dots show lack of a pattern or clustering, income segregation measures tend to be lower, and conversely, when clusters are apparent, the segregation measures may be higher as well.
FIGURE 24: INCOME DOT MAP OF PORTOLA VALLEY (2015)
Universe: Population.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for Town of Portola Valley and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
All census block groups in the town have median incomes above $125,000 and poverty is low throughout Portola Valley.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-44 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 25: POVERTY STATUS BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-45 The isolation index values for all income groups in Portola Valley for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below.15FP21F
22 P Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in Portola Valley. Portola Valley’s isolation index of 0.721 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-income resident in Portola Valley lives in a neighborhood that is 72.1% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Moderate-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
Similar to the tables presented earlier for neighborhood racial segregation, the “Bay Area Average” column in Table 6 provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. The data in this column can be used as a comparison to provide context for the levels of segregation experienced by income groups in this jurisdiction. For example, Table 6 indicates the average isolation index value for very low-income residents across Bay Area jurisdictions is 0.304, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 30.4% very low-income.
TABLE 6: INCOME GROUP ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN PORTOLA VALLEY Income Group
Portola Valley Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.093 0.140 0.304
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.144 0.134 0.172
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.073 0.150 0.207
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.765 0.721 0.529
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Figure 26 below shows how income group isolation index values in Portola Valley compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group notes the isolation index value for that group in Portola Valley, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group.
22 This report presents data for income segregation for the years 2010 and 2015, which is different than the time periods used for racial segregation. This deviation stems from the data source recommended for income segregation calculations in HCD’s AFFH Guidelines. This data source most recently updated with data from the 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-year estimates. For more information on HCD’s recommendations for calculating income segregation, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidelines.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-46 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 26: INCOME GROUP ISOLATION INDEX VALUES FOR PORTOLA VALLEY COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in Portola Valley between residents who are lower-income (earning less than 80% of AMI) and those who are not lower-income (earning above 80% of AMI). This data aligns with the requirements described in HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo for identifying dissimilarity for lower-income households.16FP2F 23 P Segregation in
Portola Valley between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income decreased between 2010 and 2015. Additionally, Table 7 shows dissimilarity index values for the level of segregation in Albany between residents who are very low-income (earning less than 50% of AMI) and those who are above moderate-income (earning above 120% of AMI). This supplementary data point provides additional nuance to an analysis of income segregation, as this index value indicates the extent to which a jurisdiction’s lowest and highest income residents live in separate neighborhoods.
Similar to other tables in this report, the “Bay Area Average” column shows the average dissimilarity index values for these income group pairings across Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. For example, Table 7 indicates that the average dissimilarity index between lower-income residents and other residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.274, so on average 27.4% of lower-income residents in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in that jurisdiction.
Figure 27 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in Portola Valley compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity 23 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-47 index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in Portola Valley, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing.
In 2015, the income segregation in Portola Valley between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions for the below 80% AMI vs. above 80% AMI income group (see Table 7 and Figure 27). This means that the lower-income residents are more segregated from other residents within Portola Valley compared to other jurisdictions in the region.
TABLE 7: INCOME GROUP DISSIMILARITY INDEX VALUES FOR SEGREGATION WITHIN PORTOLA VALLEY Income Group
Portola Valley Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.302 0.285 0.274
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.245 0.275 0.351
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Lowand Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
FIGURE 27: INCOME GROUP DISSIMILARITY INDEX VALUES FOR PORTOLA VALLEY COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in Portola Valley for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 8 below. The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average Theil’s H Index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different income groups in 2015. By 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income segregation in Portola Valley was more than it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in Portola Valley was lower than APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-48 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in Portola Valley than in the average Bay Area city.
TABLE 8: THEIL’S H INDEX VALUES FOR INCOME SEGREGATION WITHIN PORTOLA VALLEY Income Group
Portola Valley Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.046 0.088 0.089
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
Figure 28 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in Portola Valley compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2015. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for income group segregation in Portola Valley, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions.
FIGURE 28: INCOME GROUP THEIL’S H INDEX VALUES FOR PORTOLA VALLEY COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Regional Income Segregation (Between Portola Valley and Other Jurisdictions) At the regional level, segregation is measured between jurisdictions instead of between neighborhoods. Income dot maps are not only useful for examining neighborhood income segregation within a jurisdiction, but these maps can also be used to explore income demographic differences between jurisdictions in the region. Figure 29 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in Portola Valley as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-49 FIGURE 29: INCOME DOT MAP OF PORTOLA VALLEY AND SURROUNDING AREAS (2015) Universe: Population.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for Town of Portola Valley and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how Portola Valley differs from the region. The income demographics in Portola Valley for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 9 below. The table also provides the income composition of the ninecounty Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, Portola Valley had a lower share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a lower share of low-income residents, a lower share of moderateincome residents, and a higher share of above moderate-income residents.
TABLE 9 POPULATION BY INCOME GROUP, PORTOLA VALLEY, AND THE REGION Income Group
Portola Valley Bay Area
2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 7.68% 11.09% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 10.12% 10.53% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 7.1% 9.29% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 75.1% 69.09% 39.4%
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from Housing U.S. Department of and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011- 2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-50 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Figure 30 below compares the income demographics in Portola Valley to other Bay Area jurisdictions.
Like the chart in Figure 29, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each income group, the spread of dots represents the range of that group’s representation among Bay Area jurisdictions. The smallest range is among jurisdictions’ moderate-income populations, while Bay Area jurisdictions vary the most in the share of their population that is above moderate-income. Additionally, the black lines within each income group note the percentage of Portola Valley population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Portola Valley has a much lower number of Very Low-Income residents compared to the Bay Area, with a rank of 98P th
P lowest out of 109
jurisdictions. The number of low income and moderate-income residents is also low. The number of above moderate-income residents is notably high, with a rank of 14 in the Bay Area.
FIGURE 30: INCOME DEMOGRAPHICS OF PORTOLA VALLEY COMPARED TO OTHER BAY AREA JURISDICTIONS (2015)
Universe: Bay Area Jurisdictions.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and ModerateIncome Summary Data.
Income segregation between jurisdictions in the region can also be analyzed by calculating regional values for the segregation indices discussed previously. Similar to the regional racial segregation measures shown in Table 5, Table 10 presents dissimilarity index, isolation index, and Theil’s H index values for income segregation for the entire nine-county Bay Area in 2010 and 2015. In the previous section of this report focused on neighborhood level income segregation, segregation indices were calculated by comparing the income demographics of the census tracts within a jurisdiction to the demographics of the jurisdiction as a whole. In Table 10, these measures are calculated by comparing the income demographics of local jurisdictions to the region’s income group makeup. For example, looking at 2015 data, Table 10 shows the regional isolation index value for very low-income residents is 0.315 for 2015, meaning that on average very low-income Bay Area residents live in a jurisdiction that is 31.5% very low-income. The regional dissimilarity index for lower-income residents and other residents is 0.194 in 2015, which means that across the region 19.4% of lower-income residents would APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-51 need to move to a different jurisdiction to create perfect income group integration in the Bay Area as a whole. The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how diverse each Bay Area jurisdiction is compared to the income group diversity of the whole region. A Theil’s H Index value of 0 would mean all jurisdictions within the Bay Area have the same income demographics as the entire region, while a value of 1 would mean each income group lives exclusively in their own separate jurisdiction. The regional Theil’s H index value for income segregation decreased slightly between 2010 and 2015, meaning that income groups in the Bay Area are now slightly less separated by the borders between jurisdictions.
TABLE 10: REGIONAL INCOME SEGREGATION MEASURES
Index Group 2010 2015
Isolation Index Regional Level
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.277 0.315
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.157 0.154
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.185 0.180
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.467 0.435
Dissimilarity Index Regional Level
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.186 0.194
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.238 0.248
Theil's H Multi-income All Income Groups 0.034 0.032
Universe: Population.
Source: Data for 2015 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data. Data for 2010 is from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2006-2010 Low- and Moderate-Income Summary Data.
4.3.3 SEGREGATION OF SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS IN TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY As mentioned at the beginning of the section on Segregation and Integration, segregation is not solely a racial matter. Segregation can also occur by familial status or for persons with disabilities who have limited interaction outside of congregate and/or institutional facilities. This section evaluates segregation of these segments of the population.
Disability Status
The share of the population living with at least one disability is 10% in the Portola Valley compared to 8% in San Mateo County. No census tracts in the community have a concentration of people with a disability though the tract to the immediate East of Portola Valley does have a 10% to 20% share of the population living with a disability (see Figure 31). Geographic concentrations of people living with a disability may indicate the area has ample access to services, amenities, and transportation that support this population.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-52 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 31: SHARE OF POPULATION BY DISABILITY STATUS, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-53 FIGURE 32: PERCENT OF POPULATION WITH A DISABILITY BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-54 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Familial Status
Portola Valley is home to more single-person households than the county, with 25% of households compared to only 22% in the County (see Figure 33). Additionally, there are more married-couple families in Portola Valley (64%), offset by fewer single parent households and fewer non-family multiple-person households.
FIGURE 33: SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY TYPE, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
FIGURE 34: SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY PRESENCE OF CHILDREN (LESS THAN 18 YEARS OLD), 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Familial status can indicate specific housing needs and preferences. A larger number of nonfamily or single person households indicates a higher share of seniors living alone, young adults living alone or APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-55 with roommates, and unmarried partners. Higher shares of nonfamily households indicates an increased need for one and two bedroom units.
FIGURE 35: SHARE OF HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
FIGURE 36: HOUSING TYPE BY TENURE, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
The vast majority of married couple households live in owner occupied housing; however, residents living alone are nearly equally split between renting and owning. Despite most households being comprised of two people or fewer, most housing units in Portola Valley have 3 to 4 bedrooms (see Figure 37). This trend is consistent with Portola Valley being an owner-majority, affluent community.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-56 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 37: HOUSING UNITS BY NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AND TENURE, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Segregation and Integration
Population by Protected Class
Portola Valley San Mateo County
Race and Ethnicity
American Indian or Alaska Native, NH 0% 0%
Asian / API, NH 7% 30%
Black or African American, NH 0% 2%
White, Non-Hispanic (NH) 82% 39%
Other Race or Multiple Races, NH 4% 4%
Hispanic or Latinx 7% 24%
Disability Status
With a disability 10% 8%
Without a disability 90% 92%
Familial Status
Female-Headed Family Households 6% 10%
Male-headed Family Households 2% 5%
Married-couple Family Households 64% 55%
Other Non-Family Households 3% 8%
Single-person Households 25% 22%
Household Income
0%-30% of AMI 7% 13%
31%-50% of AMI 7% 11%
51%-80% of AMI 8% 16%
81%-100% of AMI 4% 10%
Greater than 100% of AMI 73% 49%
0%
7%
0%
82%
4%
7%
0%
30%
2%
39%
4%
24%
10%
90%
8%
92%
6%
2%
64%
3%
25%
10%
5%
55%
8%
22%
7%
7%
8%
4%
73%
13%
11%
16%
10%
49%
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-57 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence Racially Concentrated Area of Poverty or an Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) represent opposing ends of the segregation spectrum from racially or ethnically segregated areas with high poverty rates to affluent predominantly White neighborhoods. Historically, HUD has paid particular attention to R/ECAPs as a focus of policy and obligations to AFFH. Recent research out of the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs argues for the inclusion of RCAAs to acknowledge current and past policies that created and perpetuate these areas of high opportunity and exclusion.17F23F24 It is important to note that R/ECAPs and RCAAs are not areas of focus because of racial and ethnic concentrations alone. This study recognizes that racial and ethnic clusters can be a part of fair housing choice if they occur in a non-discriminatory market. Rather, R/ECAPs are meant to identify areas where residents may have historically faced discrimination and continue to be challenged by limited economic opportunity, and conversely, RCAAs are meant to identify areas of particular advantage and exclusion.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.
For this study, the poverty threshold used to qualify a tract as an R/ECAP was three times the average census tract poverty rate countywide—or 19.1%. In addition to R/ECAPs that meet the HUD threshold, this study includes edge or emerging R/ECAPs which hit two thirds of the HUD defined threshold for poverty—emerging R/ECAPs in San Mateo County have two times the average tract poverty rate for the county (12.8%).
In 2010 there were three census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.4% poverty rate) in the county and 11 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (13% poverty rate). None of the R/ECAPs were located in Portola Valley in 2010.
In 2019 there were two census tracts that qualify as R/ECAPs (19.1% poverty rate) in the county and 14 that qualify as edge R/ECAPs (12.8% poverty rate)—which means they are majority minority and have a poverty rate two times higher than the countywide census tract average. None of the R/ECAPs or edge R/ECAPs are located in Portola Valley.
24 Goetz, E. G., Damiano, A., & Williams, R. A. (2019). Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation.
Cityscape: A Journal of Policy Development and Research, 21(1), 99–124
R/ECAPS
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Area of Poverty is:
A census tract that has a non-White population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) or, for nonurban areas, 20 percent, AND a poverty rate of 40 percent or more; OR A census tract that has a non-white population of 50 percent or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County, whichever is lower.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-58 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 38: R/ECAPS AND EDGE R/ECAPS, 2010
Note: R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50% or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is three times the average tract poverty rate for the County (19.4% in 2010). Edge R/ECAPs are census tracts that have a non-white population of 50% or more (majority-minority) AND the poverty rate is two times the average tract poverty rate for the County (13% in 2010).
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-59 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021.
Figure 39 shows that the entire Town of Portola Valley is a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence.
Portola Valley is not unique in this; surrounding communities are also all RCAAs. This is a factor of the land use regulations that were put in place when Portola Valley was developed; the natural environment surrounding the Town which increases property values and the income needed to afford to buy property in the Town; rising wealth in the region; and the continued demand for living in areas like Portola Valley.
As shown in Figure 40, RCAAs are not present in areas of the County that were developed to be more urban in nature, with denser land use patterns, and a wider variety of housing types and choices.
RCAAS
HCD and HUD’s definition of a Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence is:
A census tract with a LQ* of more than 1.25 AND a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG AMI (or 1.5 times the State AMI, whichever is lower).
*A Location Quotient (LQ) represents the percentage of total white population (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino) for each census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for all census tracts in a given COG region.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-60 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 39: RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE (RCAAS)—SURROUNDING
COMMUNITIES
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-61 FIGURE 40: RACIALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS OF AFFLUENCE (RCAAS)—REGIONAL Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-62 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
5. ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
This section discusses disparities in access to opportunity among protected classes including access to quality education, employment, transportation, and environment.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 34.
The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) in collaboration with HCD developed a series of opportunity maps that help to identify areas of the community with good or poor access to opportunity for residents. These maps were developed to align funding allocations with the goal of improving outcomes for low-income residents—particularly children.
The opportunity maps highlight areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource and high segregation and poverty. TCAC provides opportunity maps for access to opportunity in quality education, employment, transportation, and environment. Opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.
5.1 EDUCATION
TCAC’s education score is based on math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, and the student poverty rate. According to TCAC’s educational opportunity map, the entirety of Portola Valley has a very high education outcome (index value over 0.75)—opportunity scores are presented on a scale from zero to one and the higher the number, the more positive the outcomes.
Portola Valley is served by the Sequoia Union High School District and the Portola Valley Elementary School District. Sequoia Union increased enrollment by 18% from 2010 to 2020 but the elementary district enrollment decreased by 30% over the same time. Both districts lost students during the COVID pandemic.
Portola Valley Elementary School District (66%) and Woodside Elementary School District (64%) had the highest share of White students, making them among the least racially and ethnically diverse districts in the county. Portola Valley has the least diverse faculty and staff in the county, with 59% identifying as White.
ACCESS TO OP P O R TUNI TY
“Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes. Access to opportunity oftentimes means both improving the quality of life for residents of lowincome communities, as well as supporting mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods. This encompasses education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, and other opportunities, including recreation, food and healthy environment (air, water, safe neighborhood, safety from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).” APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-63 FIGURE 41: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS EDUCATION SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-64 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Overall, 29% of public school students in San Mateo County qualify for reduced or free lunch. This rate was substantially lower in districts like Hillsborough Elementary, San Carlos Elementary, Portola Valley Elementary, Las Lomitas Elementary, Belmont-Redwood Shores, and Menlo Park City Elementary, where each had less than 10% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch. This means that these districts serve very few low-income students.
Many high schoolers in the county met admission standards for a University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU) school. Of the high school districts in San Mateo County, Sequoia Union had the highest rate of graduates who met such admission standards at 69% followed by San Mateo Union High with 68%. Pacific Islander, Black, and Hispanic students in the Sequoia Union district were substantially less likely to meet the admission standards, with rates of 38%, 50%, and 55% respectively.
Overall, Sequoia Union High School has one of the highest dropout rates—10% of students— compared to other districts in the county. Still, dropout rates among Hispanic (16%), Black (12%), and Pacific Islander (20%) students are even higher.
5.2 EMPLOYMENT
The top three industries by number of jobs in Portola Valley include health and educational services, professional and managerial services, and arts and recreation services.
FIGURE 42: JOBS BY INDUSTRY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2002-2018
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-65 FIGURE 43: JOB HOLDERS BY INDUSTRY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
The Town has a much lower job-to-household ratio when compared to the county at 0.63 and 1.59 respectively—which means there are fewer employment opportunities per household in Portola Valley. This trend, combined with low unemployment, indicates high out-commuting and/or retired households.
FIGURE 44: JOBS TO HOUSEHOLD RATIO, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2002-2018 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-66 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT HUD’s job proximity index shows Portola Valley to have a moderate proximity to jobs. On a scale from zero to 100 where 100 is the closest proximity to jobs, block groups within the town score between 40 and 80.
FIGURE 45: JOBS PROXIMITY INDEX BY BLOCK GROUP, 2017
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-67
5.3 TRANSPORTATION
This section provides a summary of the transportation system that serves the broader region including emerging trends and data relevant to transportation access in the town. The San Mateo County Transit District acts as the administrative body for transit and transportation programs in the county including SamTrans and the Caltrain commuter rail. SamTrans provides bus services in San Mateo County, including Redi-Wheels paratransit service.
In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which covers the entire Bay Area, adopted a coordinated public transit and human services transportation plan. While developing the coordinated plan, the MTC conducted extensive community outreach about transportation within the area. That plan—which was developed by assessing the effectiveness of how well seniors, persons with disabilities, veterans, and people with low incomes are served—was reviewed to determine gaps in services in Portola Valley and the county overall. Below is a summary of comments relevant to San Mateo County; no comments specific to Portola Valley were included in the report. “San Mateo’s [Paratransit Coordinating Council] PCC and County Health System, as well as the Peninsula Family Service Agency provided feedback. The most common themes expressed had to do with pedestrian and bicycle needs at specific locations throughout the county, though some covered more general comments such as parked cars blocking sidewalk right-of-way and a desire for bike lanes to accommodate motorized scooters and wheelchairs. Transportation information, emerging mobility providers, and transit fares were other common themes.
While some comments related to the use of car share, transportation network companies (TNCs), or autonomous vehicles as potential solutions, other comments called for the increased accessibility and affordability of these services in the meantime.”18FP24F 25 A partnership between the World Institute on Disability and the MTC created the research and community engagement project TRACS (Transportation Resilience, Accessibility & Climate Sustainability). The project’s overall goal is to, “stimulate connection and communication between the community of seniors and people with disabilities together with the transportation system– the agencies in the region local to the San Francisco bay, served by MTC.”19FP25F 26 P
As part of the TRACS outreach process, respondents were asked to share their compliments or good experiences with MTC transit. One respondent who had used multiple services said, “it is my sense that SamTrans is the best Bay Area transit provider in terms of overall disability accommodation.”
The San Mateo County Transit District updated their Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities in 2018. According to the district, the county’s senior population is expected to grow more than 70% over the next 20 years and the district is experiencing unprecedented increases in paratransit ridership. The plan is targeted at developing effective mobility programs for residents 25 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), 2018. Coordinated Public Transit – Human Services Transportation Plan. Available: https://mtc.ca.gov/sites/default/files/MTC_Coordinated_Plan.pdf 26 https://wid.org/transportation-accessibility/
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-68 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT with disabilities and older adults including viable alternatives to paratransit, partnerships, and leveraging funding sources.20FP26F
27 MTC also launched Clipper START—an 18-month pilot project— in 2020 which provides fare discounts on single transit rides for riders whose household income is no more than double the federal poverty level.21FP27F
28 5.4 ENVIRONMENT
TCAC’s opportunity areas environmental scores are based on the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators, which identify areas disproportionately vulnerable to pollution sources such as ozone, PMR2.5R, diesel PM, pesticides, toxic release, traffic, cleanup sites, groundwater threats, hazardous waste, impaired water bodies, and solid waste sites.
Portola Valley scores moderate to poorly on environmental outcomes (0.25-0.5) though this score is similar to surrounding communities which have similar—or in some cases lower—scores. However, the town scores relatively high compared to other areas of San Mateo County on the California Healthy Places Index (HPI) developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California (PHASC).
The HPI includes 25 community characteristics in eight categories including economic, social, education, transportation, neighborhood, housing, clean environment, and healthcare.2FP28F 29 27
SamTrans, 2018. Mobility Plan for Older Adults and People with Disabilities. Available:
https://www.samtrans.com/files/samtrans/Assets/SamTrans/PLANNING/PDF/Mobility_Plan_Final.pdf 28 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTA), undated. Clipper START. Available:
https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/clipperr-startsm 29 The Public Health Alliance of Southern California, 2022. California Health Places Index. Available:
https://map.healthyplacesindex.org/?redirect=false
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-69 FIGURE 46: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS ENVIRONMENTAL SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-70 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 47: CALENVIROSCREEN BY CENSUS TRACT, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-71 FIGURE 48: HEALTHY PLACES INDEX BY CENSUS TRACT, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-72 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 49: TCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS COMPOSITE SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-73
5.5 DISPARITIES IN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
Countywide data show that racial and ethnic minorities are more likely to live in moderate resource areas compared to non-Hispanic White residents. All of Portola Valley is considered a “highest resource” area so racial/ethnic disparities are not evident within the community. However, the limited racial/ethnic diversity of Portola Valley may contribute to the countywide disparities in access to opportunity by race/ethnicity.
FIGURE 50: POPULATION LIVING IN MODERATE AND HIGH RESOURCE ARES BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019
Note: All of Portola Valley is considered a High Resource Area.
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) provided by the Center for Disease Control (CDC)—ranks census tracts based on their ability to respond to a disaster—includes four themes of socioeconomic status, household composition, race or ethnicity, and housing and transportation. Again, Portola Valley is considered a “low vulnerability” area.
Portola Valley does not have any disadvantaged communities as defined under SB 535 as, “the top 25% scoring areas from CalEnviroScreen along with other areas with high amounts of pollution and low populations.”23FP29F
30 30 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-74 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 51: SOCIAL VULNERABILITY INDEX BY CENSUS TRACT, 2018 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-75 FIGURE 52: SB 535 DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-76 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
5.6 DISPARITIES SPECIFIC TO THE POPULATION LIVING WITH A
DISABILITY
Ten percent of the population in the Portola Valley are living with at least one disability, compared to 8% in the county. The most common disabilities in the city are hearing (5.2%), cognitive (4.3%), and independent living (4.1%).
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 36.
FIGURE 53: POPULATION BY DISABILITY STATUS, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
FIGURE 54: DISABILITY BY TYPE FOR THE NON-INSTITUTIONALIZED POPULATION 18 YEARS AND OVER, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
DI SA B IL I TY
“Disability types include hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, and independent living difficulty.”
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-77 For the population 65 and over, the share of the population with an ambulatory or independent living difficulty increases. As mentioned above under access to transportation, San Mateo County is rapidly aging; therefore, this population with a disability is likely to increase.
FIGURE 55: DISABILITY BY TYPE FOR SENIORS (65 YEARS AND OVER), PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Unemployment among residents living with a disability (3%) in Portola Valley is the same those without a disability (3%) and similar to the county overall. Countywide, the unemployment rate for residents with a disability is 4%, compared to 3% for residents without a disability.
FIGURE 56: EMPLOYMENT BY DISABILITY STATUS, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-78 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-79
6. DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
This section discusses disparate housing needs for protected classes including cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, substandard housing conditions, homelessness, displacement, and other considerations.
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
6.1 HOUSING NEEDS
According to ABAG, the population of Portola Valley increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2020, which is below the growth rate of the Bay area. However, the town’s population growth trend has generally been in line with the county.
FIGURE 57: POPULATION INDEXED TO 1990
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
DI SP RO POR TI O NA TE HO U SI NG NEED S
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-80 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT ABAG also reports that number of homes in Portola Valley increased 1.6% from 2010 to 2020, below the growth rate for San Mateo County and the broader region.
The most concentrated development period for Portola Valley was 1960-1979, during which 42% of the housing inventory was built. Another 25% of units were built before 1960. As such, two-thirds of the town’s units are older, may lack energy efficiency, could be costly to adapt for disability accessibility, and may have deferred maintenance if households cannot afford to make improvements.
FIGURE 58: HOUSING UNITS BY YEAR BUILT, PORTOLA VALLEY
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook Compared to San Mateo County, the Portola Valley’s owner occupied housing market has a far greater share of units priced over $2 million—81% of units in the town fall within this price range compared to 19% in the county. According to the Zillow home value index, home prices have experienced remarkable growth in the Portola Valley— even outpacing the county and the Bay Area overall.
FIGURE 59: DISTRIBUTION OF HOME VALUE FOR OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-81 FIGURE 60: ZILLOW HOME VALUE INDEX, 2001-2020
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Rents have increased at a slower pace compared to the for sale market—however, median rents still increased substantially over the past few years, rising by 47% between 2014 and 2019. Rent increases have likely been dampened by the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to the county, the Portola Valley has more luxury rental units—49% of units rent for more than $3,000 in the town compared to 22% in the county.
FIGURE 61: DISTRIBUTION OF CONTRACT RENTS FOR RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-82 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 62: MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT, 2009-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
6.2 COST BURDEN AND SEVERE COST BURDEN
One quarter of all households in Portola Valley are cost burdened—spending more than 30% of their gross income on housing costs—and 12% are extremely cost burdened—spending more than 50% of their gross income on housing costs. Cost burdened households have less money to spend on other essentials like groceries, transportation, education, healthcare, and childcare. Extremely cost burdened households are considered at risk for homelessness.
FIGURE 63: OVERPAYMENT (COST BURDEN) BY JURISDICTION, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-83 A smaller portion of households in Portola Valley (25%) struggle with cost burden compared to the county (37%). Lower income households are more likely to experience housing cost burden. Nearly three out of every four households earning less than 30% AMI—considered extremely low income households—are severely cost burdened, compared to only 4% of households earning more than 100% of AMI.
FIGURE 64: OVERPAYMENT (COST BURDEN) BY AREA MEDIAN INCOME (AMI), PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook.
Renters are often more cost-burdened than owners. While the housing market has resulted in home prices increasing dramatically, homeowners often have mortgages with fixed rates, whereas renters are more likely to be impacted by market increases. When looking at cost burdened populations across tenure in Portola Valley, 17.1% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 11.7% of those that own (see Figure 65). For extremely cost burdened groups, 23.1% are renters, while 8.4% are owners.
FIGURE 65: OVERPAYMENT (COST BURDEN) BY TENURE, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-84 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT There is little to no variation in the incidence of housing cost burden in Portola Valley by race/ethnicity—the data show no cost burden among minority households. Large family households are less likely to experience cost burden than other household types.
FIGURE 66: OVERPAYMENT (COST BURDEN) BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Since the town is comprised of just one census tract, there is no evident geographic concentration of cost burden.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-85 FIGURE 67: OVERPAYMENT (COST BURDEN) FOR RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT, 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-86 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
6.3 OVERCROWDING
The vast majority of households (>98%) in Portola Valley are not overcrowded—indicated by more than one occupant per room. However, renter households are more likely to be overcrowded with 8% of households with more than one occupant per room compared to 0% of owner households.
According to American Community Survey (ACS) 2017-2021 data as shown in Figure 71, 1.46% of housing units in the census tract Portola Valley is located are overcrowded. This is likely because the majority of housing units in Portola Valley are large, single-family homes.
The data do not indicate racial and ethnic disparities in overcrowding in Portola Valley. Since the town is comprised of just one census tract, there is no evident geographic concentration of overcrowding within the town.
FIGURE 68: OCCUPANTS PER ROOM BY JURISDICTION, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
FIGURE 69: OCCUPANTS PER ROOM BY TENURE, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-87 FIGURE 70: OVERCROWDING BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Note: Overcrowding is indicated by more than 1 person per room.
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-88 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 71: OVERCROWDING OF ALL HOUSING UNITS BY CENSUS TRACT, 2021 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH 2.0 Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-89
6.4 SUBSTANDARD HOUSING
Data on housing condition are very limited, with the most consistent data available across jurisdictions found in the American Community Survey (ACS)—which captures units in substandard condition as self-reported in census surveys. In Portola Valley, the data indicate 8% of all units have substandard kitchen facilities—all of these are shown to be rental units. This may actually reflect rental units with a common kitchen as opposed to residents living in substandard units.
FIGURE 72: PERCENT OF UNITS LACKING COMPLETE KITCHEN AND PLUMBING FACILITIES, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
6.5 HOMELESSNESS
In 2019, 1,512 people were experiencing homelessness in the county during the One-Day Count, with 40% of people in emergency or transitional shelter while the remaining 60% were unsheltered. As discussed in Section 2, Housing Needs, in both 2019 and 2022, Portola Valley had zero homeless individuals according to the most recent San Mateo County data (https://www.smcgov.org/hsa/2022- one-day-homeless-count).
FIGURE 73: HOMELESSNESS BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND SHELTER STATUS, SAN MATEO COUNTY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
People who identify as American Indian or Alaskan Native (6% of the homeless population compared to less than 1% of the total population), Black (13%, 2%), White (67%, 51%), and Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 0 68 198
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 0 271 74
Unsheltered 1 62 838
People in
Households
Solely
Children
People in
Households
Without
Children
People in
Households
with Adults
and Children
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-90 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Hispanic (38%, 28%) are overrepresented in the homeless population compared to their share of the general population. People struggling with chronic substance abuse (112 people), severe mental illness (305), and domestic violence (127) represented a substantial share of the homeless population in 2019.
FIGURE 74: SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATIONS BY RACE, SAN MATEO COUNTY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
FIGURE 75: SHARE OF GENERAL AND HOMELESS POPULATIONS BY ETHNICITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-91 FIGURE 76: CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS, SAN MATEO COUNTY, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
6.6 DISPLACEMENT
Displacement trends may be evaluated by both mobility trends (how often residents move) and by expiring contracts on income-restricted affordable units. Portola Valley households appear to have greater stability than households in the county overall—9% of Portola residents moved in the past year compared to 12% of county residents. Owner households generally experience a greater amount of housing stability whereas renter households are more mobile (i.e., move more frequently).
FIGURE 77: LOCATION OF POPULATION ONE YEAR AGO, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Sheltered - Emergency Shelter 46 0 70 31 10
Sheltered - Transitional Housing 46 3 46 4 14
Unsheltered 20 0 189 34 103
Chronic
Substance Abuse HIV/AIDS
Severely
Mentally Ill Veterans
Victims of Domestic
Violence
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-92 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 78: TENURE BY YEAR MOVED TO CURRENT RESIDENCE, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
According to HUD, there are no low income affordable units located in Portola Valley. As such, displacement due to expiring HUD contracts is less of a concern than access to the community for low income households.
FIGURE 79: ASSISTED UNITS AT RISK OF CONVERSION, 2019
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
Portola Valley 0 0 0 0 0
San Mateo County 4,656 191 359 58 5,264
Bay Area 110,177 3,375 1,854 1,053 116,459
Low Moderate High Very High
Total Assisted
Units in Database
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-93 The Urban Displacement Project does not identify Portola Valley as having any areas vulnerable to displacement (see definitions below).
Source: https://www.sensitivecommunities.org/.
DI SP LA CEM ENT SENS I TIV E CO MM U NI TI ES
“According to the Urban Displacement Project, communities were designated sensitive if they met the following criteria:
They currently have populations vulnerable to displacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. Vulnerability is defined as:
➢ Share of very low income residents is above 20%, 2017 ➢ AND
➢ The tract meets two of the following criteria:
− Share of renters is above 40%, 2017
− Share of people of color is above 50%, 2017
− Share of very low-income households (50% AMI or below) that are severely rent burdened households is above the county median, 2017
− They or areas in close proximity have been experiencing displacement pressures.
Displacement pressure is defined as:
• Percent change in rent above county median for rent increases, 2012-2017 OR
Difference between tract median rent and median rent for surrounding tracts above median for all tracts in county (rent gap), 2017.”
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-94 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT FIGURE 80: CENSUS TRACTS VULNERABLE TO DISPLACEMENT
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-95 FIGURE 81: LOCATION AFFORDABILITY INDEX BY CENSUS TRACT Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development AFFH Data Viewer APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-96 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
6.7 ACCESS TO MORTGAGE LOANS
Disparities by race and ethnicity are prevalent for home mortgage applications, particularly in denial rates. Hispanic or Latinx (29% denial rate) and Asian households (19%) had the highest denial rates for mortgage loan applications in 2018 and 2019, as shown in Figure 81. Conversely, nonHispanic White (15%) and households of unknown race/ethnicity (11%) have the lowest denial rates during the same time. Data was not available for American Indian or Alaska Native households or for Black or African American households.
FIGURE 82: MORTGAGE APPLICATIONS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY, PORTOLA VALLEY, 2018-2019 Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-97 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Cost Burden, Portola Valley, 2019
Area Median Income (AMI)
Overcrowding, Portola Valley, 2019
Occupants per Room by Tenure
Substandard Housing, Portola Valley, 2019
Incomplete Kitchen and Plumbing Facilities by Tenure
Homelessness, San Mateo County, 2019
Race and Ethnicity
Share of Homeless
Population
Share of Overall
Population
American Indian or Alaska Native 6% 0%
Asian / API 6% 30%
Black or African American 13% 2%
White 67% 51%
Other Race or Multiple Races 8% 17%
Displacement, 2020
Assisted Units at High or Very
High Risk of Displacement Portola Valley San Mateo County Number of Units 0 417
% of Assisted Units 0% 8%
14%
23%
28%
44%
90%
14%
12%
52%
56%
6%
71%
65%
21%
0%
4%
0%-30% of AMI
31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI
81%-100% of AMI
100%+ of AMI
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing
1.2%
0.0%
31.8%
0.0%
Kitchen
Plumbing
Owner Renter
8.1%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.0 to 1.5 Occupants per Room
More than 1.5 Occupants per Room
Owner Renter Series3
1.5+ Occupants
per Room
1-1.5 Occupants
per Room
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-98 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
7. SITE INVENTORY ANALYSIS
AB 686 requires local governments to affirmatively further fair housing as part of their Housing Element Update process, inclusive of the identification of Housing Sites. Accordingly, the Town of Portola Valley identified land resources throughout the community which were considered suitable for the accommodation of potential future residential development. These resources were identified as housing sites to be utilized in planning efforts associated with the 6P th
P cycle housing element update
process to accommodate the Town’s RHNA requirements for the 2023-2031 planning period in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing efforts.
As described within the prior Assessment of Fair Housing Section, the Town of Portola Valley is a highresource community that does not include any “low resource” areas or exhibited conditions of poverty within its municipal boundaries. However, due to the Town’s concentration of above-moderate income households, and prohibitive housing costs, relative to the broader county and region, 100% of neighborhoods within Portola Valley are considered exclusive to low-income households.
Accordingly, the Town’s Housing Sites Inventory prioritizes increasing affordable housing opportunities throughout the town, including housing opportunities for lower-income households and other special needs populations.
7.1 LOCATION OF EXISTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Portola Valley has one rent-restricted affordable housing project within its jurisdiction and two additional pipeline and pending projects that will include affordable units. Woodside Priory School, a private catholic college preparatory school, provides two units for low-income residents. The Willow Commons project will include nine low-income units and the Stanford Wedge project will include six low-income units (see Section 6, Adequate Sites for more information). ADUs provide scattered additional affordable housing units throughout the single-family neighborhoods.
7.2 DISTRIBUTION OF SITES IN THE SITES INVENTORY
All neighborhoods within Portola Valley are a RCAA. Accordingly, the Town’s Housing Sites Inventory prioritizes increasing affordable housing opportunities throughout the town, including housing opportunities for lower-income households and other special needs populations. Sites at the edge of the town boundary (Ladera Church, Village SquareVacant Portion of Ford Field, Stanford Glen Oaks, Skyline Open Space, and Christ Church) are adjacent to RCAAs outside of Portola Valley. The proposed housing sites in the Sites Inventory are well distributed to increase opportunities throughout the town, given the significant geologic and fire safety constraints. Sites were evaluated for proximity to faults, unstable soils, and steep topography prior to selection. In addition, ADUs distributed throughout the single-family neighborhoods will increase housing options in these areas.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-99
7.3 POTENTIAL EFFECT ON PATTERNS OF SEGREGATION
Although Portola Valley doesn’t have significant segregation issues within the town, from a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower-income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Portola Valley will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of segregation, disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups, and foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.
7.4 POTENTIAL EFFECT ON ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY
The wide distribution of housing sites will provide additional housing options for lower income households to choose housing near amenities and services. The sites in the Sites Inventory were selected based on accessibility to a variety of services and amenities, such as parks/trails, schools, shopping, and transportation. From a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Portola Valley will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of disparate impacts for impacted racial and ethnic groups by providing more affordable housing choices near desirable resources such as employment and highquality education. This will foster more inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.
7.5 POTENTIAL EFFECT ON DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
“Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. For purposes of this definition, categories of housing need are based on such factors as cost burden and severe cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions.”24FP30F 31 P
While household incomes within Portola Valley are relatively high when compared to other jurisdictions, there are still households considered some level of cost burdened. In Portola Valley,
17.1% of households spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing and are considered “cost burdened” while 11.7% of households are severely cost burdened and use over 50% of their income for housing. There are also disparities in housing cost burden in Portola Valley by tenure, while 20.2% of property owners experience cost burden, 46.9% of renters experience the same.
The increased quantity and distribution of affordable housing as proposed in the Sites Inventory will address disproportionate housing needs by providing more affordable housing in a wider variety of locations in the town. From a broader regional perspective, providing increased lower income housing opportunities in a high resource community such as Portola Valley will help overcome Countywide and regional patterns of disproportional housing needs. 31 California Department of Housing and Community Development Guidance, 2021, page 39.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-100 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
8. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING ACTION
PLAN
The disparities in housing choice and access to opportunity discussed above stem from historical actions, socioeconomic factors that limit employment and income growth, broad barriers to open housing choice, and until recently, very limited resources to respond to needs. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583 (c)(10)(A)(v), the Housing Element includes several policies and programs to proactively address fair housing issues. Table 11 below summarizes the fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementation programs included in the Housing Element to affirmatively further fair housing in Portola Valley.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-101 TABLE 11: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Meaningful Program Actions (from
Section 7, Goals, Policies, and Programs) Targets and Timelines The Town of Portola Valley has
limited racial and ethnic diversity
(18% of residents are non-White
Hispanic) compared to San Mateo
County (61%) and the Bay Area
overall, and very limited economic
diversity (73% of households earn
more than 100% AMI compared to
49% in the county overall). Portola
Valley has a lower percentage of
lower income households than the
rest of the San Mateo County and
the Bay Area, with 22% of
households earning less than 80%
of the AMI compared to 40% of
households in San Mateo County
and 39% of households in the Bay
Area as a whole. This equates to
480 households currently living in
Portola Valley who are below the
AMI, and 255 households who are
below 50% AMI which means they
would qualify for very low-income
housing.
There is a lack of affordable
housing opportunities
throughout the town. (High)
There are no areas of the town
that are zoned to allow
moderate or high-density
residential development.
Existing policies do not
encourage a range of housing
types. (High)
Community opposition to
affordable housing. (High)
▪ 1-1a: Create a new “Gateway” land use
classification in the General Plan to
provide for development of housing at
lower-income levels.
▪ 1-1b Create two new zoning districts in
the Municipal Code that allows for multifamily housing at with up to four 4 and 2350 du/acre to provide for
development of housing at lower-income
levels.
▪ 1-1c: Create Objective Design Standards
for new multi-family zoning
▪ 1-2a: Create a two new zoning districts
that allows for mixed-use development
with up to 6 and 25 du/ac six du/ac and
would allow for up to 100% of building
floor area to be dedicated to residential
uses.
▪ 1-2b: Create Objective Design Standards
for new mixed-use zoning.
▪ 1-3: Create a new Opt-In Housing
Diversification Program that allows
property owners to develop 4 du/acre.
▪ 1-6: Participate in HIP Housing’s “Home
Sharing Program”
▪ 2-1: Amend the zoning ordinance to
establish inclusionary housing
requirements for new multi-family
housing developments.
▪ 2.2: Develop a program to manage new
affordable housing units in the town.
▪ Adopted by Town Council on May
10, 2023.
▪ March 2024
▪ March 2024
▪ March 2024 (for 6 du/ac M-U
District) and within 90 days of HCD
certification of updated Housing
Element (for 25 du/ac M-U-HD
District).
▪ March 2024
▪ Develop objective design and
development standards by June
2025.
▪ Connect with HIP Housing by
December 2024.
▪ September 2026
▪ Initiate in 2023; implement
program by September 2024.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-102 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE 11: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Meaningful Program Actions (from
Section 7, Goals, Policies, and Programs) Targets and Timelines ▪ 2-4: Facilitate housing development for
extremely low-income households.
▪ 3-1: Pursue an affordable housing
project on the Dorothy Ford Park and
Open Space site.
▪ 3-21: Provide technical assistance to
nonprofits/religious institutions to
develop affordable housing.
▪ 4-5: Allocate funds from the Affordable
Housing Trust Fund through a Notice of
Funding Availability (NOFA) to support
the development of 100% affordable
housing projects.
▪ 7-3: Provide direct assistance from the
Building Division for property owners
interested in making minor changes to
accommodate a JADU.
▪ 7-4: Establish staff and consultant ADU
office hours so that applicants can ask
questions of subject matter experts.
▪ 7-6: Develop an affordable ADU rental
program that matches landlords willing
to rent ADUs at below market rates with
low-income tenants that who have been
experienced displacement from areas
outside of Portola Valley due to
increasing rents with Portola Valley ADU
owners willing to rent ADUs at below
market rates.
▪ 8-5: Rezone properties in the town to
allow multi-family housing with a range
▪ January 2026, reach out to
affordable housing developers.
▪ Issue RFP by January 2026
▪ Monthly meetings starting
September 2024.
▪ Publish initial NOFA by August 2026
▪ June 2024
▪ Initiate office hours by September
2024.
▪ Develop program by September
2024.
▪ Initiate in October 2024.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-103 TABLE 11: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Meaningful Program Actions (from
Section 7, Goals, Policies, and Programs) Targets and Timelines of affordability levels and deed
restrictions to ensure affordability over
time. Affirmatively market the housing to
households that are under-represented
in the town including Black and Hispanic
households.
▪ 8-6: Through collaboration with local
service providers, convene a discussion
of populations that are experiencing
comparatively high rates of cost burden
to discuss solutions for relief. Consider a
rental assistance program tailored to
extremely high cost-burdened residents
(residents that pay a very high
percentage of their income towards
housing). This may be in coordination
with ADU/JADU programs. Include Black,
Indigenous and people of color in these
conversations.
▪ Convene by June 2024. Consider
program by December 2024.
In 2018 and 2019, Hispanic or
Latinx and Asian households in
Portola Valley faced higher rates of
mortgage loan denials when trying
to purchase homes in Portola
Valley (29% and 19%,
respectively).P
a
P
It is well documented that
persons of color have been
historically denied loans to
purchase homes at a higher
rate than white applicants.
These historical patterns persist
in some cases. (High)
▪ Mortgage acceptance rates are outside
of local control. It is included here to
bring attention to this issue.
Portola Valley residents do not
report experiencing fair housing
discrimination. However, residents
may not take action because they
are not aware of resources for fair
housing.
Tenants and property owners
may lack knowledge about fair
housing laws. Limited
information provided by the
Town on fair housing rights.
(Low)
▪ 8-7: Collaborate with other cities/towns
and Project Sentinel, or another similar
organization, to perform fair housing
training for property owners, real estate
agents, and tenants across the region.
The training would include information
▪ Establish list by May 2024. Issue
written materials annually
thereafter. Conduct two workshops
by 2030.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-104 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT TABLE 11: FAIR HOUSING ACTION PLAN
Fair Housing Issues Contributing Factors
Meaningful Program Actions (from
Section 7, Goals, Policies, and Programs) Targets and Timelines on reasonable accommodation and
source of income discrimination, as well
as other fair housing information with
emphasis on certain topics driven by
housing complaint data and information
from stakeholders. Participation in fair
housing training will be required for
approval of landlords’ business licenses.
Focus enforcement efforts on racebased discrimination and reasonable accommodations.
▪ 8-8: Create a webpage specific to fair
housing including resources for
residents who feel they have
experienced discrimination, information
about filing fair housing complaints with
HCD or HUD, and information about
protected classes under the Fair Housing
Act.
▪ 8-9: Conduct a comprehensive analysis
of the Municipal Code to ensure there
are no regulatory constraints (actual or
perceived) to reasonable
accommodation and providing housing
for persons with disabilities. If any are
found, amend code to remove them
within six months.
▪ 35TMay 2024
▪ 35TJanuary 2027 for analysis;
September 2027 for code
amendments
P
a
P Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW C-105
9. REFERENCES
Ananat, Elizabeth Oltmans. 2011. “The wrong side(s) of the tracks: The causal effects of racial segregation on urban poverty and inequality,” American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 3: 34-66.
Bayer, Patrick, Robert McMillan, and Kim S. Rueben. 2004. “What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence using Census Microdata,” Journal of Urban Economics 56(3): 514-535.
Burch, Traci. 2014. “The Old Jim Crow: Racial Residential Segregation and Imprisonment,” Law and Policy 36(3): 223-255.
Chetty, Raj and Nathanial Hendren. 2018. “The Impacts of Neighborhoods on Intergenerational Mobility I: Childhood Exposure Effects,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133(3):1107-1162 Cutler, David M., and Edward L. Glaeser. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(3): 827-72.
Lens, Michael and Paavo Monkkonen. 2016. “Do Strict Land Use Regulations Make Metropolitan Areas More Segregated by Income?” Journal of the American Planning Association 82(1): 6–21.
Pendall, Rolf. 2000. “Local Land-Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion,” Journal of the American Planning Association 66(2): 125-142.
Rothstein, Richard. 2017. The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of how our Government Segregated America. New York: Liveright Publishing.
Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sharkey, Patrick. 2013. Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trounstine, Jessica. 2015. “Segregation and Inequality in Public Goods,” American Journal of Political Science 60(3): 709-725.
Trounstine, Jessica. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
APPENDIX C | FAIR HOUSING ASSESSMENT
C-106 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT This page intentionally left blank
PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW D-1 APPENDIX D: REVIEW OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING
ELEMENT PERFORMANCE
PAST PERFORMANCE
This Appendix provides a review of the Town's accomplishments implementing the housing policies and program objectives in the 2015-2023 Housing Element. The table below summarizes the programs from the 2015-2023 Housing Element and describes progress in implementing those programs. Where a program is recommended to be continued into the current Housing Element, that program appears in Section 7, Goals, Policies, and Programs.
To develop an effective housing plan for the 2023 to 2031 period, the Town must assess the effectiveness of its existing housing programs and determine the continued appropriateness of such programs in addressing housing adequacy, affordability, and availability issues.
This Appendix evaluates the accomplishments of each program against the objectives established in the 2015–2023 Housing Element, explains any discrepancy in program achievements, and recommends programmatic changes for inclusion in the 2023–2031 Housing Element. The Town recognizes that the 2015-2023 Housing Element does not include many objective metrics to measure performance. As such, the analysis is primarily qualitative, and the Town has taken steps to include more specific and measurable programs in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
EFFORTS TO ADDRESS SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Special needs populations include farmworkers, large families, female-headed single parent households, people experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, seniors, households with extremely low incomes. Government Code Section 65588 requires that local governments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in the Evaluation of 2015-2023 Housing Element Past Performance table, the Housing Element included several programs that addressed senior housing needs, households with extremely low income, emergency shelters, and needs for persons with disabilities.
Some of the accomplishments include:
▪ The Town Council adopted the Housing Strategic Plan in 2016, which emphasizes housing opportunities for seniors and the local workforce.
▪ Priory School completed six units of housing for their staff in 2021. While the residents’ demographics are private, the staff includes a range of incomes and different household compositions.
▪ In December 2021, the Town approved a by-right Supportive Housing project with 11 units for adults with developmental delays.
APPENDIX D | REVIEW OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE D-2 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY EXISTING HOUSING ELEMENT EVALUATION Housing Element
Program Name/
Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation
Program 1:
Inclusionary Housing
The intention is to revise the program to require that
developers build the housing units when one or more
units would be required under the inclusionary housing
program. As part of this revision, the percentage of lots required for below market rate housing may need to be
reduced. The percentage should be based on a nexus
study for affordable housing, such as the study underway through the 21 Elements process in San Mateo County.
With the nexus study results, the town could also
consider a housing impact fee. In developing the
revisions to this program, the town will consult local
developers and builders, and others experienced in the
provision of affordable housing, to ensure that the
requirements are realistic and that the program includes appropriate incentives.
Objective: Amend the inclusionary housing program to make it more effective.
Timeline: 2016,
Ongoing
Retain.
The Town Council adopted the Housing Strategic Plan
in 2016 and the implementation is ongoing. At that
time, Council postponed additional work on the
inclusionary housing program to ensure the approach
was comprehensive in light of other housing efforts.
In late 2018, Council formed a Subcommittee to
discuss the potential changes to the inclusionary
housing program and how to use the existing funds.
That work was postponed by the Covid-19 pandemic.
The Town Council recognized that the increase in the
Town’s RHNA for the 2023-2031 Housing Element
Update would be significant and that more broad
housing solutions would be necessary to meet the
Town’s housing obligations in coming years. Updates
to the inclusionary housing program and use of the
available funds have been considered and include
with the Housing Element Update.
Program 2: Affiliated
Housing
The town will continue to work with the owners of these three properties to allow and encourage housing to be
built on the sites. Eleven additional housing units are approved for the Priory under the current Master Plan, of which seven units would be for households with
moderate or low incomes. The Priory has indicated that
they intend to construct the units in phases and expect all of the units to be built by 2022. The town has also started discussions with the Sequoias to encourage employee
housing at the site, and they are moving forward
Timeline: Ongoing Retain and modify.
Priory School completed construction of six units of
housing in 2021. Stanford submitted a 39-unit
housing project (inclusive of 12 BMR units) for the
Wedge Property. Staff is having communications with
The Sequoias is also interested in developing 23 units
(18 senior and 5 workforce housing units) in the 6th
Housing Cycle. The Town Council is expanding the
Affiliated Housing Program to add Ladera Church,
APPENDIX D | REVIEW OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW D-3 Housing Element
Program Name/
Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation
internally to consider the options. Stanford University has no plans for their site at this time. During the planning period, however, the town will look more closely at the development standards and density for the Stanford
Wedge in particular to ensure that they are appropriate.
The town will continue to contact all three owners on a regular basis and assist them with any potential plans for providing housing.
Christ Church, and the Town itself with the Housing
Element Update.
Currently, the Affiliated Housing Program is
implemented through the Housing Element. With this
update, the Municipal Code will be updated with the
process and parameters of the Affiliated Housing
Program, including development standards and
affordability requirements.
Program 3: Second
Units (Accessory
Dwelling Units)
Second units provide most of the affordable housing in
town and are the only type of affordable housing that can be produced in Portola Valley by market forces without a significant subsidy. Second units are particularly
appropriate for Portola Valley because of their
compatibility with the rural nature of the town and their ability to directly serve the need for affordable housing. 2482a To strengthen the second unit program, Portola
Valley proposed three amendments to its zoning
ordinance in addition to the changes made to implement
previous housing element programs.
Objective: Amend the zoning ordinance to encourage second units. Monitor the program and take additional steps to increase second unit production if necessary.
Timeline: 2015,
Ongoing
Initial amendments
were completed in
2015 continue to have
ongoing updates.
Completed. Replace with new ADU Programs.
Town Council approved the amendments outlined in
the Housing Element in 2015. Additional amendments
were adopted in compliance with 2017 State law
changes. In 2017, the Town received a grant from
Home for All to conduct community workshops on
housing topics, which were held in 2018. Accessory
Dwelling Units became a focus of that effort. In fall of 2018, additional zoning code amendments were
considered to further encourage ADUs and allow
ADUs in all zoning districts. The ordinance was
adopted in early 2019. In 2021, the Town adopted
another set of amendments for compliance with State
law.
Program 4: Shared
Housing
As discussed in the section on housing characteristics, homes in Portola Valley tend to be large. For older
residents who want to remain in their homes,
maintaining a large home while living on their own may
be difficult. One option would be to convert a portion of a home to a second unit. Another option would be to
simply find someone else to share the house.
Timeline: Ongoing Retain and modify.
HIP has attended the Farmer's Market. Staff shares
publicity materials through the website and online
forum. Staff plans to include HIP in upcoming events
related to housing.
APPENDIX D | REVIEW OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE D-4 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Housing Element
Program Name/
Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation
The Human Investment Project for Housing (HIP Housing)
is a nonprofit organization that conducts a program in
San Mateo County to match housing “providers” with
housing “seekers.” Rents are established on a case-bycase basis and can sometimes be partly defrayed by services. Although Portola Valley is currently in the area served by HIP Housing, there is no formal arrangement
with the organization. Portola Valley will continue to work with the organization to increase publicity about its
service in the town
Objective: Continue to work with HIP Housing to improve publicity of its home-sharing program to residents and
employees.
Program 5: Fair
Housing
Project Sentinel handles complaints of discrimination in the sale or rental of housing and in the mediation of
tenant/landlord disputes in Portola Valley under the
terms of a contract with San Mateo County. Information
on this program will be posted or otherwise made
available at Town Hall and the library, and on the town’s website.
Objective: Publicize the program by continuing to provide brochures or post information sheets at Town Hall, the
library and on the town’s website.
Timeline: Ongoing Retain and modify.
Staff continues to ensure information on Project
Sentinel is readily available on the website.
Program 6: Energy
Conservation and
Sustainability
The Town has had a number of regulations that
encourage energy conservation for years. These include
permitting solar installations, utilizing subdivision
regulations that protect solar access, and supporting
energy efficient design. In addition, most new
development is clustered, which reduces impacts on the
land. The town also requires native landscaping, which
Timeline: Ongoing. Retain.
Town Council approved the Green Building Ordinance
in 2017 and staff has been reviewing applications for
compliance since it went into effect. The Council is
currently considering additional updates to the Green
Building Ordinance.
APPENDIX D | REVIEW OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW D-5 Housing Element
Program Name/
Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation
reduces the need for both water and energy. All of these policies and regulations will continue.
Objective: To continue existing green and energy
conservation measures, revise them when necessary, and
implement new programs in accordance with the
Sustainability Element and the town’s future Climate Action Plan.
Program 7: Explore
Future Housing
Needs and Potential
Housing Programs
During the housing element update process, the town
identified a need for a longer-range “vision” for housing in Portola Valley. This program therefore calls for the town to examine its likely housing needs beyond 2022, with the results potentially serving as a foundation for the next housing element update.
Objective: To analyze the town’s housing needs and trends, explore a commercial affiliated employee housing program, identify potential uses of money in the town’s in-lieu housing fund, and examine other potential programs as appropriate to meet the town’s future needs. The results of this program will help to create a foundation for the 2022 housing element update.
Timeline: Ongoing Completed.
In 2016, the Council adopted the Housing Strategic
Plan with six strategies. In 2018-2019, the Town held
three community wide meetings with Home for All
(Countywide housing advocates). In 2019, the Ad Hoc
Housing on Town-Owned Property Committee
reviewed properties owned by the Town that may be
suitable for housing and reported back to Council.
That process was valuable and resulted in a list of
sites that have been used in the Housing Element
Update process. Council Subcommittees continued to
meet on housing topics. Communications with
residents on housing topics remained high during
2020 and 2021.
Program 8:
Transitional and
Supportive Housing
Ordinance
Amendment
Due to clarifications of California law relative to
transitional and supportive housing, the Town’s municipal code needs to be amended so that it is fully compliant. In order to comply, sections 18.12.010, 18.14.020, and
18.16.020 which list the permitted uses in the residential zoning districts (the R-E, R-1, and M-R districts), need to be amended so that they no longer restrict the number of Timeline: 2015 Will be completed before the end of the Housing Element Cycle
The Transitional and Supportive Housing Code
amendments were adopted in 2022 and are now in
effect. The Municipal Code is now consistent with
State law. . In December 2021, the Town approved a
APPENDIX D | REVIEW OF THE 2015-2023 HOUSING ELEMENT PERFORMANCE D-6 AMENDEDDRAFT #2 FOR PUBLIC REVIEW PORTOLA VALLEY HOUSING ELEMENT Housing Element
Program Name/
Number Program Description and Objective
Timeframe and
Achievements Program Evaluation and Recommendation
persons in transitional and supportive housing when
those types of housing are located in single family homes.
Objective: Amend the zoning ordinance to fully comply with State law relative to transitional and supportive housing.
Supportive Housing project with 11 units for adults
with developmental delays.