5.6 Sites and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The Site Inventory, along with other portions of the Housing Element, must include an analysis and determination of consistency with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements as set forth in Assembly Bill 686 (2018). 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 (Government Code Section 8899.50(a)(1)).
To comply with AFFH requirements, the Site Inventory must identify sites to accommodate housing development throughout the City in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing opportunities. HCD has advised that this means that sites identified to accommodate the lower- income portion of the RHNA should not be concentrated in lower-resource areas as defined by the State’s Opportunity Maps. Sites identified to accommodate the lower income RHNA must be distributed throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing, for example, locating in well-resourced areas.
The Inventory was developed in a manner consistent with the state ma ndate to affirmatively
further fair housing (AFFH), pursuant to State law. Given the City’s inability to meet the 5th cycle RHNA for lower- and moderate-income households, an emphasis was placed on locating sites appropriate for these income groups, particularly in higher resource areas. However, increasing access to existing high resource neighborhoods represents just one strategy to increase access to opportunity for lower-income households. The City is also committed to investing in “lower resource” neighborhoods to increase opportunity for the existing residents of those neighborhoods, as described further in Chapter 3 Goals, Strategies, Policies & Programs.
An affirmative effort was made to locate affordable housing in higher resource neighborhoods to reduce patterns of exclusion and segregation, and the City remains committed to increasing opportunity in neighborhoods that have experienced historic disinvestment. Providing opportunity for lower-income households must be a multipronged approach – the provision of affordable housing in areas that are already higher resourced must be coupled with continued investments in place-based strategies for historically marginalized neighborhoods.
This section analyzes the performance of the Site Inventory on several metrics, both in terms of unit and site distribution. Together, they demonstrate that the Site Inventory fulfills the requirements of State law in countering segregation and creating opportunities for all, especially lower-income households.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-29 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
5.6.1 Integration and Segregation Trends
As Figure 5-2 below illustrates, there is no significant clustering of lower income sites in areas where there is already affordable housing. The Site Inventory branches out from the distribution of affordable housing to date and sites more affordable homes in the peripheral areas of San José where incomes are higher. The impact of this is reflected in the following statistics on unit and site distribution.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-30 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 2 Existing Affordable Rental Housing & Lower Income RHNA sites DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-31 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
5.6.2 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RECAPs) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs)
At all income levels, almost all sites inventory units are not in Census tracts designated as racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (RECAPs). At most, 28% of moderate income units are anticipated to be RECAP tracts. As shown in Table 5-9, the City’s planned development over the eight-year period will not result in concentrated development in vulnerable areas, and will actually result in a large share in City- defined areas of affluence. Subsequent sections further illustrate how the site inventory sites a large share of units in higher-resource and exclusive neighborhoods, dismantling barriers to opportunity.
Table 5-9: Site Inventory Units by RECAP/RCAA Status (total and percentage)
In a RECAP
In a San José-
defined RCAA
In neither a
RECAP nor
RCAA Total
Low Income
1,034
(4.9%)
377
(1.8%)
19,400
(93%)
20,811
(39.8%)
Moderate Income
2,948
(28%)
0 (0%)
7,597
(72%)
10,545
(20%)
Above Moderate Income
153
(0.7%)
0 (0%)
20,721
(99%)
20,874
(39.9%)
Total 4,135 377 28,977 52,230
Figures 5-3 and 5-4 illustrate that the Site Inventory distributes sites by income and racial predominance wit
hout excessive concentration. Quantitative data regarding the Site Inventory and median household income is tabulated in Table 5-10 and Table 5-11 below. The distribution of sites by RECAP tract resembles that of units, Table 5-1112. The income level with the largest share of sites in a RECAP tract, moderate income, has just 20% of sites. The income level with the largest share of sites in an RCAA tract, lower income, has 3%.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-32 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 2 Distribution of Sites by Income Category and Median Household Income DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-33 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 3 Distribution of Sites by Income Category and Predominant Race
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-34 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Table 5-10: Site Inventory Units by Median Income (total and percentage)
Less than
$65,000
$65,000-
$110,000
$110,000-
$146,000
$146,000-
$192,330
$192,330 or
greater Total
Low Income
883
(4%)
4,387
(21%)
8,287
(39.8%)
6,643
(31.9%)
611
(1.1%)
21,702
(40.62%)
Moderate Income
3430
(32%)
2,408
(22.8%)
4,533
(42.9%)
140
(1.3%)
34 (0.07%)
11,779
(22.04%)
Above Moderate
Income
153
(0.7%)
2,255
(10.7%)
3,404
(16%)
15,065
(72%)
0 (0%)
19,952
(37.34%)
Total 4,466 9,047 16,224 21,848 645 52,230
Table 5-11: Site Inventory Sites by Median Income (total and percentage)
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Mixed
Income Total
Less than $65,000
Total 11 39 1 0 51
(%) 2.32% 8.23% 0.21% 0.00% 10.76%
$65,000-$110,000
Total 53 48 18 0 119
(%) 11.18% 10.13% 3.80% 0.00% 25.11%
$110,000-$146,000
Total 92 115 16 3 226
(%) 19.41% 24.26% 3.38% 0.63% 47.68%
$146,000-$192,330
Total 36 7 14 12 69
(%) 7.59% 1.48% 2.95% 2.53% 14.56%
$192,330 or greater
Total 8 1 0 0 9
(%) 1.69% 0.21% 0.00% 0.00% 1.90%
Total 200 210 49 15 474
Total (%) 42.19% 44.30% 10.34% 3.16% 100.00%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-35 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Table 5-1112: Site Inventory Sites by RECAP/RCAA Status (total and percentage) RECAP RCAA Neither Total
Low Income
11 (5.5%)
6 (3%)
183
(91.5%)
200
(42%)
Moderate Income
42 (20%)
0 (0%)
168
(80%)
210
(44%)
Above Moderate Income
1 (2%)
0 (0%)
48 (97.9%)
49 (110%)
Mixed Income
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
15 (100%)
15 (3%)
Total 54 6 414 524
5.6.3 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Table 5-1213 below illustrates that the draft Housing Element sites inventory will not result in an over - concentration of lower -income housing development in low- resource areas as defined by TCAC. To the contrary, fifty-six percent of planned lower -income homes are sited in Census tracts that are at least moderate resource, and a large share (37%) are sited in tracts that are either high or highest resource, that would give residents greater access to quality jobs, schools, and othe r resources. Just 2.8% of market-rate units are planned in low-resource tracts, minimizing the risk that new market -rate development will cause gentrification and displacement.
Table 5-1213: Site Inventory Units by TCAC Resource Level (total and percentage) Low Resource
Moderate
Resource High Resource
Highest
Resource Total
Low Income
1,304
(6.2%)
11,796
(56%)
4,921
(23.6%)
2,790
(13.4%)
20,811
(39.8%)
Moderate Income
4,386
(41.5%)
5,594
(53%)
480
(4.5%)
85 (0.8%)
10,545
(20%)
Above Moderate
Income
584
(2.8%)
20,286
(97%)
4 (0.02%)
0 (0%)
20,874
(39.9%)
Total 13,197 27,069 11,820 1,347 53,433
Like with units, most sites are not in low resource areas. Table 5-13 14 shows that the share of lower-income
sites that are not located in low-resource areas is 82.9%, reducing concentrations of poverty going forward.
The share of lower-income sites that are located in Census tracts that are high or highest resource is 40%, giving residents greater access to opportunity, while 88.16% of market-rate sites are not in low-resource areas.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-36 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Table 5-1314: Site Inventory Sites by TCAC Resource Level (total and percentage)
Low Resource
Moderate
Resource High Resource
Highest
Resource Total
Low Income
21 (10.5%)
83 (41.5%)
59 (29.5%)
37 (18.5%)
200
(42%)
Moderate Income
62 (29.5%)
133
(63%)
11 (5.2%)
4 (1.9%)
210
(44%)
Above Moderate Income
3 (6%)
45 (91.8%)
1 (2%) 0
49 (10%)
Mixed Income 0
15 (100%) 0 0
15 (3%)
Total 86 276 71 41 474
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-37 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 4 Distribution of Site by Income Category and TCAC Opportunity Areas
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-38 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
5.6.4 Disproportionate Housing Needs/Displacement Risk
As Table 5-1415 below demonstrates, the sites inventory does not place a majority of units in Census tracts at are at risk of displacement, with just 29% of units being in those tracts. Instead, most units across all income categories are planned for tracts that are not vulnerable to displacement. In particular, 47% of above- moderate income units are in tracts that are vulnerable to displacement.
Table 5-1415: Site Inventory Units by Urban Displacement Project Typology (total and percentage)
Vulnerable to
Displacement7
Not Vulnerable to
Displacement8
Unavailable or
Unreliable Data Grand Total
Low Income
7,845
(37.7%)
11,969
(57.5%)
997
(4.7%)
20,811
(39.8%)
Moderate Income
4,947
(47%)
5,598
(53%)
0 (0.00%)
10,545
(20%)
Above Moderate Income
2,595
(12.4%)
13,667
(65.4%)
4,612
(22%)
20,874
(39.9%)
Total 15,387 31,234 5,387 52,230
As noted in the Table 5-1516, for lower-income sites, 54% of sites are in tracts that are not vulnerable to displacement. Above-Moderate-income sites are roughly split between non-vulnerable tracts and vulnerable tracts.
Table 5-1516: Site Inventory Sites by Urban Displacement Project Typology (total and percentage)
Vulnerable to
Displacement
Not Vulnerable to
Displacement
Unavailable or
Unreliable Data Total
Low Income
89 (44.5%)
109
(54.5%)
2 (1%)
200
(42%)
Moderate Income
78 (37%)
132
(63%)
0 (0.00%)
210
(44%)
Above Moderate Income
22 (45%)
22 (45%)
5 (10%)
49 (10%)
Mixed Income
1 (7%)
12 (80%)
2 (13%)
15 (3%)
Total 190 275 9 474
7 Typologies that are Vulnerable to Displacement are defined as “Advanced Gentrification,” “At Risk of Becoming Exclusive,” “At Risk of Gentrification,” “Becoming Exclusive,” “Early/Ongoing Gentrification,” “Low Income/Susceptible to Displacement,” and “Ongoing Displacement.”
8 Typologies that are not vulnerable to displacement are all those that are not Vulnerable to Displacement other than “Unavailable or Unreliable Data.”
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-39 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 5 Distribution of Sites by Income Category and Simplified Urban Displacement Project Typology
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-40 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
In San José, 38.6% of households are cost burdened (i.e., pay 30% or more of the household’s monthly income for rent or mortgage), with 17.6% of all households are extremely cost burdened (i.e., pay 50% or more of the household’s monthly income for rent or mortgage). As described in Table 1, less than 30% of lower income sites are proposed in census tracts where there is cost burden/severe cost burden experienced by renters; roughly 33% are in census tracts where cost burden is experienced by owners. This finding is consistent with the identification of a majority of sites for affordable housing in areas identified as highest, high, and moderate resource per the CDLAC/TCAC opportunity maps.
Table 5-1617 Number and Percentage of Opportunity Sites (inventory sites) in Census Tracts that Experience Cost Burden/Severe Cost Burden by Tenure Type
Lower Income
sites
Moderate Income
Sites
Above Moderate
Income Sites
Mixed Income Sites
(affordable and above
mod)
Cost Burden by Renters 53 sites
(27%)
59 sites
(28%)
9 sites
(18%)
0 sites
(0%)
Cost Burden by Owners 66 sites
(33%)
83 sites
(39%)
16 sites
(33%)
1 site
(7%)
Cost Burden (all tenure) 62 sites
(31%)
67 sites
(32%)
12 sites
(24%)
1 site
(7%)
Severely Cost Burdened by
Renters
52 (26%)
63 (30%)
3 (6%)
0 (0%)
Severely Cost Burdened by
Owners
85 (43%)
74 (35%)
15 (31%)
0 (0%)
Severely Cost Burdened (all
tenure)
62 (31%)
143
(68%)
10 (20%)
0 (0%)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-41 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 7 Distribution of Sites by Cost Burden, Renter
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-42 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 8 Distribution of Sites by Cost Burden, Owner
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-43 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 9 Distribution of Sites by Severe Cost Burden, Renter
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-44 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 10 Distribution of Sites by Severe Cost Burden, Owner
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-45 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
In San José 9.6% of households are overcrowded (i.e., with over 1.01 occupants per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens) and 3.5% of households are severely overcrowded (i.e., with over 1.51 occupants per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens). As described in Table 5-1718, 43% of lower income sites are in census tracts that are currently experiencing severe overcrowding. One can expect that with more affordable housing opportunities in these neighborhoods, the rate of severe overcrowding will decrease over time.
Table 5-1718 Number and Percentage of Opportunity Sites (inventory sites) in Census Tracts that experience Overcrowding by Households
Lower Income
Sites
Moderate Income
Sites
Above Moderate-
Income Sites
Mixed Income Sites
(affordable & above
mod)
Overcrowded by
Households
32 sites
(16%)
48 sites
(23%)
9 sites
(18%)
1 site
(7%)
Severely Overcrowded by
Households
485
(43%)
98 (46%)
33 (67%)
14 (93%)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-46 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 11 Distribution of Sites by Overcrowded Households
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 5: Adequate Sites for Housing
5-47 City of San José Draft Housing Element, rev. MayJune 2023
Figure 5- 12 Distribution of Sites by Severely Overcrowded Households
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
6-1 City of San José Draft Housing Element
Chapter 6
Opportunities for Energy
Conservation
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-2 City of San José Draft Housing Element
TABLE OF CONTENTS
6.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
6.1 Framework for Conserving Energy Resources ...................................................................... 3
6.1.1 Envision San José 2040 General Plan .......................................................................................3
6.1.2 GHG Reduction Strategy Aligned with SB 32 ........................................................................4
6.1.3 Climate Smart San José .................................................................................................................6
6.1.4 Energy Efficiency Building Requirements .................................................................... 8
6.15 Local, State and Federal Assistance Programs .................................................................. 10 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-3 City of San José Draft Housing Element
6.0 Introduction
State law (Government Code Section 65583(a)(7)) requires Housing Elements to include an analysis of opportunities for residential energy conservation. According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the energy conservation section of a Housing Element must inventory and analyze the opportunities to encourage energy saving features, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and design for residential development. In San Jose, the City has focused its efforts on promoting electrification, as the majority of California’s electric power comes from renewable resources and this reduces reliance on limited fossil fuel resources.
It is true that the main focus of building electrification is not primarily about energy efficiency, but rather on shifting energy sources to renewable resources and away from the world’s dwindling supply of fossil fuels. By relying on a renewable source of energy, this promotes overall energy conservation.
In addition, this shift does result in an increase in energy efficiency in a number of ways. Shifting to an electric induction cooktop from a natural gas cooktop is significantly more energy efficient, as well as beneficial to indoor air quality. Shifting to an electric heat pump water heater is generally three to four times more efficient compared to a natural gas water heater. From a vehicle standpoint, Electric Vehicles (EV’s) are generally substantially more energy efficient than gas powered vehicles, as well as producing substantially less greenhouse gasses (GHG).
Residential energy conservation presents an opportunity to improve health, contribute to climate change mitigation and sustainability, and reduce the cost of living by reducing energy consumption. Statewide green building standards regulate energy efficiency and conservation as a part of building permit issuance and is updated every three years to ensure the integration of the latest research and technology.
While electrification is one of the primary ways to reduce the environmental impact of a building and improve energy performance, existing residential buildings in San Jose face a range of difficulties when pursuing electrification including lack of electrical panel or service capacity, and the extensive renovations and remediations that the retrofitting for electrification might trigger.
Residents and property owners in San Jose have access to a variety of resources to assist with and incentivize residential energy conservation including local and state financing programs, and local resources such as solar rebates and incentives, and assistance with conversions of gas stoves to induction cooktops. Low-income San Jose utility customers who qualify can also take advantage of State and Federal Energy Bill assistance and energy efficiency programs. The State of California is pursuing aggressive policies to support efficient electrification, including resources for homeowners and renters, contractor training, and a broad outreach campaign.
As scientists continue to emphasize the need for rapid and far-reaching action to slow climate change, San José has already begun to feel the impact from wildfires, drought, and extreme heat. In November 2021 San José City Council acknowledged the need to accelerate action and set an aspirational goal for the City to become carbon neutral by 2030. This builds on the ambitious goals in the City’s climate action plan, Climate Smart San José, and seeks to set an example for other cities around the world.
Today, 85 percent of San José’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions come from transportation and energy consumption at the building level. In response, San José created priority actions supporting the following four key strategies:
• Move to zero-emission vehicles
• Reduce the vehicle miles traveled by at least 20 percent by 2030 and 45 percent by 2040 • Switch from fossil fuel to 100 percent carbon-neutral renewable energy DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-4 City of San José Draft Housing Element
6.1 Framework for Conserving Energy Resources
To achieve the accelerated goals for climate action, San José employs a range of interconnected strategies that are outlined in the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan, which in turn is augmented by Climate Smart San Jose, the City’s plan to uphold the Paris Agreement and limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. This section discusses San Jose’s strategies to reduce the City’s carbon footprint, including policies, programs and ordinances that apply to residential development.
6.1.0 Envision San José 2040 General Plan
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan provides a clear, compelling vision to guide the continued development of San José. The General Plan is the City’s expression of its ongoing commitment to guide growth in a way that creates an innovation-based economy that is environmentally sustainable and promotes social equity for its diverse population. As the guiding document for the City, the General Plan is directly responsible for outlining opportunities to implement(?)energy saving features, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and design for residential development at all income levels. For more information on General Plan goals that support energy conservation, please see Appendix J.
Resiliency and Climate Action
San José committed to the Paris Agreement by facilitating the use of innovative approaches, new technologies, and economic development to reduce per capita energy use, waste, and pollutants to meet the projections and goals under the Agreement. In this effort, the City will prioritize the most vulnerable and underserved communities in developing climate solutions and take action to build resilience on all levels. Plans like the Green Vision (2007), which was superseded by Climate Smart San José (2018), focus on developing infrastructure toward zero emission transportation and clean energy sectors. Collaborating across City departments and public agencies to create these plans to effectively address environmental hazards and promote environmental health and resilience throughout the community has led to identifiable positive changes discussed below.
Collaborating across City departments and public agencies to create these plans to effectively address environmental hazards and promote environmental health and resilience throughout the community has led to identifiable positive changes discussed below.
6.1.1 GHG Reduction Strategy Aligned with SB 32
Passed in 2016, California Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) sets a statewide emissions reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by the end of 2030, which supplements the earlier target of 80 percent reduction below 1990 levels by the end of 2050. Currently, if no additional reduction actions are taken, San Jose emissions are estimated to increase by 7 percent from 2017 to 2030 and nearly 18 percent from 2017 to 2040.
As written in the City of San Jose 2030 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy (GHGRS), the City’s approach for the local 2030 emissions reduction target is to align with state targets and further the policies within the Envision San José 2040 General Plan and Climate Smart San José’s sustainability goals. San José has demonstrated environmental leadership in this regard with many actions:
• Adoption of the City Council Policy 5-1 on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT); and • Establishment of San José Clean Energy, which supplies energy to 98% of customers in San Jose.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-5 City of San José Draft Housing Element
The City’s 2030 GHG emissions reduction target aligns with the state’s SB 32 target. It calls for GHG emissions intensity to reduce 2.94 metric tons CO2e per service population by 2020; based on Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan growth assumptions, this would correspond to total GHG emissions reducing to 5.3 million metric tons CO2e per year in 2030.
The City has identified several strategies to reduce GHG emissions to achieve the 2030 target. These strategies leverage the City’s current programs and plans and span across energy, building, land-use, transportation, water, and waste sectors. GHG reductions from each strategy by 2030 are shown in Table 6-1, which also identifies the sources of origin for the strategies to demonstrate the overlap with state regulations or policies and the City’s sustainability-related plans and policies. Based on the modeled GHG reductions, these strategies collectively provide at least the necessary 1.0 million metric tons of CO₂e annually in mass (total) emission reductions.
Application of the 2030 GHG Reduction Strategy for development review through the planning entitlement process will ensure that the GHG reduction measures translate to on-the-ground results to achieve the interim 2030 reduction target. A Development Consistency Checklist applies to all discretionary reviews through the City’s Planning, Building and Code Enforcement Department (PBCE).
To help facilitate the implementation of the 2030 GHGRS, each strategy contains implementation information that identifies the strategy’s GHG reduction potential in 2030, the performance standards associated with the GHG reduction estimates, and the initial implementation steps to help achieve the reduction levels.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-6 City of San José Draft Housing Element
Table 6-1: 2030 GHG Reduction Strategies and Reduction Potential
CSSJ = Climate Smart San José | GHGRS = Greenhous Gas Reduction Strategy | CO2e = Carbon dioxide equivalent
STRATEGY TITLE 2030 REDUCTIONS MT
CO2E/YEAR STRATEGY ORIGINS
GHGRS – 1
San José Clean Energy
655,104
Green Vision Goal 3
Climate Smart San José (CSSJ) Strategy 1.1
GHGRS – 2
Zero Net Carbon Residential Construction
43,678
California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan
CSSJ Strategy 2.2
General Plan Goal MS-14
GHGRS – 3
Renewable Energy Development
63,697
Green Vision Goal 3
CSSJ Strategy 1.1
General Plan Goal MS-2
GHGRS – 4
Existing Building Retrofits – Natural Gas
208,986
Senate Bill 350
CSSJ Strategy 2.2
General Plan Goal MS-2
GHGRS – 5
Zero Waste Goal
207,956
Green Vision Goal 5
General Plan Goal MS-5
Council Resolution 74077
GHGRS – 6
Caltrain Modernization Project 12,547 CSSJ Strategy 2.4 GHGRS – 7
Water Conservation
3,106
CSSJ Strategy 1.2
General Plan Goal MS-3
Total Emission Reductions (MT CO2e/year) 1,195,074
—
Total Emission Reductions in MMT CO2e/year 1.2
—
Source: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Strategies Memorandum (August 2019)
6.1.2 Climate Smart San José
San José’s climate action plan, Climate Smart San José (Climate Smart), builds on the Envision San José 2040 General Plan by highlighting and interpreting elements related to the community’s profile of carbon emissions and providing both analysis and recommendation to meet various climate goals.
Climate Smart builds on the City’s General Plan as a foundation from which it can create bold strategies to reach the Paris Agreement using three key strategies — create a sustainable and Climate Smart city, foster a vibrant city of connected and focused growth, and allow for an economically inclusive city of opportunity.
Opportunities for energy saving features, energy saving materials, and energy efficient systems and design for residential development are enabled throughout these key strategies through the following goals:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-7 City of San José Draft Housing Element
• Provide 100 percent GHG free power through San José Clean Energy (SJCE)—a non-profit supplier of green energy.
• Become the world’s first 1 Giga Watt solar city.
• Be the electric car capital of the U.S.
• 100 percent of new homes will be Zero Net Energy.
• Create an additional 22 million sq. ft. of commercial workspace located within half a mile of transit.
• Develop 40,000 dwelling units in urban villages and focused growth areas with a focus on walking and biking.
• No more than 2 out of 5 commute trips in San José will be taken in single occupancy vehicles. • Reduce per capita residential water consumption by 30 percent compared to 2009.
In 2020, the City Council approved a General Plan text amendment during the four-year review process to reference Climate Smart where applic able and update tracking of measures associated with the previous Green Vision plan (adopted in 2007).
Since the sunset of Green Vision through the implementation of Climate Smart San José, 50,200 jobs have been created, and efforts are underway to bring businesses to San José at different income tiers to create inclusive and accessible middle-income pathways for our residents. Specific focus is placed on jobs and homes near transit to further increase access and reduce greenhouse gases. San José Clean Energy (SJCE) offers power to roughly 350,000 customers of which nearly 2,000 are Total Green customers — a 100 percent renewable source of energy. SJCE plans to further expand in the near future, offering local control, transparency, and increased accessibility.
San José Clean Energy
San José Clean Energy (SJCE) is focused on renewable energy generation. With a 1-billion-dollar investment in renewable resources and energy storage options this green energy supplier can offer competitive rates to businesses and residents of San José. Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) is a partner of SJCE by providing delivery of renewable energy and customers can see the cost of both delivery by PG&E and the renewable energy plan compared to the generic PG&E plan on their PG&E bill. SJCE has offered rebate, incentive, and resource programs for various residential uses which include heating/ cooling, solar, and retrofitting, among others. Anyone who is enrolled in the California Alternate Rates for Electricity (CARE), which discounts utility bills for low-income households, and/or the Family Electric Rate Assistance program (FERA), which does the same for households whose income slightly exceeds the CARE allowances, will automatically be enrolled in the San José Cares program by SJCE.
The CARE and FERA programs are State run programs through PG&E—more information can be found in the subchapter on PG&E. SJ Cares is an additional 5 percent discount off SJCE’s lowest rates.
Disadvantages communities, who are in the CARE and FERA programs may also apply for the SJCE Solar Access program; disadvantaged communities are designated by CalEPA for purposes of Senate Bill 535 (SB 535). This program provides solar energy at a 20% discount and can be applied to the CARES, FERA, and SJ Cares programs for a total discount of 55 percent.
Parking and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance
Reducing reliance on gas-powered vehicles and creating pedestrian friendly neighborhoods is another major strategy aimed to reduce carbon emissions outlined in the City’s General Plan and Climate Smart. In December 2022, City Council approved the Parking and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance, removing minimum parking requirements and requiring a TDM plan in all new developments.
Under the ordinance, developers can incorporate programs and improvements that make alternative DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-8 City of San José Draft Housing Element
modes of transportation such as walking, biking, and using public transportation more viable. This shift will reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reduce the cost of development, make housing easier to build, and help improve overall air quality leading to more sustainable communities.
Energy and Water Building Performance Ordinance
California Assembly Bill 802 (AB 802) created a benchmarking program requiring owners of buildings over 50,000 square feet benchmark to disclose their building’s energy performance. The City’s Energy and Water Building Performance Ordinance (BPO) builds off AB 802 and requires owners of nonresidential and multifamily buildings that are 20,000 square feet or larger in size to annually track their energy and water use. The data is shared with the City of San José to better understand its building stock, develop energy and water efficiency programs, and measure its progress on GHG emissions and water conservation goals. Buildings that do not meet performance standards are provided several options to increase efficiency over time. Approximately 2,500 buildings are covered under this ordinance. In addition, beginning in 2023, buildings 20,000 SF or more will also be required to meet energy and water efficiency standards on a rolling five-year basis, or perform improvements if standards are not met.
Rehabilitation in Single Family Homes and Affordable Housing Developments In partnership with Habitat for Humanity Silicon Valley and Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley, the City’s Minor Repair Program offers low-income families grants for appliances that are in need of critical repairs. If the appliances are unable to be repaired, homeowners will receive new energy efficient replacement models. The participation in this program has steadily increased over the years, serving a total 833 households over the period 2000-2023.
The City also assists existing Affordable Housing properties to incorporate energy-efficient rehabilitation. In 2022, the Housing Department continued oversight of the rehabilitation of 4 affordable housing developments with 393 total apartments that integrated energy-efficient elements including:
• Replacement of water fixtures to “low flow” fixtures – an estimated 30% savings in water usage • Replacement of Domestic Hot Water (DHW) Boilers
• Split system heat pumps serving west facing units
• Indoor common area and office LED lighting
• Parking area and security LED lighting
• Re-wiring lighting circuits to separate outdoor and indoor lighting • New energy efficiency appliances
• New high energy efficiency boiler
• New energy efficiency heating/cooling units
For more information on which General Plan goals implement Climate Smart San José, see Appendix J.
Beyond the above-described programs, Climate Smart San José has implemented or completed many other programs that support energy savings and efficiency for residential development to enable the City’s vision of a cleaner, more energy efficient future See Table 6:2 below for a list of these programs.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-9 City of San José Draft Housing Element
Table 6-2: Projects and Programs to Implement Climate Smart San José
PROGRAM STATUS DATE DESCRIPTION
San José Clean Energy Implemented 2019 Nonprofit electricity provider focused on 100 percent renewable energy
Reach Code
Implemented
2019
Local building energy code that encourages building electrification and energy efficiency, requires solar-readiness on nonresidential buildings, and requires electric vehicle (EV) readiness and EV equipment installation above and beyond standard code requirements.
Natural Gas Infrastructure
Prohibition & Updated
Ordinance
Implemented
2019-2020
Stemming from the Reach Code, an update was done to Title 17 of the Municipal Code to prohibit Natural Gas infrastructure in all new construction, with some minor exceptions.
Zero net carbon building
demonstration & educational
materials
Implemented
2019
Provide information to the public on how buildings can be designed to meet all its energy needs from carbon-free sources such as solar or wind.
DIY Energy Savings Toolkit
Implemented
2020
Check out a Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Home Energy Saving Toolkit from a local library and following instructional materials to lower home energy consumption.
Electrify San José heat pump
water heater rebate program Complete 2019-21 Provided rebates for San José households to switch from a natural gas water heater to an electric heat pump water heater.
Induction Cooktop Checkout
Program Implemented 2019 San José residents can check out a portable induction cooktop and cookware at no cost for up to two weeks.
Online solar permitting Implemented 2020 Provides online permit application submittal for Single-Family or Duplex properties.
Evaluation of local solar
energy potential by National
Renewable Energy Labs (NREL)
Complete
2017
Evaluates solar energy potential of San José.
SolSmart certification
Implemented
2020
Provides no-cost technical assistance to help communities become “open for solar business.” Communities are recognized with designations of SolSmart Gold, Silver, and Bronze.
San José Clean Energy
Going Solar webpage Complete 2020 Step-by-step guide outlining how to go solar on residential properties.
GreenSource power mix Implemented 2019 San José Clean Energy’s default service at 60% renewable sources.
TotalGreen
Implemented
2019 San José Clean Energy’s 100 percent renewable service available to 308,000 residential and commercial customers.
San José Complete Streets
Design Standards &
Guidelines
Implemented
2018
Describes a vision and best available practices for designing streets that are comfortable, safe and welcoming for all modes of travel.
Transportation Analysis
Policy Implemented
Updated
2018
2022
Shift the focus of developments’ transportation improvements to pedestrian, bicycle and transit facilities.
Sustainable Commute
Incentive Pilot Complete 2017-20 Test the effectiveness of various incentive strategies for reducing drive-alone automobile trips
Smart Moves San José Complete 2018 Encourages San José residents and employees to reduce drive- alone trips and increase walking, biking and use of public transit.
Climate Smart Challenge Implemented 2020 Encourages and activates San Jose residents to explore a number of options on making their homes more energy efficient.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-10 City of San José Draft Housing Element
Solar Access Implemented 2021 The Solar Access program offers customers with low incomes living in disadvantaged communities a 20 percent bill discount and 100 percent solar energy from a solar facility in Northern California. The program has more than 800 customers and is expected to run for 20 years.
Home Appliance Savings
Program
Implemented 2022 The Home Appliance Savings Program offers 50-70% discounts on energy efficient refrigerators, clothes washers, and dryers and free smart thermostats to moderate-income single-family households as well as single-family households located in disadvantaged communities.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-11 City of San José Draft Housing Element
6.1.3 Energy Efficiency and Building Electrification Requirements San José’s Climate Smart GHG reduction strategy encompasses both residential and non-residential projects through energy efficient building requirements. This includes the use of energy saving materials and energy efficient systems. For residential development, new construction in San José must be designed to meet or exceed the requirements of both the 2022 Building Energy Efficiency and CALGreen Building Standards. San José can conservatively expect approximately 350 new single-family residences, 2,400 new multifamily residences, and 2.4 million additional square feet of commercial/industrial construction per year over the next three years. If these buildings were to use natural gas, an estimated increase of 897,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions would result over the expected life of the buildings (50 years for residential and 50 years for commercial). This equates to almost 300,000 Metric Tons of CO2 emissions per year, equivalent to 1.7 trillion car miles.
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations (Building Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential Development), sets California’s building standards for energy efficiency and supersedes any local regulations. These regulations respond to California's energy crisis, and each city and county must enforce these standards as part of its review of building plans and issuance of building permits. The standards are updated every three years to incorporate new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
Local jurisdictions are allowed to exceed Title 24 requirements where cost effectiveness and need are demonstrated, such as for local climatic or geological considerations, through Reach Codes.
The 2022 Energy Code went into effect on January 1, 2023. Some of the new measures include:
• Establishing energy budgets based on efficient heat pumps in single-family homes, multifamily homes, and businesses to encourage builders to opt for electric heat pumps instead of gas- powered HVAC units;
• Requiring battery storage equivalent to a percentage of onsite solar-generated electricity in high-rise commercial and multifamily buildings;
• Increasing minimum kitchen range ventilation requirements; and • Ensuring new single-family homes are electric-ready by:
1. Requiring installation of 240-volt circuits to accommodate electric clothes dryers, water and space heating, and cooking/ovens.
2. Providing electric panel, branch circuits, and transfer switch for battery storage of electricity.
3. Requiring installation of circuits and panels that can easily convert from gas to electricity for major appliances in the future.
Since January 1, 2020, all new single-family homes, multifamily homes up to three stories high, and commercial businesses have been required to include solar panels. Beginning in 2023, all newly constructed multifamily dwellings will require both solar panels and photovoltaic battery storage.
This mandate also applies to major renovations. These changes help to ensure that operating all-electric buildings will be cost-effective compared to mixed-fuel buildings.
The California Building Code also includes CALGreen, a set of green building regulations to ensure more sustainable building practices through pollution reduction, resource conservation, and energy use. There DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-12 City of San José Draft Housing Element
are statewide mandatory measures, as well as more stringent voluntary measures that local jurisdictions may adopt. The City of San Jose has adopted the voluntary measures, which speak to water use both indoor and outdoor, storm water management, pollution control (such as indoor air quality), and EV charging.
San Jose Reach Code and Natural Gas Prohibition
To avert the GHG emissions discussed at the start of this section and work towards the City’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2030, the San Jose Reach Code and subsequent amendments include requirements for all-electric design. The Code requires additional electric vehicle charging infrastructure across all building types, requires solar readiness for high-rise multifamily and non-residential buildings, and prohibits natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings except where limited exemptions might apply. The specific components of San José’s Reach Code are summarized in Table 6:3.
Table 6-3: Reach Code Components
OCCUPANCY TYPE REACH CODE COMPLIANCE PATHWAYS
ALL-ELECTRIC* MIXED FUEL**
Single-family & Low-Rise Multifamily Efficiency: To Code Efficiency: Energy Design Rating ≤ 10 & electrification-ready High-rise Multifamily & Hotel Efficiency: To Code
EVCI: Same as Mixed Fuel
Efficiency: 5% (compliance margin) & electrification-ready EVCI: 10% EVSE, 50% EV Capable
Non-Residential Efficiency: To Code
EVCI: Same as Mixed Fuel
Efficiency: 10% office/retail, 0% industrial/manufacturing, 5% all other occupancies & electrification-ready
EVCI: 10% EVSE, 40% EV Capable
*Solar-readiness required for all buildings
** Due to subsequent code updates to prohibit natural gas infrastructure, the Mixed Fuel pathway only applies if a project is approved for an exemption to permit natural gas infrastructure.
EVCI = Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
EVSE = Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
Source: City of San Jose Planning staff, 2022
Addressing electrification now in new buildings avoids hardships and retrofit costs for building owners in the future and acknowledges the GHG impacts of taking no action, particularly considering the benefits of building and transportation electrification when paired with carbon-free electricity that will be provided by SJCE. However, based on the City and State goals to reduce GHG emissions, electrification retrofits will still be necessary for existing buildings. To solve this, Electrify San Jose (2022), the City’s framework for existing building electrification, recommends for increased outreach and incentive funding.
Promoting EV adoption and solar infrastructure represents further opportunity to reduce GHG. Since EVs are powered by electricity, they have the potential for zero tailpipe emissions and, therefore, represent a significant potential to reduce GHG in San José. SJCE purchases renewable energy from sources such as solar and wind farms, helping reduce GHG emissions dramatically and reduce energy costs for consumers. For vehicle electrification, Climate Smart proposes expanding the publicly available charging station network, incentivize charging stations in new commercial parking areas, and EV charger requirements and permit streamlining. For solar electricity, Climate Smart proposes measures such as building a community solar farm, expanding low-income solar subsidies, and incentivizing rooftop solar installation.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-13 City of San José Draft Housing Element
6.1.4 Local, State and Federal Energy Assistance Programs
Pacific Gas and Electric
In addition to the City initiatives listed in section 6.1.2, PG&E, a major Bay Area energy supplier, offers the following financial and energy-related assistance programs for its low-income customers:
• Energy Savings Assistance Program. PG&E’s Energy Savings Assistance program offers free weatherization measures and energy-efficient appliances to qualified low-income households.
PG&E determines qualified households through the same sliding income scale used for CARE.
The program includes measures such as attic insulation, weather stripping, caulking, and minor home repairs. Some customers qualify for replacement of appliances including refrigerators, air conditioners, and evaporative coolers.
• Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties. The Energy Efficiency for Multifamily Properties program is available to owners and managers of existing multifamily residential dwellings containing five or more units. The program encourages energy efficiency by providing rebates for the installation of certain energy-saving products.
• Disadvantaged Communities – Single Family Solar Homes (DAC-SASH). DAC-SASH provides free rooftop solar installations to homeowners.
• California Alternate Rates for Energy (CARE) & Family Electric Rate Assistance Program (FERA). PG&E offers federal rate reduction programs for low-income households. PG&E determines qualified households by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. The CARE program provides a discount of 20 percent or more on monthly gas and energy bills. The FERA program provides a discount of 18 percent on electricity only for three- or-more people per household.
• REACH (Relief for Energy Assistance through Community Help). The REACH program is sponsored by PG&E and administered through a non- profit organization. PG&E customers can enroll to give monthly donations to the REACH program. Qualified low-income customers who have experienced uncontrollable or unforeseen hardships, that prohibit them from paying their utility bills may receive an energy credit. Eligibility is determined by a sliding income scale based on the number of household members. To qualify for the program, the applicant’s income cannot exceed 200 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. • Medical Baseline Allowance. The Medical Baseline Allowance program is available to households with certain disabilities or medical needs. The program allows customers to get additional quantities of energy at the lowest or baseline price for residential customers.
In addition to the local programs described above, the California Department of Community Services and Development (CSD) administers the Federally funded Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). This program provides two types of assistance: Home Energy Assistance and Energy Crisis Intervention. The first type of assistance is a direct payment to utility bills for qualified low-income households. The second type of assistance is available to low-income households that are in a crisis. CSD also offers free weatherization assistance, such as attic insulation, caulking, water heater blankets, and heating and cooling system repairs to low-income households.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Chapter 6: Opportunities for Energy Conservation
6-14 City of San José Draft Housing Element
State Electrification Programs
California is pursuing aggressive policies to support efficient electrification, including resources for homeowners and renters, contractor training, and a broad outreach campaign:
• Switch Is On. Switch is On is a statewide marketing and outreach campaign to promote electrification. An online portal explains the benefits of electrification and shares resources for finding contractors. The program also provides marketing across the state in multiple languages.
• Technology and Equipment for Clean Heating (TECH). The TECH program is an initiative to advance the market for low-emission space and water heating equipment for new and existing residential buildings. The $30 million program provides financial incentives, statewide marketing and outreach, and contractor engagement.
• Building Initiative for Low-Emissions Development (BUILD). BUILD is a $20 million program that provides financial and other incentives for zero- and near-zero emissions development and construction of new single-family and multifamily homes, with at least 30 percent of funds reserved for low-income residences
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-1 ver. May 2023
APPENDIX A
HOUSING NEEDS DATA: SAN JOSE
ABAG/MTC Staff and Baird + Driskell Community Planning + City of San José
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-2 ver. May 2023
0.1 Table of contents
0.1 Table of contents ........................................................................................... 2
0.2 List of figures ............................................................................................... 2
0.3 List of tables ................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 2 Summary of Key Facts .......................................................................................... 5 3 Looking to the Future: Regional Housing Needs ........................................................... 7
3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination ................................................................. 7
3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation ....................................................................... 7 4 Population, Employment and Household Characteristics ................................................ 9
4.1 Population ................................................................................................... 9
4.2 Age ........................................................................................................... 10
4.3 Race and Ethnicity ......................................................................................... 13
4.4 Employment Trends ....................................................................................... 15
4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers ........................................................................ 15
4.4.2 Sector Composition ................................................................................... 19 Resident Employment by Occupation: ........................................................................ 21
4.4.3 Unemployment ........................................................................................ 21
4.5 Income ....................................................................................................... 22
4.6 Tenure ....................................................................................................... 26
4.7 Displacement ............................................................................................... 30 5 Housing Stock Characteristics ............................................................................... 32
5.1 Housing Types, Year Built, Vacancy, and Permits ..................................................... 32
5.2 Assisted Housing Developments At-Risk of Conversion ............................................... 35
5.3 Substandard Housing ...................................................................................... 36
5.4 Home and Rent Values .................................................................................... 37
5.5 Overpayment and Overcrowding ......................................................................... 41 6 Special Housing Needs ........................................................................................ 50
6.1 Large Households .......................................................................................... 55
6.2 Female-Headed Households .............................................................................. 57
6.3 Seniors ....................................................................................................... 59
6.4 People with Disabilities ................................................................................... 60
6.5 Homelessness ............................................................................................... 62
6.6 Farmworkers ................................................................................................ 69
6.7 Non-English Speakers ...................................................................................... 71
0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends ............................................................................... 10 Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019 ........................................................................... 11 Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race .................................................................. 12 Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019 ......................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction ..................................................................................... 16 Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence.................. 17 Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group ................................................................... 18 Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio ..................................................................................... 19 Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry ...................................................................... 20 Figure 10: Unemployment Rate ..................................................................................... 22 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-3 ver. May 2023
Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level .............................................................. 23 Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure ................................................................... 25 Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race .................................................................................. 26 Figure 14: Housing Tenure ........................................................................................... 27 Figure 15: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder ............................................................. 28 Figure 16: Housing Tenure by Age .................................................................................. 29 Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type ...................................................................... 30 Figure 18: Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure ....................................................... 31 Figure 19: Housing Type Trends .................................................................................... 32 Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built ................................................................. 33 Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type .................................................................................... 34 Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues ............................................................................. 37 Figure 23: Home Values of Owner-Occupied Units ............................................................... 38 Figure 24: Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI) ....................................................................... 38 Figure 25: Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units ........................................................... 39 Figure 26: Median Contract Rent ................................................................................... 40 Figure 27: Cost Burden by Tenure .................................................................................. 42 Figure 28: Cost Burden by Income Level .......................................................................... 43 Figure 29: Cost Burden by Race..................................................................................... 44 Figure 30: Cost Burden by Household Size ........................................................................ 45 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Senior Households by Income Level ................................................. 46 Figure 32: Overcrowding by Tenure and Severity ................................................................ 48 Figure 33: Overcrowding by Income Level and Severity ......................................................... 49 Figure 34: Overcrowding by Race .................................................................................. 49 Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure .............................................................................. 55 Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms ............................................................... 57 Figure 37: Household Type .......................................................................................... 58 Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status ...................................................... 59 Figure 39: Senior Households by Income and Tenure ............................................................ 60 Figure 40: Disability by Type - Seniors (65 and over) ............................................................ 61 Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara County ...................... 63 Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County ................ 65 Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara County ........................ 65 Figure 44: Challenges and Other Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara County ........................................................................................................... 66 Figure 45: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness ..................................... 69 Figure 46: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara County ................................ 70 Figure 47: Population with Limited English Proficiency ......................................................... 72
0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology ............................ 8 Table 2: Population Growth Trends ................................................................................. 9 Table 3: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion ..................................................................... 36 Table 4: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age ................................................... 62 Table 5: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence ........................................... 62
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-4 ver. May 2023
1 INTRODUCTION
The Bay Area continues to see growth in both population and jobs, which means more housing of various types and sizes is needed to ensure that residents across all income levels, ages, and abilities have a place to call home. While the number of people drawn to the region over the past 30 years has steadily increased, housing production has stalled, contributing to the housing shortage that communities are experiencing today. In many cities, this has resulted in residents being priced out, increased traffic congestion caused by longer commutes, and fewer people across incomes being able to purchase homes or meet surging rents.
The 2023-2031 Housing Element Update provides a roadmap for how to meet our growth and housing challenges. Required by the state, the Housing Element identifies what the existing housing conditions and community needs are, reiterates goals, and creates a plan for more housing. The Housing Element is an integral part of the General Plan, which guides the policies of San Jose.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-5 ver. May 2023
2 SUMMARY OF KEY FACTS
• Population – Generally, the population of the Bay Area continues to grow because of natural growth and because the strong economy draws news residents to the region. The population of San Jose increased, changing by 10.9% from 2010 to 2020 1, which is above the growth rate of the region. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the City’s population will grow by about 15% to 1,189,660 in 2030 2 , by the end of this Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
• Age – In 2019, San Jose’s youth population under the age of 18 was 230,598 3 (22% of total) and senior population 65 and older was 128,611 3 (13% of total). Seniors ages 65 & older are the fastest growing age group and are expected to grow 39% to 178,100 by 2030 2. Working age population between the ages of 20 and 64 (63% of total) are expected to grow 10% by 20302,(from 645,892 to 710,050).
• Race/Ethnicity – Approximately 25.7% of San Jose’s population is White while 2.8% is African American and 36.1% is Asian. Within the Asian Population, 30% are Vietnamese, 24% are Chinese and 19% are Asian Indian origin. The percentage of Latinx population is 31.6%. People of color in San Jose comprise a proportion above the overall proportion in the Bay Area as a whole. 4 • Number of Homes – San Jose has 338,5093 housing units. The number of new homes built in the Bay Area has not kept pace with the demand, resulting in longer commutes, increasing prices, and exacerbating issues of displacement and homelessness. The number of homes in San Jose increased, changing by 7.2% from 2010 to 2020, which is above the growth rate of the region. • Home Prices – A diversity of homes at all income levels creates opportunities for all San Jose residents to live and thrive in the community.
– Ownership The median home price was $1.4 million in Q3 2021. Median home prices increased by 200% from Q3 2000 to Q3 2021. 5
– Rental Prices – The average rent for an apartment in San Jose was $2,531 in Q3 2021.
Rental prices increased by 58% from Q3 2000 to Q3 2021. 6 To rent a 2 bedroom apartment without cost burden, a family would need to make $112,080 per year. • Housing Type – It is important to have a variety of housing types to meet the needs of a community today and in the future. In 2020, 62.3% of homes in San Jose were single family,
6.9% were small multifamily (2-4 units), and 27.5% were medium or large multifamily (5+
1 CA Department of Finance E5 Series
2 ABAG Projections 2040 by Jurisdiction
3 ACS 2019 5 Year S0101
4 The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey accounts for ethnic origin separate from racial identity. The numbers reported here use an accounting of both such that the racial categories are shown exclusive of Latinx status, to allow for an accounting of the Latinx population regardless of racial identity. 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, but occasionally when discussing US Census data, we use Hispanic or Non-Hispanic, to clearly link to the data source. 5 SCCAOR – Sept 2000-Sept 2021
6 Costar Average Effective Rents – Sept 2000 – Sept 2021 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-6 ver. May 2023
units). San Jose has about 11,395 mobile homes, 3% of total housing units. Between 2010 and 2020, the number of multi-family units increased more than single-family units. Generally, in San Jose, the share of single family homes is similar to that of other jurisdictions in the region. • Displacement/Gentrification – According to research from The University of California, Berkeley, 14.2% of households in San Jose live in neighborhoods that are experiencing or at risk of displacement or gentrification. 39.3% of households in San Jose live in neighborhoods where significant portions of the workforce are excluded due to prohibitive housing costs. There are various ways to address displacement including ensuring new housing at all income levels is built.
• Neighborhood 32.5% of residents in San Jose live in neighborhoods identified as highest or high resource areas by State-commissioned research. This neighborhood designation is based on a range of indicators covering areas such as education, poverty, proximity to jobs and economic opportunities, low pollution levels, and other factors, building on a body of research documenting the benefits of growing up in these high resource areas.
Note on Data
Many of the tables in this report are sourced from data from the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, both of which are samples and as such, are subject to sampling variability. This means that data is an estimate, and that other estimates could be possible if another set of respondents had been reached. We use the five-year release to get a larger data pool to minimize this “margin of error” but particularly for the smaller cities, the data will be based on fewer responses, and the information should be interpreted accordingly.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-7 ver. May 2023
3 LOOKING TO THE FUTURE: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS
3.1 Regional Housing Needs Determination
The Plan Bay Area 20507 Final Blueprint forecasts that the nine-county Bay Area will add 1.4 million new households between 2015 and 2050. For the eight-year time frame covered by this Housing Element Update, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has identified the region’s housing need as 441,176 units. The total number of housing units assigned by HCD is separated into four income categories that cover housing types for all income levels, from very low-income households to market rate housing. 8 This calculation, known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination (RHND), is based on population projections produced by the California Department of Finance as well as adjustments that incorporate the region’s existing housing need. The adjustments result from recent legislation requiring HCD to apply additional adjustment factors to the baseline growth projection from California Department of Finance, in order for the regions to get closer to healthy housing markets. To this end, adjustments focus on the region’s vacancy rate, level of overcrowding and the share of cost burdened households, and seek to bring the region more in line with comparable ones.9 These new laws governing the methodology for how HCD calculates the RHND resulted in a significantly higher number of housing units for which the Bay Area must plan compared to previous RHNA cycles.
3.2 Regional Housing Needs Allocation
A starting point for the Housing Element Update process for every California jurisdiction is the Regional Housing Needs Allocation or RHNA – the share of the RHND assigned to each jurisdiction by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). State Housing Element Law requires ABAG to develop a methodology that calculates the number of housing units assigned to each city and county and distributes each jurisdiction’s housing unit allocation among four affordability levels. For this RHNA cycle, the RHND increased by 135%, from 187,990 to 441,776. For more information on the RHNA process this cycle, see ABAG’s website: https://abag.ca.gov/our-work/housing/rhna-regional-housing- needs-allocation
Almost all jurisdictions in the Bay Area are likely to receive a larger RHNA this cycle compared to the last cycle, primarily due to changes in state law that led to a considerably higher RHND compared to previous cycles.
In January 2021, ABAG adopted a Draft RHNA Methodology, which is currently being reviewed by HCD.
For San Jose, the proposed RHNA to be planned for this cycle is 62,200 units, a slated increase from the last cycle. Please note that the previously stated figures are merely illustrative, as ABAG has yet to issue Final RHNA allocations. The Final RHNA allocations that local jurisdictions will use for their
7 Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long-range plan charting the course for the future of the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area. It covers four key issues: the economy, the environment, housing and transportation 8 HCD divides the RHND into the following four income categories:
Very Low-income: 0-50% of Area Median Income
Low-income: 50-80% of Area Median Income
Moderate-income: 80-120% of Area Median Income
Above Moderate-income: 120% or more of Area Median Income 9 For more information on HCD’s RHND calculation for the Bay Area, see this letter sent to ABAG from HCD on June 9, 2020: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/abagrhna-final060920(r).pdf DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-8 ver. May 2023
Housing Elements will be released at the end of 2021. The potential allocation that San Jose would receive from the Draft RHNA Methodology is broken down by income category as follows:
Table 1: Illustrative Regional Housing Needs Allocation from Draft Methodology Income Group San Jose
Units
Santa Clara
County Units
Bay Area
Units
San Jose
Percent
Santa Clara
County
Percent
Bay Area
Percent
Very Low Income
(<50% of AMI) 15088 32316 114442 24.3% 24.9% 25.9%
Low Income (50%-
80% of AMI) 8687 18607 65892 14.0% 14.4% 14.9%
Moderate Income
(80%-120% of AMI) 10711 21926 72712 17.2% 16.9% 16.5%
Above Moderate
Income (>120% of
AMI)
27714 56728 188130 44.6% 43.8% 42.6%
Total 62200 129577 441176 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments Methodology and tentative numbers were approved by ABAG’s Executive board on January 21, 2021 (Resolution No. 02-2021). The numbers were submitted for review to California Housing and Community Development in February 2021, after which an appeals process will take place during the Fall of 2021.
THESE NUMBERS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER HCD REVIEW DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-9 ver. May 2023
4 POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSEHOLD
CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 Population
The Bay Area is the fourth-largest metropolitan area in the nation and has seen a steady increase in population since 1990, except for a dip during the Great Recession. Most cities in the region experienced a similar pattern of job and population growth during this time, yet the production of housing did not meet the demand. This has resulted in higher housing costs and insufficient housing to meet the needs of communities.
Founded on November 29, 1777, San Jose was the first town in the Spanish colony Nueva California.
When California become a state, in 1850, San Jose was the first incorporated city in the new state and served as the state capital for two years until 1851. San Jose is located in Santa Clara County California. It is the largest city in Santa Clara County, 3rd largest city in California (after Los Angeles and San Diego), and the 10th largest city in the United States. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) projects that the City’s population will grow by about 15% to 1,189,660 in 2030, by the end of this Sixth Cycle Housing Element.
Since 2000, San Jose has grown 10.9%; this rate is above that of the region as a whole, at 8.9%.
Table 2: Population Growth Trends
Geography 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
San Jose 782,224 839,319 895,131 941,435 945,942 1,028,040 1,049,187 Santa Clara
County 1,497,577 1,594,818 1,682,585 1,752,696 1,781,642 1,912,180 1,961,969 Bay Area 6,020,147 6,381,961 6,784,348 7,073,912 7,150,739 7,595,694 7,790,537 Universe: Total population - The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year. - For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts. DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
In 2020, the population of San Jose was estimated to be 1,049,187 (see Table 2). From 2010 to 2020, the population increased by 10.9%, compared to 14.4% during the 1990s and 5.7% during the first decade of the 2000s. The population of San Jose makes up 53.5% of Santa Clara County. 10
10 To compare the rate of growth across various geographic scales, Figure 1 shows population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the year 1990. This means that the data points represent the population growth (i.e. percent change) in each of these geographies relative to their populations in 1990.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-10 ver. May 2023
Figure 1: Population Growth Trends
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series - The data shown on the graph represents population for the jurisdiction, county, and region indexed to the population in the first year shown. The data points represent the relative population growth in each of these geographies relative to their populations in that year. - For some jurisdictions, a break may appear at the end of each decade (1999, 2009) as estimates are compared to census counts. DOF uses the decennial census to benchmark subsequent population estimates.
4.2 Age
The distribution of age groups in a city shapes what types of housing the community may need in the near future. An increase in the older population can mean there is a need for more senior housing options, while higher numbers of children and young families can point to the need for more family housing options. There has also been a move by many to age-in-place or downsize to stay within their communities, which can mean more multifamily and accessible units are also needed.
In San Jose, the median age in 2000 was 31.8; by 2019, this figure had increased, landing at around
36.7 years. More specifically, the population of those under 14 has largely remained steady since 2010, while the 65-and-over population has increased (see Figure 2). This points to an increasing demand for senior housing in the future.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-11 ver. May 2023
Figure 2: Population by Age, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 SF1, Table P12; U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2010 SF1, Table P12; U.S.
Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001 The percentage of Seniors (65& over) has been growing steadily from 8.3% in 2000 to 12.5% in 2019.
ABAG’s Projections 2040 indicates that this percentage will rise to 14% by 2030.
Seniors have also been the fastest growing population in San Jose from 2000 to 2019, as is shown by the chart below:
-8% change 2000-19
0% change 2000-19
3% change 2000-19
16% change 2000-19
74% change 2000-19
- 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 Age 0-4
Age 5-17
Age 18-24
Age 25-64
Age 65 &
over
Population Growth by Age 2000 - 2019
2019 2010 2000
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-12 ver. May 2023
Looking at the senior and youth population by race can add an additional layer of understanding, as families and seniors of color are even more likely to experience challenges finding affordable housing.
People of color11 make up a large proportion of both seniors and youth - 50% of seniors and 65% of youth under 18 (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: Senior and Youth Population by Race
Universe: Total population Notes: In the sources for this table, the Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity, and an overlapping category of hispanic / non-hispanic groups has not been shown to avoid double counting in the stacked bar chart. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B01001(A-G)
11 Here, we count all non-white racial groups
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-13 ver. May 2023
4.3 Race and Ethnicity
Understanding the racial makeup of a city and region is important. These patterns are shaped by both market factors and government actions, such as exclusionary zoning, discriminatory lending practices and displacement that has occurred over time and continues to impact communities of color today 12.
San Jose is a diverse community with a non-White majority.
Table 3: Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
San Jose Population by Race
Race/Ethnicity Population Percent
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic 1,836 0.2% Asian / API, Non-Hispanic 370,962 36.1%
Black or African American, Non-Hispanic 29,129 2.8%
White, Non-Hispanic 264,374 25.7%
Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic 36,541 3.6%
Hispanic or Latinx 324,848 31.6%
TOTAL 1,027,690 100.0%
Source: ACS 2019 5 Year B03002
The share of the Asian and Hispanic populations has grown since 2000, while the share of non-Hispanic White population has fallen from 36% in 2000 to 26% in 2019.
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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-14 ver. May 2023
Since 2000, the percentage of residents in San Jose identifying as White has decreased, changing by -
30.8%, with the 2019 population standing at 264,374 (see Figure 4). By comparison, all other races and ethnicities increased by 18.2%. Overall, the Asian / API, Non-Hispanic population increased the most while the White, Non-Hispanic population decreased the most.
27% 32% 36%
3%
3%
3%
36% 29% 26%
3% 3% 4%
30% 33% 32%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
2000 2010 2019
San Jose's Population by Race 2000 - 2019
American Indian or Alaska Native, Non-Hispanic Asian / API, Non-Hispanic Black or African American, Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Other Race or Multiple Races, Non-Hispanic Hispanic or Latinx DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-15 ver. May 2023
Figure 4: Population by Race, 2000-2019
Universe: Total population Notes: Data for 2019 represents 2015-2019 ACS estimates. -The Census Bureau defines Hispanic/Latinx ethnicity separate from racial categories. 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. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002 When compared with the rest of the Bay Area, San Jose has a higher share of Asians and Hispanic and a lower share of White, Non-Hispanic population.
4.4 Employment Trends
4.4.1 Balance of Jobs and Workers
A city houses employed residents who either work in the community where they live or work elsewhere in the region. Conversely, a city may have job sites that employ residents from the same city, but more often employ workers commuting from outside of it. Smaller cities typically will have more employed residents than jobs there and export workers, while larger cities tend to have a surplus of jobs and import workers. To some extent the regional transportation system is set up for this flow of workers to the region’s many job centers. At the same time, as the housing affordability crisis has illustrated, local imbalances may be severe, where local jobs and worker populations are out of sync at a sub- regional scale.
One measure of this is the relationship between workers and jobs. A city with a surplus of workers “exports” workers to other parts of the region, while a city with a surplus of jobs must conversely “import” them. Between 2002 and 2018, the number of jobs in San Jose increased by 21.1% (see Figure 5).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-16 ver. May 2023
Figure 5: Jobs in a Jurisdiction
Universe: Jobs from unemployment insurance-covered employment (private, state and local government) plus United States Office of Personnel Management-sourced Federal employment Notes: The data is tabulated by place of work, regardless of where a worker lives. The source data is provided at the census block level. These are crosswalked to jurisdictions and summarized. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018 There are 519,305 employed residents, and 428,098 jobs 13 in San Jose - the ratio of jobs to resident workers is 0.82; San Jose is a net exporter of workers.
Figure 6 shows the balance when comparing jobs to workers, broken down by different wage groups, offering additional insight into local dynamics. A community may offer employment for relatively low- income workers but have relatively few housing options for low-wage workers - or conversely, it may residents who are low wage workers but few employment opportunities for them. Such relationships cast extra light on potentially pent-up demand for housing in particular price categories. A relative surplus of jobs relative to residents in a given wage category suggests the need to import those workers, while conversely, surpluses of workers in a wage group relative to jobs means the community will export those workers to other jurisdictions. Such flows are not inherently bad, though over time, sub-regional imbalances may appear. San Jose has more low-wage residents than low-wage jobs (where low-wage refers to jobs paying less than $25,000). At the other end of the wage spectrum, the city has more high-wage residents than high-wage jobs (where high-wage refers to jobs paying more than $75,000). (see Figure 6).
13 Employed residents in a jurisdiction is counted by place of residence (they may work elsewhere) while jobs in a jurisdiction are counted by place of work (they may live elsewhere). The jobs may differ from those reported in Figure 5 as the source for the time series is from administrative data, while the cross-sectional data is from a survey.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-17 ver. May 2023
Figure 6: Workers by Earnings, by Jurisdiction as Place of Work and Place of Residence
Universe: Workers 16 years and over with earnings
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data 2015-2019, B08119, B08519 Figure 7 shows the balance of a jurisdiction’s resident workers to the jobs located there for different wage groups as a ratio instead - a value of 1 means that a city has the same number of jobs in a wage group as it has resident workers - in principle, a balance. Values above 1 indicate a jurisdiction will need to import workers for those jobs. At the regional scale, this ratio is 1.04 jobs for each household, implying a modest import of workers from outside the region (see Figure 7).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-18 ver. May 2023
Figure 7: Jobs-Worker Ratios, By Wage Group
Universe: Jobs located in a jurisdiction; Workers located in a jurisdiction. See Tbl 06b for details on the jobs.
Notes: The ratio compares a place of work and place of residence jobs by wage group. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs); Residence Area Characteristics (RAC) files (Employed Residents), 2010-2018 Such balances between jobs and workers may directly influence the housing demand in a community.
New jobs draw new residents, and when there is high demand for housing relative to supply, many workers may be unable to afford to live where they work. This dynamic not only contributes to traffic congestion but also means community members have to burden the additional strain and cost of commuting while being unable to live in the places they would like to call home. If there are more jobs than employed residents, it means a city is relatively jobs-rich, with a high jobs to household ratio.
Bringing housing into the measure, the jobs-household ratio in San Jose has increased from 1.28 in 2002, to 1.36 jobs per household in 2018 (see Figure 8).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-19 ver. May 2023
Figure 8: Jobs-Household Ratio
Universe: Jobs located in a jurisdiction; households in a jurisdiction. See Tbl 06b for details on the jobs. Notes:
The ratio compares place of work wage and salary jobs with households, or occupied housing units. -A similar measure is the ratio of jobs to housing units. However, this jobs-household ratio serves to compare the number of jobs in a jurisdiction to the number of housing units that are actually occupied. The difference between a jurisdiction’s jobs-housing ratio and jobs-household ratio will be most pronounced in jurisdictions with high vacancy rates, a high rate of units used for seasonal use, or a high rate of units used as short-term rentals.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files (Jobs), 2010-2018; California Department of Finance, E-5 (Households)
4.4.2 Sector Composition
In terms of sectoral composition, the largest industry in San Jose, Santa Clara County and the Bay Area is Health & Educational Services, followed by Financial & Professional Services.(see Figure 9).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-20 ver. May 2023
Figure 9: Resident Employment by Industry
Universe: Civilian employed population age 16 years and over Notes: The data displayed shows the industries in which jurisdiction residents work, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24030
In terms of occupation, San Jose mirrors the County and the Bay Area. Most of San Jose’s residents (47%)work in Management, Business, Science and Arts, while 36% work in Sales, Office and Service occupations.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-21 ver. May 2023
Resident Employment by Occupation:
The data displayed shows the occupations of jurisdiction residents, regardless of the location where those residents are employed (whether within the jurisdiction or not). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C24010
4.4.3 Unemployment
In San Jose, there was a -9.5% percentage point decrease in the unemployment rate between 2010 and January 2020. Jurisdictions through the region experienced a sharp rise in unemployment in 2020 due to impacts related to the Covid-19 pandemic, though with a general reduction in the later months of 2020 (see Figure 10).
47% 54% 50%
7%
6%
7%
10%
8% 9%
18% 17% 19%
18% 15% 16%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
San Jose Santa Clara County Bay Area
Share of Employed Residents
Service Occupations
Sales And Office Occupations
Production, Transportation, And Material Moving Occupations Natural Resources, Construction, And Maintenance Occupations Management, Business, Science, And Arts Occupations
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-22 ver. May 2023
Figure 10: Unemployment Rate
Universe: Civilian noninstitutional population ages 16 and older Source: California Employment Development Department, Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS), Sub-county areas monthly updates, 2010-2020.
4.5 Income
Despite the economic and job growth experienced throughout the region since 1990, the income gap has continued to widen. California is one of the most economically unequal states in the nation, and the Bay Area has the highest income inequality between high- and low-income households in the state14.
In San Jose, 49.4% of households make more than 100% of the Area Median Income (AMI) 15, while 50.6% of households make less than 100% of the AMI. 16.2% of San Jose households make less than 30% of AMI, which is considered extremely low-income (see Figure 11).
14 Bohn, S.et al. 2020. Income Inequality and Economic Opportunity in California. Public Policy Institute of California.
15 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. Households making between 80 and 120 percent of the AMI are moderate-income, those making 50 to 80 percent are low-income, those making 30 to 50 percent are very low-income, and those making less than 30 percent are extremely low-income. This is then adjusted for household size.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-23 ver. May 2023
Regionally, a slightly higher percentage of households make more than 100% AMI, while a slightly lower percentage make less than 30% AMI.
Figure 11: Households by Household Income Level
Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: 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
4.5.1 Extremely Low-Income Households
In Santa Clara County, Extremely Low-Income (ELI) households are defined as those earning less than or equal to 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). 30% AMI is the equivalent to the annual income of $49,700 for a family of four, according to the 2021 HCD Income Limits. Many households with multiple wage earners – including food service workers, full-time students, teachers, farmworkers and healthcare professionals – can fall into lower AMI categories due to relatively low and stagnant wages in many of these service industries. These ELI households face significant challenges, especially in a high cost economy like the Silicon Valley. Limited supply of low-income housing also adds to the problem, resulting in overcrowding, high cost burden and homelessness.
The percentage of ELI Households in San Jose has dropped slightly over time, as shown in Figure 11a below. Even though the percentage has dropped, over 47,000 households in San Jose remain unable to afford a decent standard of living for themselves and their families.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-24 ver. May 2023
Figure 11a: Households by Household Income Level Over Time Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
According to The Gap, a 2021 report published by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there are just 29 homes available for every 100 extremely low-income households in the San Jose-Sunnyvale- Santa Clara metro area. This number was reported pre-pandemic and does not include the housing needs of the homeless population. The COVID pandemic most certainly has exacerbated this already critical situation.
Because there are so few homes affordable to people in this lowest income bracket, and many of those that are affordable are rented by people who make more money, the Bay Area’s lowest earners end up spending so much of their paychecks on rent, that they have little or nothing left over for other expenses. According to 2014-18 CHAS data, 81% of the San Jose area’s ELI households are cost burdened, paying 30% or more of their income on rent and 63% are severely cost burdened, paying 50% or more of their income on rent.
For this current RHNA cycle, the City has been able to meet only 13% of its ELI housing goal. This slower pace in building affordable units generally reflects the time and difficulty in assembling competitive affordable housing financing layers, as well as the scarcity of local, State and federal subsidies that are needed to build affordable homes.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-25 ver. May 2023
The City Council has proposed many initiatives to increase the supply of ELI housing. In June 2018, the City adopted a Housing Crisis Workplan, which proposed strategies and policy actions to enable the facilitation of 25,000 new housing units by 2023 that included 10,000 affordable units, including ELI housing. The Affordable Housing Siting Policy adopted in the Fall of 2022 attempts to locate affordable housing including ELI housing in areas of high opportunity.
4.5.2 Income disparity by Tenure
If we take into consideration the tenure of the households, there are significant disparities between the incomes of homeowners and the incomes of renters.
In San Jose, 61% of homeowners are found in the Greater than 100% of AMI group (see Figure 12), while only 33% of renters falls in the Greater than 100% of AMI income group. Owners have higher incomes and a greater chance of creating generational wealth, when compared to renters.
Figure 12: Household Income Level by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units Notes: 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 9% 9% 11% 9%
61%
26%
16% 15%
9%
33%
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
0%-30% of
AMI
31%-50% of
AMI
51%-80% of
AMI
81%-100% of
AMI
Greater than
100% of AMI
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-26 ver. May 2023
4.5.3 Poverty
About 8.7% of San Jose’s general population have income below poverty levels 16. Currently, people of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result of federal and local housing policies that have historically excluded them from the same opportunities extended to white residents.17 These economic disparities also leave communities of color at higher risk for housing insecurity, displacement or homelessness. In San Jose, American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experience the highest rates of poverty, followed by Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents. (see Figure 13).
Figure 13: Poverty Status by Race
Universe: Population for whom poverty status is determined Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. -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 population for whom poverty status is determined 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 population for whom poverty status is determined. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17001(A-I)
4.6 Tenure
16 B17001, ACS 2019 5 Year Estimates
17 Moore, E., Montojo, N. and Mauri, N., 2019. Roots, Race & Place: A History of Racially Exclusionary Housing the San Francisco Bay Area. Hass Institute.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-27 ver. May 2023
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 San Jose there are a total of 325,114 housing units, and less residents rent than own their homes: 43.2% versus 56.8% (see Figure 14). This is similar to the trend in Santa Clara County and in the Bay Area.
Figure 14: Housing Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 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. 18 In San Jose, only 30.8% of Black households 39.7% for Latinx households owned their homes. The homeownership rates were much higher for Asian households (62.7%) and for White households (60.1%).
Notably, recent changes to state law require local jurisdictions to examine these dynamics and other fair housing issues when updating their Housing Elements.
18 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-28 ver. May 2023
Figure 15: 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)
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 San Jose, 60.1% of householders between the ages of 25 and 44 are renters, while 27.3% of householders over 65 are renters (see Figure 16).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-29 ver. May 2023
Figure 16: 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 San Jose, 81.8% of households in detached single-family homes are homeowners, while 10.9% of households in multi-family housing are homeowners (see Figure 17).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-30 ver. May 2023
Figure 17: Housing Tenure by Housing Type
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25032
4.7 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 San Jose, 14.2% of households live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement and 3.3% live in neighborhoods at risk of or undergoing gentrification. However, the displacement risk is higher for renter households - 22% live in neighborhoods that are susceptible to or experiencing displacement compared to 8% of owner households who live in such neighborhoods.
Equally important, some neighborhoods in the Bay Area do not have housing appropriate for a broad section of the workforce. UC Berkeley estimates that 39.3% of households in San Jose live in neighborhoods where significant portions of the workforce are excluded due to prohibitive housing costs.19
19 More information is available at https://www.urbandisplacement.org/ DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-31 ver. May 2023
Figure 18: 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:
Low-Income/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
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-32 ver. May 2023
5 HOUSING STOCK CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 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-in-place.
The housing stock of San Jose in 2020 was made up of 52.6% single family detached homes, 9.7% single family attached homes, 6.9% multifamily homes with 2 to 4 units, 27.5% multifamily homes with 5 or more units, and 3.3% mobile homes (see Figure 19). In San Jose, the housing type that experienced the most growth between 2010 and 2020 was Multifamily Housing: Five-plus Units, up 25%.
Figure 19: Housing Type Trends
Universe: Housing units
Source: California Department of Finance, E-5 series
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 San Jose, the largest proportion of the housing stock is built 1960 to 1979, with 144,617 units built during this period (see Figure 20). Since 2010, 5.2% of the current housing stock was built, which is 17,578 units.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-33 ver. May 2023
Figure 20: Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 Vacant units make up 4.0% of the overall housing stock in San Jose. The rental vacancy stands at 4.3%, while the ownership vacancy rate is 0.8%. Of the vacant units, the most common type of vacancy is For Rent. (see Figure 21).
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 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-34 ver. May 2023
as a work assignment, military duty, or incarceration. 20 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.21
Figure 21: Vacant Units by Type
Universe: Vacant housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25004 Between 2015 and 2019, 92.0% of permits issued in San Jose were for moderate and above-moderate income housing and 8.0% were for low or very low income housing (see Figure below).
20 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.
21 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-35 ver. May 2023
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary (2020)
5.2 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 the table 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 20,359 assisted units in San Jose in the Preservation Database. Of these units, 0.8% are at High Risk or Very High Risk of conversion.22
22 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.
13,392
78.5%
2,304
13.5%
1,129
6.6% 231
1.4%
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Above Moderate
Income Permits
Moderate Income
Permits
Very Low Income
Permits
Low Income
Permits
Units
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-36 ver. May 2023
Table 4: Assisted Units at Risk of Conversion
Income San Jose Santa Clara County Bay Area
Low 19196 28001 110177
Moderate 995 1471 3375
High 0 422 1854
Very High 168 270 1053
Total Assisted Units in Database 20359 30164 116459
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. -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 non-profit, mission-driven developer. Source:
California Housing Partnership, Preservation Database (2020)
5.3 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, the Census Bureau data included in the graph below gives a sense of some of the substandard conditions that may be present in San Jose. For example, 1.5% of renters in San Jose reported lacking a kitchen and 0.4% of renters lack plumbing, compared to 0.3% of owners who lack a kitchen and 0.2% of owners who lack plumbing.
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 non-profit, mission-driven developer.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-37 ver. May 2023
Figure 22: Substandard Housing Issues
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25053, Table B25043, Table B25049
5.4 Home and Rent Values
While there are a variety of reasons that home values increase, the cost of housing is consistently rising throughout the region. The typical home value in San Jose was estimated at $1,116,000 by January of 2020, per data from Zillow. The largest proportion of homes were priced between $750k-$1M (see Figure 23). By comparison, the typical home value is $1,290,900 in Santa Clara County and $1,077,200 the Bay Area, with the majority of units valued $1m-$1.5m (county) and $500k-$750k (region).
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 2000, the typical home value has increased 178% in San Jose from $402,000 to $1,116,000. This change is above the change in Santa Clara County (168%), and above the change for the region (142%) (see Figure 24).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-38 ver. May 2023
Figure 23: 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
Figure 24: 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 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-39 ver. May 2023
units, including both single-family homes and condominiums. More information on the ZHVI is available from Zillow. Source: Zillow, Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI)
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 San Jose, the largest proportion of rental units rented in the Rent $1500-$2000 category, totaling
22.4%, followed by 19.7% of units renting in the Rent $2000-$2500 category (see Figure 25). In Santa Clara County and the Bay Area, the largest share of units is in the * $2000-$2500* category (county) compared to the $1500-$2000 category for the region as a whole.
Figure 25: 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 Since 2014, the median rent has increased by 37.6% in San Jose, from $1,400 to $1,900 per month (see Figure 26). In Santa Clara County, the median rent has increased 39.4%, from $1,500 to $2,100. The median rent in the region has increased significantly during this time from $1,400 to $1,850, a 32.2% increase.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-40 ver. May 2023
Figure 26: 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.
San Jose’s homes and rents remain unaffordable to many of its residents. Many essential workers are unable to afford average rents for even a one-bedroom apartment unless they are working multiple jobs. The chart below shows the affordability of rents and homes to some of San Jose’s workforce. Income to rent calculation assumes rent payments at 30% of income and a single-income household. Income to mortgage calculations assume mortgage payments at 30% of income, 20% down, 2.9% interest, 1.1% Property Tax, $300 HOA dues for condos , and a single-income household.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-41 ver. May 2023
Source: Employment Development Department (EDD) – First Quarter 2021 Wages; Costar Q3 2021 Average Effective Rents; SCCOAR September 2021 median home sales prices;
5.5 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. $39,726
$41,736
$45,608
$58,686
$92,316
$130,190
$135,794
$10,000
$40,000
$70,000
$100,000
$130,000
$160,000
$190,000
$220,000
$250,000
$280,000
Healthcare
Support
Occupations
Janitor Retail Salesperson Construction
Laborer
Elementary School
Teacher
Fire Fighter Police Officer
Annual Income Annual Income to Afford Average Rent for a Two-bedroom Apartment ($112,080) Annual Income to Afford Average Rent for a One-bedroom Apartment ($91,200) Annual Income to Afford Average Rent for a Three-bedroom Apartment ($140,480) Annual Income to Own a Median Priced Townhome/Condo ($143,642) Annual Income to Own a Median Priced Single-Family Home ($240,437) DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-42 ver. May 2023
Figure 27: 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 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 the cost burden across tenure in San Jose, 25.4% of renters spend 30% to 50% of their income on housing compared to 16.9% of those that own (see Figure 27). Additionally, 24.2% of renters spend 50% or more of their income on housing, compared to 12.0% of owners who spend 50% or more of their income on housing.
In San Jose, as a whole, 17.1% of households spend 50% or more of their income on housing, while
20.7% spend 30% to 50%. However, these rates vary greatly across income categories (see Figure 28).
For example, 66.4% of households making less than 30% of AMI spend 50% or more of their income on rent. For residents making more than 100% of AMI, just 0.8% spend 50% or more, with 87.8% of these residents spending less than 30% of their income on rent. 71%
47%
17%
25%
12%
24%
1% 4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Percent of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-43 ver. May 2023
Figure 28: 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 as a result 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.
In San Jose, Black or African American, Non-Hispanic residents are the most severely cost burdened with 26.5% spending more than 50% of their income on housing, and Hispanic or Latinx residents are the most cost burdened with 25.2% spending 30% to 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 29).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-44 ver. May 2023
Figure 29: 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 San Jose, 21.4% of large family households experience a cost burden of more than 30%. Additionally,
15.0% of large family households spend more than half of their income on housing. Some 20.6% of all other households have a cost burden of more than 30% and17.5% spend more than 50% of their income on housing (see Figure 30).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-45 ver. May 2023
Figure 30: 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 cost-burdened is of particular importance due to their special housing needs, particularly for low-income seniors. 53.1% of seniors making less than 30% of AMI are spending the majority of their income on rent. For seniors making more than 100% of AMI, that percentage drops to 1.7%(see Figure 31).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-46 ver. May 2023
Figure 31: 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 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 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.
Compared to the County and Bay Area, San Jose households experience a slightly higher percentage of overcrowding as is shown below. 6% of San Jose households have 1 – 1.5 occupants per room, compared to 5% in the County and 4% in the Bay Area.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-47 ver. May 2023
Source:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
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 San Jose, 6.5% of households that rent are severely overcrowded (more than 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 1.2% of households that own (see Figure 32). In San Jose, 9.7% of renters experience moderate overcrowding (1 to 1.5 occupants per room), compared to 3.3% for those own. 90% 92% 93%
6% 5% 4%3% 3% 3%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
San Jose Santa Clara County Bay Area
Percent of Households
1.00 occupants per room or less 1.01 to 1.50 occupants per room
1.50 occupants per room or more
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-48 ver. May 2023
Figure 32: 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. 5.0% of very low-income households (below 50% AMI) experience severe overcrowding, while only 1.6% of households above 100% experience this level of overcrowding (see Figure 33).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-49 ver. May 2023
Figure 33: 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
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 San Jose, the racial group with the largest overcrowding rate is Other Race or Multiple Races, Hispanic and Non-Hispanic (see Figure 34)
Figure 34: 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 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 B25014
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-50 ver. May 2023
5.6 Rehabilitation Needs
Approximately 50% of the City’s housing stock was constructed between 1950 and 1979, during the City’s primary population boom. This cohort of buildings is aging and, as discussed further below, includes a substantial number of properties in need of seismic retrofit. So, while the City of San José has relatively few buildings that are over 100 years old, a significant proportion of the City’s housing stock needs substantial rehabilitation.
There are an estimated 2,925 properties totaling approximately 24,250 units in need of substantial rehabilitation. This number was estimated based upon properties with at least 1 code violation per unit in the past 5-year inspection cycle plus the number of buildings (estimated as non-overlapping with the properties with high rates of code violations) in need of seismic retrofit per Table 5, below.
Each property type is also discussed in further detail, below.
Table 5: Estimated Units in Need of Substantial Rehabilitation Category Number of
Properties
Number of Units
Properties with Multiple Code Violations 1,500 10,000
Soft-story Buildings (estimate of units not included above) 1,425 14,250 TOTAL 2,925 24,250
5.6.1 Properties with Multiple Code Violations
By code enforcement tracking, there are an estimated 10,000 units of housing in the City in need of rehabilitation. This estimate is based upon the number of properties with at least one code violation per unit in the past five years, or approximately 50% higher than the average rate of violations per unit for the properties that are inspected at least on a 5-year cycle. There are approximately 1,500 multiple housing properties – totaling almost 10,000 units – with over one building code violation per unit in the past five years. Of these properties with higher rates of code violations, almost 90% (i.e.,
88.9%) were built before 1979.
All multiple housing properties – including apartments, hotels, motels, fraternities, sororities, emergency shelters, residential service facilities, and those residential care facilities that have seven or more persons – are subject to code enforcement inspections through the City’s Multiple Housing Inspection Program. The frequency of inspection is based on the building's tier assignment, which is based on the inspection performance of the building and recent history of violations and verified complaints. Buildings that have more violations and verified complaints are assigned to Tier 2 or Tier 3 and have a more frequent inspection cycle and a higher residential occupancy fee. High performing buildings qualify for Tier 1, which enables annual self-certification, a less frequent inspection cycle, and a lower permit fee. Across a total of 5 years, Tier II and Tier III properties have had an average of DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-51 ver. May 2023
0.67 code violations per unit. One code violation in the past 5 years per unit is approximately 150% this average rate.
5.6.2 Soft Story Buildings
“Soft Story” buildings are a type of seismically-vulnerable structure, defined by the City as an existing wood-frame multi-unit residential building of two or more stories constructed or permitted for construction before January 1, 1991, that contains five or more dwelling units, and the ground floor contains parking, large windows or garage doors, or other similar open floor or basement space that causes soft, weak, or open-front wall lines. Soft story buildings pose a concern because one floor of the building (usually the ground floor parking or commercial space) has significantly less lateral rigidity than the stories on top of them. These buildings have a greater than average risk of collapse during an earthquake, as evidenced during the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which would render homes uninhabitable and could physically endanger residents.
City staff estimate that there are 1,400 to 1,900 soft-story multifamily properties totaling approximately 14,000 to 19,000 units of housing that are in need of seismic retrofit.
5.6.2 Estimate of Soft Story Buildings with Multiple Code Violations Assuming that soft-story buildings have a similar rate of code violations as multiple housing properties as a whole, approximately 475 properties totaling 4,750 units would be included in the estimate of 14,000 to 19,000.
By Tier, the number of properties and units are:
Table 6: Code Violations by Code Enforcement Tier
Tier Number of
Properties
Number of Units Percentage of
Units
Tier I: Inspected on a 6-year cycle with
mandatory annual self-certifications
1,146 29,571 28.6%
Tier II: Inspected on a 5-year cycle 2,845 50,716 49.0% Tier III: Inspected on a 3-year cycle 2,767 23,175 22.4% TOTAL 6,758 103,462
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-52 ver. May 2023
The properties with the highest rate of code violations as described above represent over 25% of the total properties inspected on a 5-year or more frequent cycle (i.e., 1,492 high code violation properties of 5,612 Tier II and III properties). Therefore, assuming that soft-story buildings have a similar rate of code violations as multiple housing properties as a whole, there should be approximately 475 soft story properties (i.e., 25% of 1,900) included in the estimate of 1,500 properties with one code violation per unit or higher.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-53 ver. May 2023
6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS
Household Types and Size of Households
Most of San Jose’s Households are Married-couple Family Households (56%), followed by Single-Family Households (19%). San Jose has almost double the number of Female Headed Households than Male Headed Households. In general, San Jose mirrors Santa Clara County’s composition but varies from the rest of the Bay Area in one respect – it has a lower percentage of Single-person Households.
Consequently, in terms of Household size, there are fewer one-person households in San Jose and Santa Clara County than in the Bay Area. 66% of San Jose households are 2 to 4 person households. San Jose has a higher share of 5 or more persons households than the County or the Bay Area.
Average household size in San Jose is 3.12 per ACS 2019, down from 3.2 per the Census 2000 an up slightly from 3.09 per Census 2010.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-54 ver. May 2023
City of San Jose Household Size
Number of Persons Per
Household
Number of
Households Percent
1-Person Household 63,185 19%
2-Person Household 93,856 29%
3-Person Household 60,475 19%
4-Person Household 58,433 18%
5-Person or More Household 49,165 15%
TOTAL 325,114 100%
Source: ACS 2019 5 Year B11016 –
Includes Family & Non-Family Households
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-55 ver. May 2023
6.1 Large Households
Large families are defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as families with five or more members. Large families or 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. 15% of San Jose’s households have 5 or more members. San Jose’s Household size by Tenure indicates that only one person households have more renters than owners. For all other household sizes, there are significantly more owners than renters. For large households with 5 or more persons, 56% are owner occupied and 44% are renter occupied. (see Figure 35).
Figure 35: Household Size by Tenure
Universe: Occupied housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009
In 2017, 27.9% of large households were extremely or very low-income, earning less than 50% of the area median income (AMI), not any different from smaller households. However, 29% of large households were in the 50% - 100% income category vs 21% for smaller households. 43% of large households earned 100% or more of the AMI compared with 51% for smaller households.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-56 ver. May 2023
Source:
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
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 192,115 units in San Jose, 59% of San Jose’s housing stock. Among these large units with 3 or more bedrooms, 21.0% are renter-occupied and 79.0% are owner occupied (see Figure 36). 16% 12%
12% 16%
12% 17%
9%
12%
51% 43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
All other household types Large Families of 5+ Persons
Percent of Households
0%-30% of AMI 31%-50% of AMI
51%-80% of AMI 81%-100% of AMI
Greater than 100% of AMI
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-57 ver. May 2023
Figure 36: Housing Units by Number of Bedrooms
Universe: Housing units
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25042
6.2 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 San Jose, the largest proportion of households is Married-couple Family Households at 55.6% of total, while Female- Headed Households make up 11.5% of all households.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-58 ver. May 2023
Figure 37: 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 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 San Jose, 22.3% of female-headed households with children fall below the Federal Poverty Line, while 7.0% of female-headed households without children live in poverty (see Figure 38).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-59 ver. May 2023
Figure 38: Female-Headed Households by Poverty Status
Universe: Families Notes: The Census Bureau uses a federally defined poverty threshold that remains constant throughout the country and does not correspond to Area Median Income. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012
The Bay Area Equity Atlas adds yet another dimension by daylighting the cost burden experienced by females. 2019 IPUMS data for San Jose indicates that, while 58% of all female renters in San Jose are cost burdened (compared with 48% of males), 69% of female black renters and 62% of female latino renters in San Jose are cost burdened. Women of color face significantly worse housing problems than any other group in San Jose.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-60 ver. May 2023
6.3 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 their limited earning capacity. San Jose’s Seniors earning less than 30% of AMI seem to be the most vulnerable. 57% of San Jose’s Extremely Low-Income Seniors are renters. Comparatively, most higher income Seniors own their homes. 86% of Seniors earning over 100% AMI are homeowners. (see Figure 39).
Figure 39: 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 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
6.4 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 43%
75% 80% 83% 86%
57%
25% 20% 17% 14%
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
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-61 ver. May 2023
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 40 shows the rates at which different disabilities are present among residents of San Jose. 23
Figure 40: Disability by Type - Seniors (65 and over)
Universe: Civilian noninstitutionalized population 65 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
23 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-62 ver. May 2023
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. 24 In San Jose, the proportion of the population with a developmental disability under the age of 18 is
2.6%, while the proportion of adults 10.4%.
Table 3: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Age Age Group value
Age 18+ 4238
Age Under 18 3246
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. Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Age Group (2020)
The most common living arrangement for individuals with disabilities in San Jose is the home of parent /family /guardian (see Table 6).
Table 4: Population with Developmental Disabilities by Residence Residence Type value
Home of Parent /Family /Guardian 5806
Community Care Facility 969
Independent /Supported Living 471
Intermediate Care Facility 138
Other 105
Foster /Family Home 93
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. Source: California Department of Developmental Services, Consumer Count by California ZIP Code and Residence Type (2020)
6.5 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
24 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-63 ver. May 2023
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 Santa Clara County, the most common type of household experiencing homelessness is those without children in their care. Among households experiencing homelessness that do not have children, 87.1% are unsheltered. Of homeless households with children, most are sheltered in emergency shelter (see Figure 41).
Figure 41: Homelessness by Household Type and Shelter Status, Santa Clara 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. Source: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Continuum of Care (CoC) Homeless Populations and Subpopulations Reports (2019)
Homelessness, as well as the lack of available housing for extremely low-income populations, continues to be a pressing issue for the City of San José, the County of Santa Clara and the region. According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, among the 48 Major City Continuums of Care, the County of Santa Clara has:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-64 ver. May 2023
• the fourth largest homeless population;
• the second largest unsheltered homeless population;
• the third largest chronically homeless population; and • the third largest unaccompanied homeless youth (under 25) population.
Locally, the January 2019 homeless census and survey counted 6,097 persons experiencing homelessness in San José, which was an increase of 40% from the 2017 homeless census. Of the 6,097 people counted, 5,117 were unsheltered. This means that 84% of San José’s homeless population sleeps outdoors on the street, in parks, tents, encampments, vehicles, abandoned properties and/or bus and train stations.
People of color are more likely to experience poverty and financial instability as a result 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 Santa Clara County, White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) residents experiencing homelessness are the largest racial group and account for 43.9% of the homeless population, while making up 44.5% of the overall population (see Figure 42).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-65 ver. May 2023
Figure 42: Racial Group Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara 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. -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 Jose, Latinx residents are disproportionately represented in the homeless population. They represent 42.7% of the population experiencing homelessness, while Latinx residents comprise 25.8% of the general population (see Figure 43).
Figure 43: Latinx Share of General and Homeless Populations, Santa Clara 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. -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)
Between January 29 and February 28, 2019, the City of San Jose administered a survey of its homeless population to a randomized sample of individuals and families currently experiencing homelessness.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-66 ver. May 2023
The Homeless Survey effort resulted in 925 unique, complete, and valid surveys collected in the City of San José. In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences of individuals and families experiencing homelessness in the City of San José, respondents were asked basic demographic questions including age, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity.
Fifteen percent (15%) of survey respondents were under the age of 25 at the time of the 2019 survey.
One-fifth (20%) of respondents were between the ages of 25 and 40, and 65% were 41 years or older.
Nearly two-thirds (65%) of survey respondents identified as male, 34% identified as female, 1% identified as transgender, and <1% did not identify as male, female, or transgender. Among the female respondents, 2% indicated that they were currently pregnant.
In comparison to the general population of San José, a higher percentage of homeless survey respondents identified as Hispanic or Latinx (42% homeless respondents compared to 32% in the general population). A much higher proportion of homeless survey respondents identified as Black or African- American when compared to the general population (19% compared to 3%), whereas a smaller percentage of the homeless survey population identified as Asian (4% compared to 36%).
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 Santa Clara County, homeless individuals are commonly challenged by severe mental illness, with 2,659 reporting this condition (see Figure 44). Of those, some 87.6% are unsheltered, further adding to the challenge of handling the issue.
Figure 44: Challenges and Other Characteristics for the Population Experiencing Homelessness, Santa Clara 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 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-67 ver. May 2023
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. -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) In order to adequately address the diversity within the population experiencing homelessness, the federal government identifies four subpopulations with particular challenges or needs, including:
Individuals with disabilities experiencing chronic homelessness; Veterans experiencing homelessness;
Families with children experiencing homelessness; and Youth and young adults experiencing homelessness.
Chronic Homelessness
Over the last decade, the estimate of individuals in San José experiencing chronic homelessness has fluctuated, and was highest in 2019. There were a total of 1,553 individuals experiencing chronic homelessness in 2019, representing 25% of the overall Point-in-Time homeless population in San José.
The percentage of individual experiencing chronic homelessness who were sheltered in San José increased from 11% to 15% between 2017 and 2019.
San Jose’s Homeless Survey data sheds further light on the demographics of its chronically homeless residents. The majority (70%) of survey respondents experiencing chronic homelessness identified as male, slightly higher than the non-chronically homeless population (63%). A similar percentage of respondents experiencing chronic homelessness identified as Hispanic or Latinx (40%), compared to non-chronically homeless respondents (41%). Further, 3% of individuals experiencing chronic homelessness were veterans. In terms of race, 39% of the chronically homeless residents were White 31% were multi-race, 17% were Black or African American and 10% were American Indian or Alaskan Natives. To meet the definition of chronic homelessness, an individual must be experiencing at least one disabling condition. In general, higher rates of health conditions were reported among those who were chronically homeless compared to their non-chronically homeless counterparts. Of the survey respondents experiencing chronic homelessness, 61% reported experiencing a psychiatric or emotional condition, 55% reported experiencing drug/alcohol abuse, and 50% reported experiencing PTSD.
Veterans experiencing homelessness:
There were 476 veterans experiencing homelessness identified in San José in 2019, representing 8% of the total Point-in-Time homeless population. Sixty-one percent (61%) were unsheltered, while 39% were sheltered. A large majority (88%) of veterans experiencing homelessness identified as male and nearly one-third (29%) identified as Hispanic or Latinx. In terms of racial identity, well over half (58%) identified as White, while 20% identified as Black/African American and another 12% identified as multi-race or other. More than half (52%) of veteran survey respondents experiencing homelessness reported having one or more disabling conditions. The most commonly reported condition homeless DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-68 ver. May 2023
veterans reported experiencing was PTSD (45%). This was followed by a physical disability (42%), a psychiatric or emotional condition (38%), drug/alcohol abuse (38%), and chronic health problems (32%).
Families with children experiencing homelessness:
Since 2013, the estimate of homeless families in San José has steadily declined to its lowest in 2019.
There were a total of 98 families consisting of 313 individual family members experiencing homelessness in San José in 2019. The families experiencing homelessness subpopulation represented 4% of the Point-in-Time homeless population. The majority (84%) of homeless families were sheltered, while the remaining 16% were unsheltered. Female family members accounted for 54% of the families experiencing homelessness subpopulation, while males accounted for 46%. Further, 47% identified as being of Hispanic/Latinx origin. In terms of racial identity, 42% of family members experiencing homelessness identified as White, while 23% identified as Black/African American. Among families experiencing homelessness, a psychiatric or emotional condition was the most frequently reported health condition (35%), followed by PTSD (24%) and drug/alcohol abuse (19%).
Youth and young adults homelessness:
Homelessness among youth and young adults is a difficult problem to identify. Youth and young adults experiencing homelessness are less likely to be found among the adult population experiencing homelessness, preferring locations and times of day that make traditional efforts at enumeration difficult due to living in many different unstable housing situations such as couch surfing, hotel/motel sharing, and non-traditional unsheltered locations. Accordingly, a separate youth count effort was put in place, relying on knowledge gathered from youth currently experiencing homelessness as well as their participation in the count itself. The 2019 Point-in-Time count identified 1,391 youth and young adults experiencing homelessness in San José. This represents an 18% decrease since 2017. Evidence suggests that youth and young adults stay away from shelters, fearing that they will be reported to law enforcement and/or their families. In 2019, the vast majority (94%) of youth and young adults were unsheltered. The youth and young adults experiencing homelessness subpopulation represents almost one-quarter (23%) of the overall homeless population in the City of San José. Over half (52%) of youth and young adults experiencing homelessness identified as male, 39% identified as female, 8% identified as transgender, and 1% didn’t identify as male, female, or transgender. Forty-five percent (45%) identified as being of Hispanic/Latinx origin, and racially, 35% identified as White, 29% as Black/African American, and 10% as American Indian or Alaska Native. A substantial number of youth and young adults experiencing homelessness reported experiencing healthissues, and surprisingly in some cases, at higher rates than their adult counterparts. Forty-nine percent (49%) of respondents under age 25 reported experiencing a psychiatric or emotional condition, 41% reported experiencing PTSD, and 36% reported experiencing drug/alcohol abuse.
In San Jose, the student population experiencing homelessness totaled 2,014 during the 2018-19 school year and decreased by -16.2% between since the 2016-17 school year (see Figure 45). By comparison, Santa Clara County has seen a -4.0% decrease in the population of students experiencing homelessness since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area population of students experiencing homelessness increased, by 5.6%.
The number of students in San Jose experiencing homelessness in 2019 represents 56.3% of the Santa Clara County total and 11.2% of the Bay Area total.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-69 ver. May 2023
Figure 45: Students in Local Public Schools Experiencing Homelessness Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30) 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 was reported at school site level, and was assigned to jurisdiction boundaries based on site location.
Source: California Department of Education, California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS), Cumulative Enrollment Data (Academic Years 2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019)
6.6 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 some cases, there is limited data about farmworker housing. However, we can gain a better understanding through what information is available about the children of migrant workers. In San Jose, the migrant worker student population totaled 162 in the 2019-20 school year and decreased by -
56.9% of students between since the 2016-17 school year. By comparison, the change at the county level is a -49.7% decrease since the 2016-17 school year, and the Bay Area has seen a -14.1% decrease in the number of migrant worker students since the 2016-17 school year.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-70 ver. May 2023
FARM-01: Migrant Worker Student Population
Geography 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20
San Jose 376 200 206 162
Santa Clara County 978 732 645 492
Bay Area 4,630 4,607 4,075 3,976
Universe: Total number of unduplicated primary and short-term enrollments within the academic year (July 1 to June 30), public schools
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)
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers, the number of permanent farm workers in Santa Clara County has increased since 2002, totaling 2,418 in 2017, while the number of seasonal farm workers has decreased, totaling 1,757 in 2017 (see Figure 46).
Figure 46: Farm Operations and Farm Labor by County, Santa Clara 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
The Annual American Community Survey (ACS) reports the number of employed residents over 16 years of age in San José by occupation. This number excludes those who reside elsewhere but commute to DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-71 ver. May 2023
San José for employment. According to the ACS 20212, there are 1,304 agricultural workers (farming, fishing or forestry) in the City of San José
FARM-02: Agricultural Workers in San José
San José 2021
Male Agricultural workers 823
Female Agricultural workers 481
Total 1,304
Universe: Civilian employed population 16 years and over.
Source: Census Bureau ACS 2021 One Year
6.7 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. Cities must also tailor their outreach materials and plans to include those communities with limited English proficiency.
In San Jose, 11.6% of residents 5 years and older identify as speaking English not well or not at all, which is above the proportion for Santa Clara County. Throughout the region the number of residents 5 years and older with limited English proficiency is 8%.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-72 ver. May 2023
Figure 47: 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 39% of the households in San Jose speak only English. Spanish is the language most spoken among the 61% of the non-English speaking households, followed by Chinese and Vietnamese. Koreans, Vietnamese and Chinese non-English speaking households have the most difficulty with English as is evidenced by the high proportion of limited English-speaking households within those groups – see table below.
Household Language
Total
H.holds
% of
H.holds
Limited
English
speaking
H.holds
%
Limited
English
speaking
H.holds
English only 127,904 39.0% NA NA
Spanish: 66,575 20.3% 9,405 14%
French, Haitian, or Cajun: 1,215 0.4% 0 0%
German or other West Germanic languages: 1,763 0.5% 334 19% Russian, Polish, or other Slavic languages: 4,727 1.4% 876 19% Other Indo-European languages: 23,946 7.3% 2,440 10%
Korean: 4,276 1.3% 1,702 40%
Chinese (incl. Mandarin, Cantonese): 32,588 9.9% 10,261 31% Vietnamese: 32,229 9.8% 12,360 38%
Tagalog (incl. Filipino): 11,746 3.6% 984 8%
Other Asian and Pacific Island languages: 15,651 4.8% 1,555 10% Arabic: 1,295 0.4% 43 3%
Other and unspecified languages: 3,979 1.2% 431 11%
TOTAL 327,894 100.0% 40,391 12%
Universe: Households in San Jose
B16002: Detailed Household Language by Household Limited English-speaking Status ACS 2019 One Year
6.8 Voucher Recipients
Source of income is a protected characteristic under California State Fair Housing Law. In San José, there are almost 13,000 total households who receive Section 8 vouchers and have the following demographic characteristics:
Race/Ethnicity (by head of
household)
Number of Households
Receiving Vouchers
% of Total Voucher Households
Non-Hispanic White 1,537 12.0%
Black/African American 1,737 13.5%
Native American 237 1.8%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
A-73 ver. May 2023
AAPI 5,496 42.2%
Latino/a/x 3,830 29.8%
TOTAL 12,837
Household Size Number of Households
Receiving Vouchers
% of Total Voucher Households
1-person Household 6,129 47.7%
2-person Household 3,027 23.6%
3-person Household 1,587 12.4%
4-person Household 960 7.5%
5-person & larger Household 1,134 8.8%
Other Demographic
Characteristic (by head of
household)
Number of Households
Receiving Vouchers
% of Total Voucher Households
Seniors (age 62 & older) 6,621 51.6%
Householders w/ Disabilities 7,044 54.9%
Female-headed Households 8,461 65.9%
Veterans (VASH holders only,
veteran status not tracked for
general voucher population)
713 NA
Source: Santa Clara County Housing Authority, 2022
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-1 ver. May 2023
Attachment B
City of San José Assessment of Fair Housing
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-2 ver. May 2023
Contents
I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 3 A. The Legacy of Segregation .................................................................................................................... 3 B. Strategies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing .................................................................................. 4 II. Segregation History ................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Overview ............................................................................................................................................... 5 B. Early Statehood to Pre-War .................................................................................................................. 5 C. Post WWII Growth ................................................................................................................................ 9 D. Tech Boom to Real Estate Boom ........................................................................................................ 18 E. Our Challenge Moving Forward .......................................................................................................... 21 III. Assessment of Fair Housing ................................................................................................................... 23 A. Integration and Segregation Patterns by Race ................................................................................... 23 B. Analysis of Disparities in Housing and Opportunity ........................................................................... 40 C. Analysis of Demographics by Housing Type ....................................................................................... 84 D. Analysis of Housing Needs for Specific Populations ........................................................................... 95 E. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ........................................................................... 114 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................ 118
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-3 ver. May 2023
I. Introduction
A. The Legacy of Segregation
San José, like so many other American cities, is segregated.
While preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH), the map below was our strongest, most visceral, visual aid in establishing the fact that San José is a segregated city. In the map, each dot represents 75 persons. The clustering of dots by color is so clear, so evident. Orange dots (white, non-Hispanic persons) are strongly in the west and the south. Blue dots (Latino/a/x persons) are prevalent in the east.
Purple dots (Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders) are in the north, east, and west. During our community engagement process, there were two basic reactions to the map. Community members who experienced first-hand the negative effects of segregation – mostly people of color who lived in the eastern portion of the City – confirmed the distinct boundaries. People who had not as viscerally experienced the negative effects of segregation – mostly white people who lived in the south and west of the City – often commented along the lines that this map helped open their eyes to see that segregation was real in our City, that they hadn’t realized that “things were so bad.”
Map 1: U.S. HUD AFH Map
But dots on a map are insufficient to describe the true legacy of segregation in our community.
Segregation is about denial of opportunities for that have lasting consequences to life outcomes for generations.
There are decades of research, including dozens of important published studies which talk about the negative impacts of segregation in terms of health, education, income, wealth, and other dimensions of opportunity and quality of life. And this scholarly work, while necessary, is also somehow insufficient.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-4 ver. May 2023
The legacy of segregation – the ongoing, still living and still growing legacy of segregation – is in trauma.
It is in the daily traumas of individuals. It is in the generational trauma of families, passed down over decades. It is in the aggregate trauma of communities.
The loss of opportunity for some becomes the legacy of wealth and privilege for others. As was so integral to San José’s growth and development, racist and segregationist housing policies contributed to a historic expansion of the American middle class and created generational wealth (for some people but not others) at an unprecedented scale.
Together, this intertwined amalgam of lost opportunity and wealth, is the true legacy of segregation.
In this document’s scope and in its presentation, we generally address segregation at what might be characterized at a technocratic level (maps, stats, and policies). However, we acknowledge the true, human scale of segregation – our shared legacy of loss for some coupled with wealth and privilege for others. We hope that the policies and actions proposed in this document will be the first steps towards acknowledging and addressing this deep and complicated legacy.
B. Strategies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
San Joséans conceive of themselves as innovative and cutting-edge. San José calls itself the “Capital of Silicon Valley.” San José is at the center of the technological revolution that is remaking our world. In terms of fair housing, San José was the among the first municipalities in the country to pass a fair housing ordinance, which was in place before the State of California’s Fair Employment Act Housing Act (1964), which was in place before the Federal Fair Housing Act (1968). Similarly, in the 1950s, a group of activists from San José were at the forefront in the fight against racially restrictive covenants.2 San José’s challenge to today is to revitalize this commitment to fairness in housing and to transmute a landscape formed through segregation and violence into one of hope and opportunity – and to do so in ways that are bold, groundbreaking, to live up to Silicon Valley’s reputation as a place that is innovative and cutting-edge.
This document represents first steps towards the City’s commitment to a set of strategies to affirmatively further fair housing across the entirety of our City. With this assessment as a starting point, the City intends to build a “BOTH/AND” approach to fair housing: one that BOTH increases access to opportunity, opening new housing opportunities in parts of the City that have excluded protected classes AND increasing investment in and resources to communities that have suffered discrimination and disinvestment.
This document is the culmination of over three years of community outreach and engagement (please see Appendix A: Community Outreach Process for more description) in which City staff conducted over 100 community meetings, focus groups, and stakeholder meetings.
2 Ruffin, Herbert G., Uninvited Neighbors, African Americans in Silicon Valley, 1769-1990 (2014) DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-5 ver. May 2023
II. Segregation History
A. Overview
There are ways in which San José’s history of segregation is typical to cities across California and across the country. The root causes – racism, greed, exploitation – are the same. The story’s starting point – land theft – is the same for all cities across the country. In San José, as in other cities across the American West/Southwest, the history of land theft has the added dimension of theft of land from Mexican citizens as well as from indigenous peoples.
But there are also ways in which the history of segregation is uniquely manifested in San José.
For over a century and a half, San José was a relatively small city. Then, after World War II, San José boomed. The forces that defined segregation in midcentury America – redlining, suburbanization, white flight, urban renewal – shaped San José uniquely. No other large city in America is as suburban in form, so deeply shaped by Post-War suburban growth.
Because of this growth and because of the ascendency of Tech, San José is a world city – a diverse, cosmopolitan metropolis that has been grafted onto an archetypical suburb. As a proud world city, we celebrate our diversity. And yet, we have not fully reckoned with either our racist past or our currently segregated reality.
The first steps in this reckoning involve an understanding of our history.
Please note, the history provided in this section is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather a snapshot of the past, to give an illustrative sense of where we came from and the work we have yet to do.
B. Early Statehood to Pre-War
1. A War of Extermination
When California became a state in 1850, San José was the first capital city. In his 1851 state of the State address, delivered in San José, Governor Peter Hardeman Burnett declared, “[A] war of extermination will continue to be waged between the two races until the Indian race becomes extinct…” Burnett was a former slaveholder who came west to seek his fortune. He was a proponent of a vision of the American West for White people only and actively pushed for laws excluding African Americans and Chinese immigrants from California (well in advance of the federal Chinese Exclusion Act (1882)).3
3 https://calmatters.org/commentary/my-turn/2019/06/native-american-genocide/ DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-6 ver. May 2023
Figure 1: Portrait of Governor Peter Hardeman Burnett
And, of course, it was more than words. California State and local jurisdictions created laws that explicitly targeted Native Americans and provided resources to support their persecution. For example, in 1850, the California Legislature appropriated nearly $1.3 million (close to $50 million in today’s dollars) to support private militias to seize land from Native Americans in military style “expeditions.” The federal government paid an additional approximately $200,000 (an additional approximately $8 million in today’s dollars) to these militias. From 1850 to 1859, these federal and State funds paid for at least 18 “expeditions,” involving an estimated 35,000+ militiamen across the various campaigns, killing thousands of Native Americans and seizing their lands.4
2. Bad Faith Adventurers and Squatters
“Of all the California families, perhaps ours can most justly complain about the bad faith adventurers and squatters and about the illegal activities of the American lawyers.” –Antonio Berryessa5
4 Johnston-Dodds, Kimberly Early California Laws and Policies Related to California Indians (2002), https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/IB.pdf, California Research Bureau, p. 15-18 5 Quoted in Pitti, Stephen The Devil in Silicon Valley: Northern California, Race, and Mexican Americans (2003), University of Princeton Press, p. 42
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-7 ver. May 2023
Figure 2: Berryessa Family Portrait, date unknown
Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo which ended the Mexican-American War in 1848, Mexico ceded lands which became New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and California and the United States agreed to honor the holdings of Mexican citizens who owned property within these ceded lands. However, in the early days of the young State of California, state and local government officials conspired with white settlers to undermine the title of Mexican families and to illegally transfer lands to white squatters.
As one example, the Berrelleza / Berryessa family, the namesake of the Berryessa district in Northeast San José, was a prominent Californio family who owned land across the Bay Area, including San José holdings which stretched from Almaden (in Southern San José, including the land which became the New Almaden mercury mines) to Berryessa (in Northern San José) and on into the North Bay (Napa and Solano Counties). In a period of roughly a decade starting with the Bear Flag Revolt of 1846, historians document that eight members of the Berryessa family were murdered by white settlers, including through two lynchings, and their properties taken from them. With these violent appropriations combined with a string of legal losses in the courts, by 1880, the Berryessa family’s massive land holdings were whittled down to a single property at the northern end of Napa. By the turn of the century, the family was landless.6
3. A Free State?
California joined the Union as a Free State, meaning that slavery was not legal in the new state.
However, in a concession to slave holding states, California was required to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, which required that formerly enslaved people who escaped from slave-holding jurisdictions were to be recaptured and returned.
In addition, even though California was a Free State, there are accounts of several rich and prominent California families who owned slaves illegally and of local authorities turning a blind eye. As a local
6 Heidenreich, Linda This Land Was Mexican Once: Histories of Resistance from Northern California (2006), University of Texas Press, p. 86-87
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-8 ver. May 2023
example, the namesake of the Bascom Avenue in San José, Dr. L. H. Bascom is reported to have purchased and enslaved a young man listed by the first name “David” on the 1850 census.7
4. San José’s 5 Chinatowns
On September 29, 2021, on the former site of the second Market Street Chinatown, in a ceremony to commemorate the adoption of a historic City Council resolution apologizing for the City’s roles in acts of discrimination against the Chinese immigrant community and its descendants, then Mayor Sam Liccardo said, “[W]ith each new generation, we must reemphasize our commitment to justice and renew our contrition, not just for these failings [the destruction of San José’s Chinatowns], but for all the acts of disrespect and violence against our Black, Latino, Indigenous, and AAPI community members.”
Figure 3: Onlookers watching the burning of Market Street Chinatown, 1887 From 1866 to 1931, Chinese immigrants in San José established and lost five Chinatowns8. These Chinatowns were a product of racism and segregation. Chinese immigrants were not allowed to own land and could only live in specific, proscribed locations. But as soon as these places became desirable (for the expansion of Downtown, as an example), Chinatown residents were displaced, often violently.
Three of the five Chinatowns were destroyed by arson. Of which, one had been condemned by the City before it was burnt down. A similar pattern, in which segregated and previously undesirable neighborhoods are now subject to displacement, is playing out today – albeit in slower motion and with less explicit violence.
4. The Valley of the Heart’s Delight
The Santa Clara Valley used to be covered with orchards. The fruits from the so-called “Valley of the Heart’s Delight” – whether fresh, dried, or canned – were known around the world. During this time, San José had a small urban core surrounded by farms and open space.
7 https://historysanjose.org/two-years-a-slave-in-the-santa-clara-valley-sampson-gleaves-and-plim-jackson/ 8 https://www.kqed.org/news/11877801/san-José-had-5-chinatowns-why-did-they-vanish DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-9 ver. May 2023
Figure 4: Pre-WWII San José
In 1880, there were over two million fruit trees in the Valley. By 1915, there were almost 8 million fruit trees. In the 1920s and 1930s, there were approximately 20 canneries, over a dozen dried-fruit packing houses, and a dozen fresh-fruit and vegetable shipping firms.9 Housing and employment were largely segregated by race and economic status, with farm-owners and landowners predominantly being white and farm and cannery workers largely being immigrants from places like Mexico, China, the Philippines, Japan, Italy, the Azores, the Punjab region of India, and Armenia. Farmworkers (migrant and not) lived in farmworker camps and in clusters of substandard housing throughout the Santa Clara Valley. These clusters of farmworker and cannery worker housing became the core of the neighborhoods that were redlined (see Map 2, below) and correlate with today’s Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs).
C. Post WWII Growth
1. The Template for Growth
In the 1930s, the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC), a New Deal era federal agency, rated the investment risk of neighborhoods across approximately 200 American cities. The HOLC assessors created four categories of investment risk and mapped neighborhoods by these categories. In each local jurisdiction where these maps were created, HOLC assessors worked directly with the city’s government – in San José representatives of the City Building Department assisted and signed-off on the maps. On the HOLC maps, the categories of risk were assigned colors from green (“Best”) to red (“Hazardous”). As has now been widely documented, these maps – now popularly known as the redlining maps – explicitly and directly shaped public and private investment in neighborhoods’ growth and development for over 3 decades before the practice of redlining was found to be illegal under the 1968 federal Fair Housing Act. The practice violated Fair Housing Act because the grounds for deeming places hazardous for investment were explicitly and consistently racist.
9 https://www.sjpl.org/blog/looking-back-canning-valley-hearts-delight DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-10 ver. May 2023
Map 2, below, is the 1937 HOLC redlining map showing the both the City of San José and the City of Santa Clara.
Map 2: San José Redlining Map
As examples of the explicit, overt racist language and racism in the classification of neighborhoods, HOLC’s documentation10 accompanying the map includes the following disparaging narrative descriptions and disparaging remarks:
• For the redlined neighborhood identified as D3 in the North of the map (this area, now including Japantown and the Northside neighborhoods, was once one of the sites of the five disappeared Chinatowns described above): “This is typically an Oriental and Negro center and contains the largest concentration of these races in the city. It was originally known as ‘Chinatown’ but the Chinese have more or less [been] crowded out… A Negro church is located in the south-central part and a Japanese church in the north-central part… Detrimental Influences: [R]acial elements.”
• For the redlined neighborhood labeled D10 at the Eastern edge of the map (this area, now overlapping with parts of the Mayfair and Little Portugal neighborhoods): “This section contains the largest concentration of Mexicans in the community. The northern section within the city limits is largely populated by a lower stratum of Italians and Portuguese. From a racial standpoint, this area is extremely undesirable… Detrimental Influences: Inharmonious racial elements.”
2. The Unique Context of Redlining in San José
While the underlying, racist logic of redlining played a central role in the growth and development of San José, redlining (in and of itself) had less influence on San José than in most other major American cities. This is because, in the 1930s, when the HOLC first drew the infamous redlining maps, the city limits of San José were significantly different than they are today.
10 https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=13/37.328/-121.962&city=san-jose-ca&area=D10 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-11 ver. May 2023
Map 3 shows the 1937 HOLC map superimposed within the current city limits. The portion of the City that was subject to the HOLC classification system was less than one-tenth of the City’s current area. As described further, below, after World War II, San José grew dramatically and rapidly under an intentional, aggressive strategy of growth through annexation and conversion of agricultural lands to residential uses. This growth coincided with and encouraged the construction of single-family homes for the burgeoning post-War white middle-class – so, very much consistent with the underlying purpose and ideology of redlining. But, unlike as it functioned in most other major American cities, redlining was not the primary driver and delineator of segregation. It certainly was a factor. But for San José, as described below, large scale suburbanization (which was made in the same kiln as redlining) was the animating force.
Map 3: Redlining map vs. current city limits
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-12 ver. May 2023
2. Dutch’s Vision
“He wanted San José to be a big city. I kept saying: ‘Dutch, this is going to be another Los Angeles.’ He said, ‘Good!’ It was just growth, growth, growth. That was everybody’s song. And Dutch sang it the loudest.” –Al Ruffo, Mayor of San José, 1946-194711
Figure 5: New homes in San Jose, circa 1963, photo via Getty Images Prior to World War II, San José was a small city in the heart of an agricultural area. In 1950, when Antony “Dutch” Hamann became City Manager, San José was of similar size and similar role as the City of Modesto. Hamann initiated an aggressive plan for growth: new infrastructure (a new sewage plant, new systems of roads and expressways) and new city limits (over 1,375 annexations during his term as City Manager). The result was that, in a relatively short time, San José transformed from a small agricultural city with a population in the tens of thousands to a large, sprawling, low-density city of over half a million.
11 Quoted in:
https://web.archive.org/web/20050223144311/http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/living/2765036.ht m
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-13 ver. May 2023
Figure 6: San José growth, 1950-1980 (U.S. Census)
3. Suburban Boom / White Flight
San José’s Post War growth happened in a larger national context of suburbanization and white flight.
While many larger, more established urban centers lost population as white people left central cities for the suburbs, cities that were more suburban in form and in demographics (such as San José and Phoenix) gained population.
0 50
100
150
200
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2019
City Area, Square Miles
SAN JOSÉ GROWTH, SQUARE MILES
1940 TO 2019
From 1950-1980:
+141 square miles,
an increase of
829%
0 200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2019
Total Population
SAN JOSÉ GROWTH, POPULATION
1940 TO 2019
From 1950-1980:
+534,162 people,
an increase of
561%
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2019
Occupied Units
SAN JOSÉ GROWTH, HOUSING UNITS
1940 TO 2019
From 1950-1980:
+188,420 units,
an increase of
302%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-14 ver. May 2023
Figure 7: Current U.S. top 10 cities (plus San Francisco and Oakland) growth: 1940-1980 (U.S. Census) In a greater Bay Area regional setting, from 1950 to 1980, the more urbanized cities of San Francisco and Oakland lost population while the suburbs of the region, including San José, grew. The Bay Area’s post- war patterns of growth and depopulation are even more stark when focusing on the white population:
Figure 8: San José vs. San Francisco and Oakland, White population, 1950-1980 (U.S. Census) During a time period when San Francisco’s and Oakland’s combined white population decreased by approximately half a million people (almost 50% of the two cities’ combined white population), San José’s white population increased by nearly 400% (adding over 370,000 white persons). In effect, San José was a city built by white flight.
-100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500% 600% 700%
San Jose
New York City
Los Angeles
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
Philadelphia
San Antonio
San Diego
Dallas
San Francisco
Oakland
% Change in Population, 1950 to 1980, current top 10 largest U.S. Cities, plus San Francisco and Oakland
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
1950 1960 1970 1980
White Population, San José, Oakland, San
Francisco, 1950 to 1980
San Jose Oakland San Francisco
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-15 ver. May 2023
4. Zoning for the Suburban Boom
“To prevent lower-income African Americans from living in neighborhoods where middle-class whites resided, local and federal officials began in the 1910s to promote zoning ordinances to reserve middle- class neighborhoods for single-family homes that lower-income families of all races could not afford.
Certainly, an important and perhaps primary motivation of zoning rules that kept apartment buildings out of single-family neighborhoods was a social class elitism that was not itself racially biased. But there was also enough open racial intent behind exclusionary zoning that it is integral to the story of de jure segregation.” –Richard Rothstein in The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America
San José attracted white suburbanites because developers were building housing that was marketed towards them and that had easy financing (available only to them, as described below). Developers could build this housing because land was cheap and because the City had zoned it for single-family homes in alignment with developers’ business models.
During the post-war period, as San José’s city limits expanded, the City zoned agricultural lands for single family uses, paving the way for orchards to be replaced by residential subdivisions. This was a policy championed by the elites of the city, including its press (because, as Joe Ridder the owner/publisher of the San Jose Mercury and the San Jose News said, “Prune trees don’t buy newspapers”12). As a result, today, San José has over 90% of its residential land currently occupied by single family uses, the most of any major American city13. In the land use map below, the yellow dots are low-density residential zoned parcels.
12 https://historysanjose.org/exhibits-activities/online-exhibits/750-ridder-park-drive-documenting-the-former- headquarters-of-the-mercury-news/3/
13 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family- zoning.html
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-16 ver. May 2023
Map 4: Single Family Parcels in 2021, prior to passage of SB9 and SB10
5. Financing for the Suburban Boom
“The federal government’s support of the housing delivery system was the biggest and most important policy to create segregation post World War Two. The conditions on the use of capital through underwriting criteria, what the agencies would finance, and what they required banks and developers to do, were all explicitly racist.” -Richard Rothstein
The suburban boom that built modern San José did not happen by accident. As referenced above, it was part of an aggressive growth plan initiated by the City. But even more than local civic boosterism, suburban growth was part of a larger national plan conceived and financed by the federal government during the Great Depression, which was further amped up after World War Two. And, as documented in The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America by Richard Rothstein, the plans, policies, programs, and practices to effectuate suburban growth and expand the white middle-class through public subsidization of mortgages for single family homes were explicitly racist. For example, from the 1938 Federal Housing Administration’s 1938 Underwriting Manual, there are many guidelines such as the following sentence about what covenants should be applied to new housing developments financed by FHA backed lending: “[R]estrictions should include… prohibition of the occupancy of properties except by the race for which they are intended.” DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-17 ver. May 2023
Figure 9: FHA Underwriting Manual
6. The Infrastructure for the Suburban Boom / Regional Segregation San José’s rapid growth – like that of suburban regions and sunbelt cities across the country – never would have been possible without the massive public investment of multiple billions of dollars in infrastructure. Dutch Hamann’s first major accomplishment in paving the way for growth was to arrange the financing for a major upgrade to the City’s sewer system and the construction of a new sewage treatment plant.14 Likewise, the City benefited from federal, state, and regional investments in transportation infrastructure which facilitated the redistribution of population from older central cities like San Francisco and Oakland to growing suburbs across the region, including San José.
Figure 10: The 680, 280, and 101 freeway interchange, under construction in 1976 Similar patterns of suburban growth and regional-scale segregation were happening on parallel tracks across the country. Starting in the 1950s and substantially completed in under two decades, the Federal government funded the creation of the interstate highway system with over 42,500 miles of new highways constructed in this time period. In aggregate, the creation and expansion of the federal
14 https://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/dutch_hamann/
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-18 ver. May 2023
highway system demolished hundreds of thousands of people’s homes, displacing over one million people, the vast majority of whom were people of color.15 In San José, during this period, freeway and expressway construction bulldozed multiple Latino/a/x neighborhoods, with required replacement housing never constructed.16 As shown under construction in the photo above, four freeways converge (also including California State Route 87, built a little later) in the greater downtown area and their construction severely impacted predominantly Latino/a/x neighborhoods around downtown, including the Gardner and Horseshoe neighborhoods. On the eastside, US Route 101 bisects the Little Portugal neighborhood from the Mayfair neighborhood and Interstate 680 bisects Mayfair from the Alum Rock neighborhood. These freeways still stand as physical barriers between neighborhoods – as physical boundaries that mark and reinforce segregation – and remain on-going sources of pollution that harm the health of communities that are closest to them (i.e., environmental racism).
D. Tech Boom to Real Estate Boom
1. The Birth of Silicon Valley
From the founding of Hewlett Packard in Palo Alto in 1938 to Shockley Semiconductor Labs in Mountain View in 1956 to Intel in Santa Clara in 1968, Santa Clara County had a long history as a center of the tech industry before becoming popularly known as Silicon Valley in the early 1970s17. During the 1970s, however, Silicon Valley was roughly comparable to several other tech hubs across the country (e.g., Boston, New York, Los Angeles) in terms of number of technology workers and size of firms headquartered in the region. However, starting in the 1980s, Silicon Valley companies began to grow faster than firms in other regions.
15 See for e.g., https://www.prrac.org/pdf/mohl.pdf,
https://journals.calstate.edu/tthr/article/download/2670/2339/, also the note immediately following 16 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace#footnote206_sz6x1q7 17 https://computerhistory.org/blog/who-named-silicon-valley/ DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-19 ver. May 2023
Map 5: Selected tech companies in Silicon Valley, 1983 (Computer History Museum/Maryanne Regal Hoburg) And now, two of the largest, most valuable companies in the world (i.e., Apple and Alphabet, the parent company of Google) are headquartered in Santa Clara County, along with dozens of other major tech companies. The greater Bay Area (with Santa Clara County still in the lead) has become the tech center of the world.
2. Becoming a World City
In the years that San José was a hub for agriculture and industrial-scale processing of agricultural products, the region was a magnet for immigrants. After World War II, as documented above, San José’s growth was driven by white suburbanites. And now, with tech ascendant, San José has once again become a magnet for successive waves immigrants and refugees. Once a predominantly white city, non- Hispanic Whites now are the third largest racial/ethnic group, trailing both Asian American and Latino/a/x populations.
Tech firms, with their demand for highly trained technical workers, recruit employees from around the world. Nationally, including renewals, there are over 600,000 highly educated, professional class visas issued18 each year. At over 400,000 visas per year, the H-1B visa19 is single largest and most well-known of these programs. Over 75% of H-1B visas are issued to immigrants from India and China. Country of origin statistics are similar across other categories of high-skill employment visas.20 Tens of thousands of
18 https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html 19 See for e.g., https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/29/h-1b-visa-approvals-by-us-metro-area/ 20 See for e.g., analysis at https://prosperitynow.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Policy/CAPACD- PN_AAPI_Fact_File_FINAL_11.10.20.pdf showing over 50% of EB Visas issued to immigrants from China and India and https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/18/more-foreign-grads-of-u-s-colleges-are-staying-in-the-
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-20 ver. May 2023
these visas are issued annually to firms in Santa Clara County.21 Immigrants from Asia now lead San José’s population growth. In recent years, both the non-Hispanic White and Latino/a/x population shares in San José have declined, while the Asian Americans continues to grow.
3. A Rising Tide Does Not Raise All Boats
As the tech industry has grown, so has its appetite for real estate and tech workers’ demand for housing.
All of which has meant that, even with Proposition 13 suppressing assessed valuations22, the total recorded value of properties in Santa Clara County have consistently risen (with a small dip in 2009 to 2011, during the Great Recession) from $400 million in 1951 (the rough equivalent of $4 billion in 2020 dollars) to over $550 billion in 2020.
Figure 11: Santa Clara County Properties, Total Assessed Value, 1951-2020 (Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office) These rising property values correlate with, are buoyed by, and reinforce the region’s rising housing costs. In the 1970s, at the beginning of the region’s long period of economic growth, housing in San José was relatively affordable. And now, San José (along with the rest of the greater Bay Area) is one of the most expensive places to live in the country.
Value in 1970 Dollars Equivalent 2021 Value 2021 Actual Value Rent $135 $950 $2,450
Median Home Value $25,400 $178,700 $1,480,000
Table 1: San Jose housing costs, 1970-202123
country-to-work/ showing over 50% of OPT Visas issued to immigrants from China and India. Together, these 2 visa programs account for approximately 200,000 annual visa issuances. 21 Interestingly, in terms of H-1B visas per 100 workers, the San José metro region is behind College Station, TX; Trenton, NJ; Durham-Chapel, NC; and New York City, NY-NJ-PA 22 See for e.g., http://scocablog.com/proposition-13-is-broken-annually-reassessing-commercial-properties-will-fix- it/
23 2021 equivalent values calculated CPI-U inflation rate; 1970 values from 1970 U.S. Decennial Census; 2021 values from CoStar.com
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
1951 1958 1965 1972 1979 1986 1993 2000 2007 2014
Total Assessed Value, Santa Clara County
Properties, in $Billions
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-21 ver. May 2023
People in San José who were able to buy a house prior to the 1970s saw tremendous appreciation of the value of their asset and were able to build great wealth, even if they did not work in the tech industry.
But, as discussed above, the opportunity to buy a home was not open to all. In San José, there was only a brief window of time when housing was both affordable and legally open to all. If you did not catch the wave before it got big, you were crushed beneath it.
E. Our Challenge Moving Forward
Article 34 of the California Constitution was passed by referendum in 1950, largely in response to the U.S. Housing Act of 1949. Article 34 requires approval by a referendum vote of any publicly-funded rental housing development in which over 49% of units that are affordable housing. From its passage, Article 34 has been instrumental in weakening efforts to integrate racially segregated suburban communities across California.24 Even today, as housing-friendly jurisdictions have developed strategies for more efficient Article 34 compliance (for e.g., San José continues to operate under the limits established our Measure D, passed in 1994), Article 34 is estimated to add tens of thousands of dollars in added expenses to every new affordable housing development.25 In the late 1960s, Anita Valtierra, a mother of six from San José, was the lead plaintiff in a suit challenging Article 34. In 1971, in its decision in James v. Valtierra, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Article 34 did not rely on “distinctions of race” and was therefore constitutional. While the challenge was unsuccessful, the courage and vision of Anita Valtierra and her co-plaintiffs (also working class Latino/a/x and African American families from Santa Clara and San Mateo counties) stands as a local example what we need more of today.
24 https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-03-14/why-killing-article-34-on-affordable-housing-has-been- hard
25 https://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-may-2018-htmlstory.html#state-senator- wants-to-eliminate-california-constitution-obstacle-to-low-income-housing
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-22 ver. May 2023
Figure 12: James v. Valtierra
Alongside our history of segregation, we have had a history of resistance – a history of those who have fought for fair housing, for affordable housing, and for the rights of communities who have been too long denied their rights. In the 1950s, the San José Council for Civic Unity – a group of homeowners fighting housing discrimination – organized against restrictive covenants and pushed the City to pass one of the first municipal fair housing ordinances in the Country, predating California’s 1964 fair housing laws (which in turn predated the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968). While the City never fully funded enforcement of the ordinance, it is an important example of progressive resident activism.
Our challenge moving forward is to acknowledge and learn from our multiple legacies – both our legacy of exclusion and exploitation and our legacy of resistance and being at the forefront of fighting for social change. We are a community of innovators, at the cutting edge of technologies changing the world. Our challenge moving forward is to turn this spirit of change and innovation inwards to address longstanding inequities and to do so in a way that lifts everyone up.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-23 ver. May 2023
III. Assessment of Fair Housing
Housing, demographic, economic, and a cavalcade of other data show that San José is a segregated city.
As described in further detail below, this segregation negatively and measurably affects the health and welfare of our communities.
A. Integration and Segregation Patterns by Race
1.Population distribution by race and ethnicity
San José is a diverse city, with no single racial or ethnic group as a majority in the City.26 However, for the three largest racial/ethnic groups (in order by size of population: 1. Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs); 2. Latino/a/x; 3. Non-Hispanic Whites), there are parts of the City where one group or the other is a majority.
As can be seen in Map 6, below, non-Hispanic Whites (over 264,000 people or approximately 26% of the City) are the majority population (i.e., the darkest purple color on the map) in the southwestern part of the City.
26 For more demographic and housing data for the City of San José, please see Appendix B: Housing Needs Data Package: San José
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-24 ver. May 2023
Map 6: Non-Hispanic White population in San José
As can be seen in Map 7, below, the Latino/a/x population (approximately 325,000 people or approximately 32% of the population) is the majority population (i.e., the darkest purple color on the map) in the central and eastern central parts of the City.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-25 ver. May 2023
Map 7: Latino/a/x population in San José
As can be seen in Map 8, below, AAPIs (over 370,000 people, or approximately 36% of the population), are the majority population (i.e., the darkest purple color on the map) in the northeast, east, and far west parts of the City.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-26 ver. May 2023
Map 8: AAPI population in San José
In contrast, as can be seen in Map 9, below, the Black/ African American population (almost 30,000 people, or approximately 3% of the population) is dispersed through the City with no single census tract above 20% in concentration.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-27 ver. May 2023
Map 9: Black & African American population in San José As seen in Map 10, below, overlaying the above maps show that much of the City roughly evenly split between majority non-Hispanic White, majority Latino/a/x, majority AAPI, and neighborhoods that have no majority (i.e., are more consistent with the larger City’s proportion). These no majority areas tend to be either in sparsely populated areas of the City (e.g., Coyote Valley in southern San José) or in the transition zones between areas that are more clearly defined by a single majority population.
For more of San José’s demographic and housing data, please see Appendix B.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-28 ver. May 2023
Map 10: San José census tracts by majority/no-majority racial group
2. Segregation Analysis
a. Overview
By standard segregation metrics, San José is one of the most segregated cities in the Bay Area.27 Making the segregation analysis more locally-specific to Silicon Valley by disaggregating AAPI data into three subgroups (see below for more discussion/description):
• High proportion of high-skilled immigration: Asian Indian, Chinese (including Taiwanese);28
27 In large regions, when using segregation metrics that measure distribution within a city, larger cities will tend to register as more segregated than smaller jurisdictions. However, as discussed further below, smaller jurisdictions may be highly segregated within the regional context but register as non -segregated because the population is homogeneous.
28 As discussed in more detail in Appendix D, the vast majority of high-skill, high-education employment visas are issued to immigrants from India and China (75% of H-1B visas, for example). Many of the Tech companies headquartered in Silicon Valley are among the top-10 beneficiaries of these visas and many immigrants who came to this country under these Visa programs have settled in the South Bay. Because of this specific local history and conditions, City of San José staff would caution applying this methodology universally in jurisdictions outside of
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-29 ver. May 2023
• Southeast Asians: Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Vietnamese; • All other AAPI subgroups.29
Overlaying TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map categories reveals a more nuanced picture of how the specific patterns of segregation in San José disadvantage some residents while privileging others. Characterizing each major racial/ethnic by which TCAC/HCD Opportunity area most of the specific population yields the following:
• Populations that the majority or plurality of which live in High Resource neighborhoods:
o Asian Indian and Chinese Americans (55.1% of this population lives in High Resource census tracts)
o Non-Hispanic Whites (48.2%)
• Populations that the plurality of which live in Medium Resource neighborhoods:
o African Americans / Black (48.5% of this population lives in in Medium Resource census tracts)
o All other AAPI populations (36.6%)
• Populations that the majority or plurality of which live in Low Resource neighborhoods:
o Latino/a/x (54.4% of this population lives in Low Resource census tracts) o Southeast Asian Americans (50.4%)
o Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders (49.3%)30
o Native American / indigenous people (42.5%)
Silicon Valley. The ethnic dynamics of immigration and employment are likely nuanced differently in different places. For example, cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles – those with historic Chinatowns (jurisdictions that were not as successful a century ago in purging their Chinese immigrant population as San José was) have higher proportions of Chinese residents from different waves of immigration and who did not arrive in this country with professional degrees and a high-tech job awaiting them. Likewise, in the Central Valley, there are communities with higher proportions of Punjabi/Sikh (who also would be classified as Asian Indian in the census) immigrants who came to the U.S. as agricultural workers and who do not have the same economic and educational profile as Silicon Valley tech workers. Making blanket assumptions about the immigration history and economic status of any jurisdiction’s ethnic community solely based on a community’s shared country of origin is not appropriate without further context and analysis.
29 The majority of the category “all other AAPI subgroups” are Filipino/a/x people. This category of “all other AAPI subgroups” should probably be further disaggregated in that many of sub -populations have distinctly different immigration histories, geographic distributions, and housing and economic stats. However, for statistical validity of the Dissimilarity analysis, we tried to create groups that had a total population of at least 100k (or approximately 10% of the City). For e.g., Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders probably should be disaggregated into their own category based on geographic and demographic similarity. However, this category would be less than 5,000 persons (or 0.4% of the City’s population), a smaller proportion of the p opulation than advisable for segregation analyses. However, if Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders were analyzed as a separate subgroup, they would have the plurality of their population in Low Resource census tracts (49.3%), with the rest of the popula tion split almost evenly between High Resource (26.2%) and Medium Resource (24.5%) census tracts. 30 This data point is included as context. Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, as discussed above, were not analyzed as a separate category because the total population of this subgroup is less than 5,000 persons. Instead, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders are included in the “all other AAPI populations” category. See further discussion in Appendix D and in Section IV.2.d., below.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-30 ver. May 2023
With the above categorizations, the two racial/ethnic groups with the largest proportion of their populations in High Resource areas were compared analyzed for similarity/dissimilarity31 against all other groups:
Group or Subgroup32 Dissimilarity Index vs. Non-
Hispanic Whites
Dissimilarity Index vs. Asian
Indian and Chinese Americans
Non-Hispanic Whites NA 0.454
Asian Indian and Chinese
American
0.454 NA
All other AAPIs 0.435 0.333
Latino/a/x 0.487 0.557
Southeast Asian American 0.656 0.530
People of Color33 minus Asian
Indian and Chinese Americans
0.455 0.461
Table 2: Dissimilarity Indexes between Racial/Ethnic Groups in San Jose (2019 5-yr ACS) Non-Hispanic Whites have a moderate degree of segregation between all racial/ethnic groups except Southeast Asian Americans, where there is a high degree of segregation. Asian Indians and Chinese have a moderate degree of segregation between all racial/ethnic groups except Latinx, where there is a high degree of segregation, and all other AAPIs, where there is a low degree of segregation. Overall, there is a moderate degree a segregation between the more privileged racial/ethnic groups (i.e., non-Hispanic Whites, Asian Indians, and Chinese) and everybody else (i.e., people of color minus high proportion tech Asian Indians and Chinese).
There are several implications of this level of segregation analysis that apply elsewhere in the AFH:
• Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: In Silicon Valley, an analysis of racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must account for high-income Asian Americans, many of whom are recipients of visas for tech workers, as beneficiaries of racially exclusionary policies and practices.
• Sub-regional Diversity: In Silicon Valley, many jurisdictions that are majority non-White remain segregated and exclusionary communities. Many of these jurisdictions have metrics that indicate low or moderate segregation, but this is because of their relative homogeneity and because the majority of their people of color population consists of Asian Indian and Chinese Americans.
31 A Dissimilarity Index of less than 0.40 is considered Low Segregation. A Dissimilarity Index of 0.40 to 0.55 is moderate segregation. Dissimilarity Index scores of above 0.55 are considered High Segregation. 32 Because dissimilarity analyses are unreliable for population groups that represent less than 5% of a jurisdiction’s total population, African Americans and Native Americans (both populations are less than 5% of the City’s population) are not included on this table. However, per the unreliable numbers, African Americans have a Moderate Segregation score with respect to both non-Hispanic Whites and tech visa Asian Americans. Native Americans have a High Segregation score with respect to both non -Hispanic Whites and tech visa Asian Americans. 33 This category includes African Americans and Native Americans.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-31 ver. May 2023
• Anti-Displacement: In this more nuanced racial/ethnic analysis, San José (as segregated as we are and as problematic as our history has been) is the primary home for diversity and inclusion in the Silicon Valley. And there are intense market pressures that would cause the demographics of San José to become more like the rest of the Silicon Valley. So, in this context of regional equity, preventing displacement of low-income people of color from San José becomes all the more important.
• Policies and Programs to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: In this more nuanced racial/ethnic analysis, there are multiple AAPI subgroups (e.g., Southeast Asians) that have been materially disadvantaged by segregation and by racist housing policies and practices. Policies and programs to affirmatively further fair housing, therefore, need to take the specific needs and context of these communities into account. Community outreach to these communities needs to be specific and intentional. Policies and programs need to held accountable to whether these communities are impacted.
b. Standard Metrics in a Regional Context
By multiple, standard measures of segregation, San José is one of the most segregated cities in the Bay Area (for a more detailed analysis of San José’s standard segregation metrics with respect to the greater Bay Area, please see Appendix C). Per the figure below, of the 100+ jurisdictions in the Bay Area, San José has a higher-than-average dissimilarity score (generally, the higher the dissimilarity index is between white and non-white populations, the more segregated a place is).
Figure 13: Dissimilarity Indexes for 9 County Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) For measures of racial isolation in the greater Bay Area, San José has higher than average rates of isolation (i.e., generally more segregated) for the AAPI and for Latino/a/x populations. And for all populations, the Isolation Index represents that the average person of each population lives in a DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-32 ver. May 2023
neighborhood with a higher concentration of other people like them than would be suggested by a strict percentage breakdown per the overall proportion of the population in the City.
Figure 14: Isolation Indexes for 9 County Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) Finally, for Theil’s H Index, San José is also amongst the jurisdictions in the Bay Area with the highest score (indicating that individuals are less likely to live in a neighborhood that has a demographic breakdown that is proportionate to the jurisdiction as a whole).
Figure 15: Theil's H Index for 9 County Bay Area Jurisdictions DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-33 ver. May 2023
c. Alternative Segregation Analysis – Population Distribution by TCAC/HCD Opportunity Categories Another test for racial segregation is to benchmark racial composition against other socio-economic analyses of spatial distribution of population. This type of analysis reveals more about the relationship between segregation and socio-economic inputs and outcomes.
For example, breaking down the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map34 into three major categories Higher Resource (a combination of the categories “Highest Resource” and “High Resource”), Middle Resource (“Moderate Resource”), and Low Resource (a combination of the categories “Low Resource” and “High Segregation & Poverty”) yields three areas of the City with roughly 1/3 of the City’s total population in each. All things being equal, one might expect that each major racial/ethnic group would also be evenly distributed in each neighborhood type.
TCAC/HCD
Opportunity
Category
% of City’s
Total
Population
in Category
% of City’s
N-H White
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Black
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Native
American
Population
in Category
% of City’s
AAPI
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Latino/a/x
Population
in Category
High 33.3% 48.2% 22.4% 19.8% 38.8% 14.4%
Medium 34.7% 38.6% 48.5% 37.7% 28.3% 41.9%
Low 31.9% 13.2% 29.1% 42.5% 33.0% 54.4%
Table 3: Population distribution by Race/Ethnicity by major TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map category (the largest % group is highlighted in each column)
Instead, close to half of the City’s non-Hispanic White population lives in High Resource tracts (with only 13% of the City’s non-Hispanic White population living in Low Resource tracts) while the majority of the City’s Latino/a/x population lives in Low Resource tracts (with only 14% of the City’s Latino/a/x population living in High Resource tracts). Of all the major racial/ethnic groups in the City, non-Hispanic Whites have the highest proportion of their population living in High Resource areas and the lowest proportion of their population living in Low Resource areas. On the other end of the spectrum, the City’s Latino/a/x population has the highest proportion of their population living in Low Resource areas and the lowest proportion of their population living in High Resource areas. All other racial/ethnic groups fall someplace in between, with the City’s AAPI population most closely approximating the citywide distribution of total population (more about the distribution of AAPI population, below). d. Alternative Segregation Analysis – Disaggregating AAPI Data The standard methods of quantifying segregation are insufficient when applied to San José because the largest racial/ethnic group in the City – AAPIs. AAPIs are a non-homogenous, diverse collection of distinct communities with vastly different experiences. AAPIs encompass over 50 ethnicities and speak 2,000 dialectics, and have very different histories, migration pathways to this country, and geographies For these reasons, City of San José staff disaggregated AAPI data and created separate sub-categories of AAPI subgroups and applied dissimilarity analyses to these subgroups with respect to each other and to the larger, traditional racial/ethnic categories (see “Overview” section, above). To create coherent categories that would be the basis of a statistically valid segregation analysis, the goal was that each
34 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/2022-tcac-opportunity-map DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-34 ver. May 2023
subgroup would be at least 100,000 people and for all members of the subgroup to have similar housing and economic statistics and immigration history. For more about this methodology and the overall importance of disaggregating AAPI data, please see Appendix D.
These groups’ distributions across the City by TCAC/HCD Opportunity map categories is as follows.
TCAC/HCD
Opportunity
Category
% of City’s
Total
Population in
Category
% of City’s
AAPI
Population in
Category
% of City’s
Asian Indians
and Chinese
Population in
Category
% of City’s SE
Asian
Population in
Category
% of City’s All
Other AAPI
Population in
Category
Population35 1,027,690 373,753 175,831 117,048 105,223
High 33.3% 38.8% 55.1% 18.8% 34.2%
Medium 34.7% 28.3% 32.5% 30.8% 36.6%
Low 31.9% 33.0% 12.4% 50.4% 29.1%
Table 4: Disaggregated AAPI Categories population distribution by Race/Ethnicity by major TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map category
The majority of Asian Indian and Chinese Americans live in High Opportunity areas while the majority of Southeast Asian Americans live in Low Resource areas. The all other AAPI population category has a distribution that is more evenly distributed, with the plurality living in medium resource areas. That is, in terms of living in high/low resource neighborhoods, Southeast Asian Americans have a distribution pattern more similar to the Latino/a/x community; Asian Indian and Chinese Americans have a distribution similar to non-Hispanic Whites; and all other AAPIs have a distribution that more closely approximates the City as a whole.
4. San Jose’s Segregation in the Context of the Subregion’s Segregation Of the 15 incorporated jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, nine cities (San José, Cupertino, Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale) are majority people of color. At this level of analysis, San José seems like a diverse city within a diverse subregion. However, disaggregating AAPI data shows that a significant proportion (i.e., nearly one-fifth) of the subregion’s people of color population are Asian Indians and Chinese (i.e., a relatively privileged population). Within this context, per Table 5 below, San José is one of only three jurisdictions that are majority people of color minus Asian Indian and Chinese Americans.
Place % People of Color % Asian Indian and
Chinese Americans
% People of Color
minus Asian Indians
and Chinese
9-County Bay Area 57.0% 14.5% 42.5%
Santa Clara County 65.3% 19.7% 45.6%
San José 71.5% 15.3% 56.3%
Campbell 43.2% 12.0% 31.2%
Cupertino 72.1% 55.0% 17.1%
Gilroy 70.6% 3.3% 67.3%
35 Note: total population for AAPI subgroups is based upon the sum of all census tracts in the City and may exceed the actual City population because some census tracts also include parts of directly adjacent unincorporated areas.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-35 ver. May 2023
Los Altos 36.4% 23.1% 13.4%
Los Altos Hills 37.5% 25.1% 12.4%
Los Gatos 23.7% 8.9% 14.8%
Milpitas 85.4% 33.9% 51.5%
Monte Sereno 31.0% 13.0% 18.0%
Morgan Hill 51.5% 5.2% 46.4%
Mountain View 52.4% 22.9% 29.5%
Palo Alto 40.2% 24.4% 15.8%
Santa Clara 64.8% 27.9% 36.8%
Saratoga 51.4% 38.1% 13.3%
Sunnyvale 65.5% 34.5% 31.0%
Table 5: Majority community of color jurisdictions in Santa Clara County (2019 1-year ACS) Many of the cities in the subregion have lower nominal segregation scores than San José. But this is because they are smaller, more homogenous, and more exclusionary. These cities do not have the same proportion of the populations disadvantaged by segregation (i.e., African Americans, Native Americans, Latino/a/x populations). And the AAPIs that live in these cities are disproportionately Asian Indian and Chinese. San José represents 53% of the County’s population but has over 66% of the County’s Latino/a/x population and 81% of the County’s Southeast Asian American population. Conversely, non- Hispanic Whites (44% of the County’s non-Hispanic Whites live in San José) and Asian Indian and Chinese Americans (41% of the County’s population live in San José) are under-represented in comparison to the County as a whole. In this context, surrounded by smaller cities that are more expensive and more exclusionary, San José is the leader in diversity for the subregion.
5. Emerging trends and demographic shifts
a. Segregation metrics over time
Since 2000, as measured by the Dissimilarity Index, overall segregation in San José has declined.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-36 ver. May 2023
Figure 16: Segregation over time, City of San José
Further research is needed to discern whether this trend is positive or whether it is tracking other changes that are not necessarily linked to increased racial equity – for example, this could be an artifact of displacement of Latinx households (see discussion below) or the increase of Asian immigrant high tech workers in exclusionary neighborhoods. Both of these factors could change dissimilarity metrics without substantially addressing underlying equity dynamics.
b. Declining Latino/a/x population
From a peak population of 330,827 in 2017, San José’s Latino/a/x population has declined to 319,028 in 2020, for an annual average net loss of almost 4,000 people.
0.300
0.350
0.400
0.450
0.500
0.550
1990 2000 2010 2020
Dissimilarity Index, 1990 to 2020
AAPI v NH White Black v. NH White
Latinx v. NH White POC v NH White
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-37 ver. May 2023
Figure 17: Latino/a/x population in San José, 1970 to 2020 (U.S. Census, various years) City staff and local residents hypothesize that this decline in Latino/a/x population is related to displacement. In community outreach and stakeholder engagement meetings for the Housing Element and the Assessment of Fair Housing, City staff have heard multiple anecdotal accounts from Latino/a/x residents and community-based organizations that family and community members have been moving from San José because of rising housing costs. These community testimonials align with data that Latino/a/x residents are disproportionately concentrated in areas of the City with the highest risk of displacement (see below and Appendix F, for further analysis and discussion of displacement issues).
This data will need to continue to be closely monitored to determine the extent of the problem. c. Race, Inequality, and Resegregation in the Bay Area
San José’s declining Latino/a/x is happening in the context of larger regional population shifts. In 2016, Urban Habitat published a report, Race, Inequality, and Resegregation in the Bay Area36, that documented these demographic trends, saying:
Inequality is redrawing the geography of the Bay Area. Low-income communities and communities of color are increasingly living at the expanding edges of our region. There they often struggle to find quality jobs and schools, decent affordable housing and public transportation, adequate social services, and environmentally safe and healthy neighborhoods.
Those who do live closer to the regional core find themselves unable to afford skyrocketing rents and other necessities…
Map 11, below, is from Urban Habitat’s 2016 report (labelled “MAP 6” in the report), showing decreasing Latino/a/x populations in the Bay Area’s core and increasing populations in the periphery
36 https://urbanhabitat.org/sites/default/files/UH%20Policy%20Brief2016.pdf 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
San José Latino/a/x Population
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-38 ver. May 2023
Map 11: Regional shifts in Bay Area Latino/a/x population In 2016, when this map was generated, Latino/a/x population in San José was still stabile/rising.
However, in recent years, some threshold has been passed and San José has also begun to lose Latino/a/x population. This is especially worrisome in the context that, as described above, both because of the rich history of San José due to Latino/a/x contributions and because San José anchors diversity in the subregion. Any loss of diversity in San José means that the South Bay subregion is becoming less diverse and more exclusionary. It is part of a larger, super-regional pattern of population re-distribution in which the Bay Area is becoming more unaffordable, less equitable, and less diverse and where we are losing members of our community who have contributed so much to make the Bay Area a successful, vital region.
6. Racial segregation relative to segregation/integration by other protected characteristics In comparison to other protected classes and characteristics, race is the primary defining factor in terms of segregation in the City of San José. While reliable Census Tract level data is not available for the full array of protected classes and characteristics identified under state and federal fair housing laws, where there is data available, City analysis shows low levels of segregation for nonracial factors.
Protected Class/Characteristic Dissimilarity
Index Score
Interpretation
Persons with disabilities (non-institutionalized civilians with at least one disability vs. those with none)
0.15 Low segregation /
Not segregated
Veterans (veteran adult civilians vs. adult civilian non- veterans)
0.21 Low segregation /
Not segregated
Family status, presence of children (families with children vs. families without children plus nonfamily households)
0.18 Low segregation /
Not segregated
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-39 ver. May 2023
Family status, married couples (married couple households vs. all other households)
0.23 Low segregation /
Not segregated
Table 6: Segregation/integration by protected class or characteristic, City of San José (2019 5-year ACS)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-40 ver. May 2023
B. Analysis of Disparities in Housing and Opportunity
1. Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and of Affluence a. Overview
With Census Tracts as a base geographic unit, City of San José staff used the following criteria (please see Appendix E for further discussion and analysis of staff’s methodology) to identify Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs):
• HUD-identified R/ECAPs,37
• San José updated list of R/ECAP tracts, using HUD’s criteria but with 2019 5-year ACS, per the following:
o Population less than 50% non-Hispanic White,
o Poverty rate greater than 22.5%38;
• San José additional extremely low-income tracts, using 2019 5-year ACS, per the following:
o Population less than 50% non-Hispanic White,
o 40% of the tract households had an annual income less than $35,000 (the 2019 California Poverty line for a family of four, as determined by the Public Policy Institute of California39).
Based upon the combined criteria above, there are 16 total R/ECAP tracts in San José, with a total population of 78,493 (or approximately 8% of the City’s total population). Per Map 11, below, these tracts are generally in the center of the City, around Downtown, and slightly to the east and the south of Downtown.
37 Per https://egis.hud.gov/affht/. This data tool uses 2011-2015 5-year ACS data. In a rapidly changing, hot market city like San José, data that is a few years old is already stale. 38 HUD defined poverty rate for R/ECAPs is the lower of 3x the MSA poverty rate OR a 40% poverty rate. Per the 2019 5-year ACS, the Santa Clara County poverty rate is 7.5%. Three times this rate is 22.5%. 39 https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/ -- Because of the higher cost of living in California than for the nation as a whole, the Public Policy Institute of California calculates an alternative poverty threshold to the federal Poverty Line, more aligned to California’s generally higher costs.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-41 ver. May 2023
Map 12: Combined R/ECAP map
San José staff used the following criteria (please see Appendix E for further discussion and analysis of staff’s methodology) to identify Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence:
• Census tracts where the population is greater than 67.3% non-Hispanic White plus high proportion tech visa Asian Americans (i.e., Asian Indians and Chinese Americans) -OR- where the non-Hispanic White population is greater than 49.1% of the total tract population;40 • Census tracts where the median income is above $112,852.50.
With these criteria and using the 2019 5-year ACS, there are 46 total RCAA tracts in San José, with a total population of 260,394 (or approximately 25% of the City’s total population). Per Map 12, below, these tracts are generally in identifiable clusters: in the Evergreen Hills, in west San José between Cupertino and Saratoga, in the Willow Glen neighborhood, in North San José, and in the Almaden Hills.
40 This prong of the test incorporates both a locally-specific criterion (i.e., adding Asian Indian and Chinese Americans as racially advantaged groups) and HCD’s recommended criteria for RCAAs.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-42 ver. May 2023
Map 13: CSJ defined RCAA Map
Overlaying the R/ECAP and RCAA maps with the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map shows that • All R/ECAPs are in census tracts that are classified as “Low Resource” or “High Segregation and Poverty;”
• Almost all RCAAs are in census tracts that are classified as “High Resource” or “Highest Resource.”
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-43 ver. May 2023
Map 14: TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map overlay
b. R/ECAP and RCAA demographic and housing analysis
Per the series of tables below, across a wide variety of demographic, housing, and economic metrics, R/ECAP and RCAA areas are very different. As per the definitions of each area, the metrics for RCAAs are consistent with concentrated affluence and the metrics for R/ECAPs are consistent with concentrated poverty.
The combined population of the RCAAs is over 72% non-Hispanic Whites and Asian Indian and Chinese Americans. The combined population of the R/ECAPs is approximately 65% Southeast Asian and Latino/a/x residents.
Category Non-
Hispanic
White
Black/
African
American
Native
American/
Indigenous
Asian
Indian and
Chinese
Southeast
Asian
Americans
All other
AAPIs
Latino/a/x
HUD-only
R/ECAPs
13.6% 3.0% 0.5% 6.7% 19.6% 9.2% 46.2%
CSJ
R/ECAPs
13.9% 2.9% 0.8% 7.3% 17.9% 9.3% 46.5%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-44 ver. May 2023
HCD
RCAAs
58.1% 2.2% 0.4% 10.9% 2.7% 5.9% 15.6%
CSJ RCAAs 46.6% 1.8% 0.3% 25.7% 2.6% 7.7% 11.5%
San José
TOTAL
25.7% 3.0% 0.6% 15.3% 11.1% 9.5% 31.6%
Table 7: Race/Ethnicity by R/ECAPs and RCAAs (2019 5-year ACS) The contrast between R/ECAPs and RCAAs is even more stark when overlaid with TCAC/HCD opportunity mapping:
Category High Medium Low
HUD-only R/ECAPs 0% 0% 100%
CSJ R/ECAPs 0% 0% 100%
HCD RCAAs 91% 9% 0%
CSJ RCAAs 91% 9% 0%
San José TOTAL 33% 35% 32%
Table 8: Population in TCAC/HCD Opportunity Zones by R/ECAPs and RCAAs (2019 5-year ACS) Similarly, R/ECAPs and RCAAs are distinct from each other in terms of displacement typologies per the Urban Displacement Project (UDP):41
Category Exclusionary /
Becoming Exclusive
Moderate Displacement /
Susceptible to
Displacement
HUD-only R/ECAPs 0% 0% 100%
CSJ R/ECAPs 0% 0% 100%
HCD RCAAs 61% 35% 4%
CSJ RCAAs 77% 22% 2%
San José TOTAL 42% 39% 20%
Table 9: Population in UDP Simplified Typologies by R/ECAPs and RCAAs (2019 5-year ACS) R/ECAP areas have larger households but a lower percentage of children and seniors than the City as a whole – this is likely because of the presence of larger, more multi-generational households, with more adult wage-earners needed in household formation in order to be able to afford housing costs. RCAA areas have smaller households but a higher percentage of children and seniors than the City as a whole.
Category Population
per
Households
# of Children
(ages 0-17)
% Children # Seniors
(ages 65&up)
% Seniors
41 https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement/; see Appendix E for more analysis of displacement in San José.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-45 ver. May 2023
HUD-only
R/ECAPs
3.80 8,793 20.4% 4,314 10.0%
CSJ R/ECAPs 3.32 16,303 20.8% 8,891 11.3%
HCD RCAAs 2.84 29,130 23.5% 8,356 16.0%
CSJ RCAAs 2.84 60,420 23.2% 19,859 14.4%
San José
TOTAL
3.16 230,226 22.4% 128,611 12.5%
Table 10: Population per households; % of children and seniors by R/ECAPs and RCAAs (2019 5-year ACS) R/ECAP areas have lower rates of English proficiency than the City as a whole and the primary languages spoken by LEP residents of R/ECAP areas are Spanish, Vietnamese, and Chinese (includes multiple dialects). RCAA areas have higher rates of English proficiency than the City as a whole (approximately 90% English proficiency in the RCAAs vs. 75% for the City as a whole) and the predominant language spoken by LEP residents of R/ECAP areas is Chinese (includes multiple dialects). In RCAAs the majority of persons aged 5 and older speak only English (this is compared to approximately 40% of the City and 30% of R/ECAP areas).
Category % of Persons
(aged 5&up) who
speak English
“less than very
well”
Primary
languages spoken
at home for
Limited English
Proficiency
population
% of Persons
(aged 5&up) who
speak English
well AND speak
another language
at home
% of Persons
(aged 5&up) who
speak only
English
HUD-only
R/ECAPs
35.5% Spanish (6,595)
Vietnamese
(5,502)
Chinese (792)
36.1% 28.4%
CSJ R/ECAPs 36.0% Spanish (12,231)
Vietnamese
(9,336)
Chinese (2,228)
33.8% 30.3%
HCD RCAAs 9.2% Chinese (2,550)
Spanish (2,483)
Vietnamese
(1,360)
21.9% 70.0%
CSJ RCAAs 11.5% Chinese (11,397)
Spanish (3,864)
Other AAPI
(3,073)
30.5% 58.5%
San José TOTAL 24.3% Spanish (86,287)
Vietnamese
(61,668)
Chinese (36,983)
32.7% 42.8%
Table 11: Limited English Proficiency by R/ECAP and RCAA areas (2019 5-year ACS) DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-46 ver. May 2023
R/ECAPs have higher unemployment and a lower median household income than the City. RCAAs have lower unemployment and a substantially higher median income than the City.
Category # of Persons
Unemployed
Unemployment Rate Median Household
Income42
HUD-only R/ECAPs 1,529 6.9% $70,639
CSJ R/ECAPs 2,862 7.0% $56,722
HCD RCAAs 2,516 3.9% $154,562
CSJ RCAAs 4,832 3.5% $166,580
San José TOTAL 26,543 4.7% $109,593
Table 12: Income and Unemployment by R/ECAP and RCAA areas (2019 5-year ACS) Breaking down income by race, interestingly, AAPIs have the highest median household income of all major racial/ethnic groups in RCAAs and the lowest median household income of all major racial/ethnic groups in R/ECAPs. This reinforces that the AAPIs that tend to live in R/ECAP areas and the AAPIs that tend to live in RCAAs are categorically different populations, with the AAPI population in R/ECAPs primarily consisting of Southeast Asian American residents and the AAPI population in RCAAs primarily consisting of Asian Indian and Chinese American residents.
Category Non-Hispanic
White
Black/African
American
Native
American
AAPI Latino/a/x
HUD-only
R/ECAPs
$101,015 $88,718 NA $46,154 $57,499
CSJ R/ECAPs $68,159 $56,594 NA $40,029 $54,774
HCD RCAAs $152,706 $134,662 NA $171,595 $126,433
CSJ RCAAs $155,549 $147,495 NA $193,468 $117,090
San José
TOTAL
$123,708 $70,123 $67,237 $133,583 $72,203
Table 13 Income by Race by R/ECAP and RCAA areas (2019 5-year ACS) For housing costs, while R/ECAPs are some of the lowest cost neighborhoods in the city, a high proportion of R/ECAP residents are cost burdened. Conversely, RCAAs are among the most expensive neighborhoods in the city but have high rates of homeownership and low rates of renters who are cost burdened.
Category Median43 Home
Value
Homeownership
Rate
Median Gross
Rent
% Rent Burdened
(renters who pay
over 30% of their
42 Median household income for R/ECAPs and RCAAs are estimated using a weighted average of median ho usehold income for the census tracts comprising the area.
43 Median home values and median gross rent for R/ECAP and RCAA areas are estimated using a weighted average of median values for the census tracts comprising the area.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-47 ver. May 2023
monthly income
in rent)
HUD-only
R/ECAPs
$516,670 34.0% $1,581 59.8%
CSJ R/ECAPs $495,765 27.3% $1,454 63.5%
HCD RCAAs $1,135,911 76.5% $2,372 44.0%
CSJ RCAAs $1,274,613 69.6% $2,590 37.4%
San José TOTAL $864,600 56.8% $2,107 51.5%
Table 14 Tenure Data by R/ECAP and RCAA areas (2019 5-year ACS) Per the map below, R/ECAPs are clustered in areas of the city that have lower homeownership rates and RCAAs are clustered in areas of the city that have higher homeownership rates.
Map 15: Homeownership rates, with R/ECAP and RCAA overlays DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-48 ver. May 2023
c. Regional and sub-regional R/ECAP and RCAA population distribution As described in the Segregation analysis above, San José is one of the anchors of diversity in the greater Bay Area and, in the South Bay, is a more inclusive city surrounded by cities that are much more exclusive.
San José’s population is approximately 13% of the Greater Bay Area region’s total population. Per Table 15, below, San José houses 11% of the region’s population who live in R/ECAP areas and 10% of the region’s population who live in RCAAs – meaning that both San José’s R/ECAP and RCAA populations are slightly under the larger regional concentrations. In comparison, Santa Clara County as a whole represents 25% of the Greater Bay Area’s population but only 14% of the population in R/ECAP areas (i.e., people living in R/ECAP areas are disproportionately underrepresented in Santa Clara County) and
28.1% of the region’s population in RCAA areas (i.e., disproportionately overrepresented).
Geography # of Persons
Living in R/ECAPs
/ % of Persons
who live in Bay
Area R/ECAPs
# R/ECAPs /
% of # of Bay
Area R/ECAPs
# of Persons
Living in RCAAs /
% of Persons who
live in Bay Area
RCAAs
RCAAs /
% of # of Bay
Area RCAAs
City of San José 40,120 / 11.0% 7 / 8.8% 212,256 / 9.8% 36 / 8.0% Santa Clara
County
49,698 / 13.6% 8 / 10.0% 607,406 / 28.1% 119 / 26.4%
Non-San José
Santa Clara
County
9,578 / 2.6% 1 / 1.3% 395,150 / 18.3% 83 / 18.4%
Alameda County 167,077 / 45.6% 38 / 47.5% 380,539 / 17.6% 84 / 18.6% Contra Costa
County
59,785 / 16.3% 10 / 12.5% 344,158 / 15.9% 65 / 14.4%
Marin County 8,175 / 2.2% 1 / 1.3% 133,737 / 6.2% 28 / 6.2% Napa County 0 / 0.0% 0 / 0.0% 16,710 / 0.8% 7 / 1.6%
San Francisco
County
66,016 / 18.0% 18 / 22.5% 346,632 / 16.1% 74 / 16.4%
San Mateo County 0 / 0.0% 0 / 0.0% 285,327 / 13.2% 65 / 14.4% Solano County 15,454 / 4.2% 5 / 6.3% 10,398 / 0.5% 3 / 0.7% Sonoma County 0 / 0.0% 0 / 0.0% 33,332 / 1.5% 6 / 1.3%
9-County Bay
Area
331,961 77 2,158,239 451
Table 15: R/ECAP and RCAA areas in the 9-County Bay Area region, using San José definitions of R/ECAP and RCAA areas44
44 Please note, in the tables above, in order to have a more uniform and consistent demographic standard to apply a single, standardized analysis across the region, both R/ECAPs and RCAAs were determined using City of San José definitions instead of each individual, specific geographic standard. Thus, the R/ECAP and RCAA numbers listed here will not directly correspond to those reported in other jurisdictions’ AFH analyses.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-49 ver. May 2023
The comparison concentrations of wealth and poverty in San José versus the surrounding County is more stark when comparing San José to Santa Clara County not including San José. Per Table 16, below, approximately 4% of the City of San José’s population lives in R/ECAP areas and 21% live in RCAAs. For the County not including San José, 1% live in R/ECAP areas and 44% live in RCAAs. The County remainder population distribution is more like exclusive counties such as Marin or San Mateo than it is like the Bay Area as a whole. San José, in comparison to other urbanized areas such as Alameda County or San Francisco, has proportionately fewer people living in R/ECAPs (and also in RCAAs). In comparison to more suburban counties in the core of the region (including the remainder of Santa Clara County, as described above), San José has lower concentrations of persons living in RCAAs.
Geography % of Persons in
Area who live in
R/ECAPs
% of Persons in
Area who live in
RCAAs
Notes
City of San José 3.9% 20.7%
Santa Clara County 2.6% 31.5%
Santa Clara County not
including San José
1.1% 43.9%
Alameda County 10.1% 23.0% Alameda County has the highest proportion of its population living
in R/ECAPs
Contra Costa County 5.2% 30.1% Contra Costa County most closely approximates the Bay Area wide
proportions of persons who live in
R/ECAPs and RCAAs
Marin County 3.1% 51.4% Marin County has the highest
proportion of its population living
in RCAAs
Napa County 0.0% 12.0%
San Francisco County 7.5% 39.6% San Francisco County has the second highest proportion of
people who live in R/ECAPs and the
second highest proportion of who
live in RCAAs. It is the only county
in the Bay Area that has
significantly higher proportions of
both, relative to the 9-county Bay
Area.
San Mateo County 0.0% 37.2%
Solano County 3.5% 2.4%
Sonoma County 0.0% 6.7%
9-County Bay Area 5.0% 28.0%
Table 16: Proportion of population living in R/ECAPs and RCAAs, by Bay Area counties DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-50 ver. May 2023
2. Disparities in access to opportunity
a. Overview
Across multiple metrics, the patterns of segregation established during San José’s post-war growth have impacted and continue to impact quality of life for generations of San Joséans. Generally, parts of the City that have higher concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites and Asian Indian and Chinese Americans – i.e., the southern and western parts of the City – have metrics related to education, health, the environment, and other social and economic factors that correlate with higher resources and increased access to opportunity. Conversely, parts of the City that have higher concentrations of Black, Native American, Latino/a/x, and Southeast Asian American communities – i.e., the central and eastern parts of the City – have metrics that correlate with lower resources and diminished access to opportunity. b. Education
As compared to other large cities in California, school segregation in the City of San José is uniquely structured and entrenched.
There are 16 school districts that serve children living in the City of San José. Twelve of these school districts are headquartered in San José and four of these schools are headquartered in cities other than San José but have catchment areas that include parts of the City of San José with at least one school located in the City of San José. Combined there are almost 170,000 students attending these school districts, or a little more than 10,000 students per district. San José serving school districts are shown on Map 21, below:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-51 ver. May 2023
Map 16: School districts in San José
In other large California cities, as shown in the table below, there are not nearly as many school districts per jurisdiction, meaning that school districts in these major California cities are over three times larger on average than school districts in San José. Three of these largest California cities – Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Oakland – only have one school district (i.e., the Los Angeles Unified School District, the San Francisco Unified School District, and Oakland Unified School District, respectively) which serves the entire city. And, in contrast to San José, in the other larger California cities where there are multiple districts serving the residents of the city, there is one larger school district which serves a supermajority of city public school students. In San Diego, the San Diego Unified School District serves 69% of the city’s students; in Fresno, the Fresno Unified School District serves 79%; in Long Beach, the Long Beach Unified School District serves 84%; and, in Sacramento, the Sacramento Unified School District serves 73%. By comparison, the largest school district in San José – the San José Unified School District – serves less than one-fifth of students in the city.
City Total
Population of
City
# of Public
School Districts
Serving City
Residents
# of Students
Enrolled in
Public Schools
# of Students
per School
District
Notes
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-52 ver. May 2023
Los Angeles 3,996,936 1 483,234 483,234
San Jose 1,027,690 16 168,974 10,561 17% of students in largest school
district (San Jose
Unified)
San Diego 1,409,573 4 147,463 36,866 69% of students in San Diego
Unified School
District
San Francisco 874,961 1 52,811 52,811
Fresno 525,010 3 89,792 29,331 79% of students
in Fresno Unified
School District
Long Beach 466,776 2 86,997 43,496 84% of students in Long Beach
Unified School
District
Sacramento 500,930 3 42,232 19,356 73% of students in Sacramento
Unified School
District
Oakland 425,097 1 36,154 36,154
Table 17: School districts in major California cities (population 400,000+) San José has an atypical number of school districts in large part due to its history of growth through annexation and suburbanization, following World War II. As described earlier in this document in the “History of Segregation in San José” section, this rapid growth occurred within the time’s suburban growth patterns and technocratic segregationist policy framework (restrictive covenants, redlining, FHA underwriting standards, etc.). Likewise, the proliferation of school districts followed a similar template. Many of the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County that San José annexed were served by pre-existing school districts. Most of these school districts, instead of merging with San José Unified School District, opted to remain as autonomous entities. In this way, San José became a patchwork of school districts that were fed by newly developed suburban subdivisions.
School districts themselves became (and continue to be) a real estate agent’s marketing tool in that there was hyper-local control of schools and schools were suburban in character (no mixing with urban school districts required). It allowed San José to achieve big city population numbers and urban style economic growth but with suburban housing (i.e., a preponderance of single-family homes) and suburban school districts (smaller, more homogenous districts).
The result is that there is a high degree of segregation between school districts that serve San José, with smaller school districts that serve narrower populations and smaller geographies than in any other large city in California. In the table below, the school districts that have scored the lowest on state proficiency exams also have the highest proportion of low-income students (as indicated by the proportion of students who are eligible for free or reduced lunch) and the lowest proportion of non-Hispanic White students. These school districts serve the neighborhoods with the highest racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty. Conversely, the schools serving racially concentrated areas of DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-53 ver. May 2023
affluence have high test scores, low proportions of low-income students, and high concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites and/or AAPIs of specific ethnicities (especially Asian Indian and Chinese American).
District Students Schools in
San José /
Total
Schools
Overall
Proficiency
Score
(CA avg. is
45%)
Race Free or
Reduced
Lunch
Eligible
(CA avg. is
59%)
Alum Rock Union Elementary
School District
9,118 25/25 34%
NH White: 2%
Black: 1%
Latino/a/x: 80%
AAPI: 17%
AIAN: 1%
81%
Berryessa Union Elementary
School District
6,842 14/14 62% NH White: 5%
Black: 1%
Latino/a/x: 25%
AAPI: 68%
AIAN: 1%
30%
Cambrian School District 3,366 6/6 65% NH White: 45% Black: 3%
Latino/a/x: 26%
AAPI: 26%
AIAN: 1%
15%
Campbell Union High School
District
8,465 4/6 57% NH White: 39%
Black: 3%
Latino/a/x: 36%
AAPI: 22%
AIAN: 1%
26%
East Side Union High School
District
22,576 16/16 52% NH White: 6%
Black: 2%
Latino/a/x: 46%
AAPI: 46%
AIAN: 1%
43%
Evergreen Elementary School
District
10,426 18/18 64% NH White: 6%
Black: 1%
Latino/a/x: 26%
AAPI: 67%
AIAN: 1%
29%
Franklin McKinley Elementary
School District
6,872 16/16 41% NH White: 2%
Black: 2%
Latino/a/x: 61%
AAPI: 34%
AIAN: 0%
73%
Moreland School District 4,683 7/7 67% NH White: 25% Black: 4%
Latino/a/x: 33%
AAPI: 37%
AIAN: 1%
27%
Mount Pleasant Elementary
School District
2,110 5/5 32% NH White: 3%
Black: 2%
Latino/a/x: 78%
AAPI: 15%
AIAN: 1%
70%
Oak Grove Elementary School
District
9,757 18/18 51% NH White: 17%
Black: 3%
Latino/a/x: 52%
AAPI: 26%
AIAN: 1%
38%
San José Unified School District 28,830 42/42 49% NH White: 26% 41% DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-54 ver. May 2023
Black: 3%
Latino/a/x: 54%
AAPI: 17%
AIAN: 1%
Union Elementary Schools 5,860 7/8 77% NH White: 45% Black: 1%
Latino/a/x: 17%
AAPI: 36%
AIAN: 0%
9%
Campbell Union School District
(District not headquartered in San José)
6,974 2/9 55% NH White: 25%
Black: 4%
Latino/a/x: 51%
AAPI: 19%
AIAN: 1%
41%
Cupertino Union School District
(District not headquartered in San José)
16,718 4/25 86% NH White: 15%
Black: 1%
Latino/a/x: 6%
AAPI: 79%
AIAN: 0%
4%
Fremont Union High School
District
(District not headquartered in San José)
11,071 1/6 80% NH White: 17%
Black: 1%
Latino/a/x: 16%
AAPI: 66%
AIAN: 0%
12%
Santa Clara Unified School
District
(District not headquartered in San José)
15,306 1/27 57% NH White: 21%
Black: 3%
Latino/a/x: 36%
AAPI: 39%
AIAN: 1%
35%
Data from https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/san-José/schools Table 18: San José school district data
These school districts overlay with R/ECAP and RCAA areas per the following:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-55 ver. May 2023
Map 17: R/ECAPs, RCAAs and school districts
R/ECAP neighborhoods are primarily in three elementary school districts – Franklin McKinley, Alum Rock, and San José Unified School Districts – and 2 high school districts – Eastside Union High School District and San José Unified School District. RCAA neighborhoods are in primarily five elementary school districts – Cupertino Union, Evergreen, Union Elementary, Moreland, and San José Unified School District – and 4 high school districts Fremont Union High School District, Eastside Union High School District, Campbell Union High School District, and San José Unified School District.
Because each of these school districts are their own jurisdictional entity – each with their own school boards, their own rules, regulations, and policies – addressing educational equity in a comprehensive, citywide, coordinated way is more difficult in San José than in other large California city.
Even at the level of a single student’s access to school choice, a multiplicity of small school districts limits the options of available schools. Within a smaller, more homogeneous district there are fewer different types of schools. And, while most school districts allow some form of intra-district transfers, inter- district transfers are difficult and exceedingly rare. And without inter-district transfers, it is near impossible that a student who lives in a R/ECAP neighborhood could attend a public school in a RCAA neighborhood – only San José Unified School District and the Eastside Union High School District contain both R/ECAP and RCAA neighborhoods.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-56 ver. May 2023
c. Employment and transportation
Lower-income neighborhoods generally have higher rates of unemployment and slightly lower labor force participation rates than the City as a whole. While higher-income neighborhoods generally also have lower labor force participation rates than the City as a whole (largely due to the higher concentration of retirees in these areas), unemployment rates are lower than for the City as a whole.
Geographic Area Civilian Population
in Labor Force, Aged
16 and Up
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment Rate
9-County Bay Area 4,214,212 66.9% 4.5%
Santa Clara County 1,043,729 67.5% 4.4%
San José 562,588 68.4% 4.7%
TCAC/HCD: High
Resource 300,694 66.2% 3.8%
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource 311,720 70.4% 4.5%
TCAC/HCD: Low Resource 291,988 67.6% 5.7%
UDP: Exclusive 345,002 66.9% 4.3%
UDP: Moderate 199,328 71.3% 4.6%
UDP: Displacement 76,037 65.1% 6.2%
HUD R/ECAPs 22,079 62.7% 6.9%
All R/ECAPs 40,680 63.6% 7.0%
HCD RCAAs 64,874 66.2% 3.9%
CSJ RCAAs 137,709 66.6% 3.5%
Table 19 - Unemployment and labor force participation by geographic areas (2019 5-yr ACS) Table 17, below, summarizes unemployment and labor force participation in the City by race. Please note that the AAPI data is not disaggregated.
Race/Ethnicity Civilian Population
in Labor Force, Aged
16 and Up
Labor Force
Participation Rate
Unemployment Rate
TOTAL San José Population 562,588 68.4% 4.7%
Non-Hispanic White 151,370 65.7% 4.3%
Black/African American 17,676 69.9% 5.7%
Native American 2,980 64.2% 3.5%
AAPI 209,837 67.7% 4.6%
Latino/a/x 168,568 71.3% 5.1%
Table 20 - Unemployment and labor force participation by race/ethnicity (2019 5-yr ACS) DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-57 ver. May 2023
Because lower-income neighborhoods in San José are generally clustered around and within the center of the City, commute times are slightly lower and transit usage and other alternative modes of commuting are higher than in the City as a whole. Higher-income neighborhoods in the City are generally at the periphery of the City and in the hills and have higher rates of solo driving and longer commute times.
Geographic Area Commuting
Mode: Drive
Alone
Commuting
Mode:
Carpool
Commuting
Mode:
Transit
Commuting
Mode:
Walking +
Other
Commute
Time
(minutes)
9-County Bay Area 64.3% 10.1% 12.2% 7.2% 32.2
Santa Clara County 74.7% 10.6% 4.4% 5.2% 29.3
San José 75.8% 11.7% 4.5% 3.9% 30.9
TCAC/HCD: High
Resource
79.4% 9.0% 3.2% 3.1% 31.7
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource
76.3% 11.2% 4.0% 4.6% 31.3
TCAC/HCD: Low
Resource
72.5% 14.5% 5.4% 4.4% 29.7
UDP: Exclusive 78.2% 10.9% 3.3% 2.5% 32.2
UDP: Moderate 76.4% 11.5% 4.0% 4.0% 30.8
UDP: Displacement 72.3% 13.4% 5.9% 5.4% 29.7
HUD R/ECAPs 64.0% 14.0% 7.5% 11.6% 27.8
All R/ECAPs 66.5% 13.3% 7.2% 10.6% 28.0
HCD RCAAs 79.9% 7.2% 3.2% 3.0% 30.6
CSJ RCAAs 79.0% 7.7% 3.6% 3.5% 31.2
Table 21: Commuting Mode and Commute Time by Geographic Area (2019 5-year ACS) Per Map 18, below, increased rates of transit use generally correlate with the location of affordable housing along transit lines and the central location of many R/ECAP neighborhoods.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-58 ver. May 2023
Map 18: Access to transit from existing affordable housing
d. Health and healthy environment
Health and environmental outcomes are closely intertwined. Comparing Map 18– the Healthy Places Index45 -- and Map 19 – the CalEnviroScreen, the census tracts with the lowest scores on health indicators roughly overlap with the places with the highest concentration of environmental risk and hazards. And, as can be seen in Tables 19 and 20, below, these areas also correlate with areas of higher displacement risk and higher segregation by race/ethnicity and income.
45 https://www.healthyplacesindex.org/
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-59 ver. May 2023
Map 19: Healthy Places Index
Geographic Area Tract Average HPI
(2021) Score
Tract Average HPI
(2021) Approximate
Percentile
Percentile Range /
Map Color
9-County Bay Area 0.42 72 50-75
Santa Clara County 0.47 78 75-100
San José 0.27 66 50-75
TCAC/HCD: High Resource 0.67 88 75-100
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource 0.34 70 50-75
TCAC/HCD: Low Resource (0.15) 40 25-50
UDP: Exclusive 0.47 78 75-100
UDP: Moderate 0.33 70 50-75
UDP: Displacement (0.26) 34 25-50
HUD R/ECAPs (0.39) 26 25-50
All R/ECAPs (0.38) 27 25-50
HCD RCAAs 0.77 92 75-100
CSJ RCAAs 0.81 93 75-100
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-60 ver. May 2023
Map 20: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
Geographic Area Tract Average CES
4.0 Score
Approximate Tract
Average CES 4.0
Percentile
Percentile Range /
Map Color
9-County Bay Area 19.21 36 30-35%
Santa Clara County 17.29 31 30-35%
San José 19.07 34 30-35%
TCAC/HCD: High Resource 9.79 13 10-15%
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource 17.29 31
30-35%
TCAC/HCD: Low Resource 29.60 56 55-60%
UDP: Exclusive 13.24 21 25-30%
UDP: Moderate 22.66 42 40-45%
UDP: Displacement 34.48 66 65-70%
HUD R/ECAPs 35.46 68 65-70%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-61 ver. May 2023
All R/ECAPs 36.43 69 65-70%
HCD RCAAs 9.93 13.59 10-15%
CSJ RCAAs 9.08 11.70 10-15%
Table 22: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 by Geographic Area (2019 5-year ACS) There are multiple contributing factors to inequitable health and environmental outcomes. As one of many possible examples, inequitable distribution and maintenance of tree canopy has negative health and environmental impacts. Street trees provide environmental benefits such as cleaner air (trees absorb airborne pollutants) and cooler temperatures (shade) which translate to health benefits such as reduced asthma and fewer extreme heat days. In San José, as can be seen in Map 20, below, there is an east/west divide in tree canopy cover, with generally less canopy cover in the east and more canopy cover in the west.
Map 21: Tree canopy in San José
Similarly, the distribution of parks and open space follows a similar spatial distribution (see Map 21 below), with areas of very high park need (i.e., dark red) in the east and central/central-east parts of the City.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-62 ver. May 2023
Map 22: Parks and Open Space need based upon the Trust for Public Land's Parkscore46
e. Recent Patterns of Investment and Disinvestment
In their “Capital Flows” project47, the Urban Institute has analyzed public and private capital investment data48 for the 250 largest American cites in terms of scale of investment across geographies and the distribution patterns on the basis of race and income on a neighborhood level. Per the Urban Institute’s
46 As reported in City of San José Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood Services’ 2020-2040 strategic plan 47 https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/metropolitan-housing-and-communities-policy-center/projects/capital- flows
48 Private capital investment data from financial institution disclosures through HMDA and CRA disclosures, as well as SBA program reporting and private lending databases such as CoreLogic; public investment was tracked through a variety of Federal Sources including HOME, CDBG, LIHTC, NMTC, among others.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-63 ver. May 2023
analysis and as summarized in Figure 18, below, San José has had high levels of investment (95th percentile, on a per household basis) with uneven neighborhood level (the Urban Institute study uses census tract data to define neighborhoods) distribution on the basis of race and income -- especially income, where San José is in the bottom quintile. Urban Institute’s racial analysis compares geographic distribution of investment in terms of percentage non-Hispanic White and people of color. This method is likely not fine-grained enough to capture unequal racialized patterns of investment in San José. As discussed above, San José has multiple census tracts that are affluent and display consistent, similar patterns of racial concentration (i.e., are predominantly non-Hispanic White, Asian Indian, and Chinese) but are majority non-white. Investment in these tracts would register as investment in tracts that are majority people of color and would skew Urban Institute’s racial equity metric. However, these tracts still represent areas that have historically and currently not been inclusive of Latino/a/x people, African Americans, Native Americans, and some multiple AAPI groups.
Figure 18: Dashboard showing patterns of public and private investment in the City of San José relative to the 250 largest U.S.
Cities, 2005 to 2019
f. Limited English Proficiency
According to the 2019 5-year ACS, for all San José residents aged 5 and older, only 42.8% of the population speaks only English at home – this is compared to the U.S. as a whole, where 78.5% of the population speaks only English at home. I.e., in San José, over half of the population speaks a language other than English at home. Of this population, a little less than half are limited English proficient (LEP).
That is, roughly one-quarter (234,476 persons, or 24.3% of the population 5 and older) of the total population of persons aged 5 and older in San José is LEP. This is compared to the U.S. as a whole where
8.2% of the population aged 5 and older is LEP.
In San José, the largest populations of LEP speakers by language are:
1. Spanish: 86,287 LEP persons aged 5 and older
2. Vietnamese: 61,668
3. Chinese (includes multiple dialects): 36,983
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-64 ver. May 2023
4. Tagalog: 13,231
Spanish speaking LEP individuals are relatively concentrated in central San José and its surrounding areas, especially to the east and to the south of downtown. Vietnamese- and Tagalog-speaking LEP individuals are relatively concentrated in east San José, with concentrations of Vietnamese-speaking LEP individuals both in North Valley and Evergreen and concentrations of Tagalog-speaking LEP individuals in North Valley and Berryessa. Chinese-speaking LEP individuals are concentrated in north and west San José.
Additional language populations with over 1,000 LEP persons aged 5 and older include (listed in order of largest number of speakers to smallest):
• Korean,
• Persian,
• Russian,
• Amharic, Somali, or other Afro-Asiatic languages,
• Ilocano, Samoan, Hawaiian, or other Austronesian languages, • Punjabi,
• Hindi,
• Japanese,
• Thai, Lao, or other Tai-Kadai languages,
• Khmer, and
• Portuguese.
For more analysis of the overlay between LEP populations and R/ECAP and RCAA neighborhoods, please see Section B.1., above.
3. Disproportionate “Housing Problems”
a. Overview and Regional Analysis of Housing Problems
Through its Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) dataset, HUD tracks the severity of four “housing problems”: (1) cost burden, (2) overcrowding, (3) household lacks complete plumbing facilities, (4) household lacks complete kitchen facilities. Compared to Santa Clara County and the greater Bay Area region, problems relating to cost and overcrowding are manifest at greater frequency and severity in San José. Problems related to the quality of housing for which the U.S. Census Bureau collects data (e.g., whether a household lacks plumbing or a kitchen) are less common in San José.
Housing Need (All Households) San José Santa Clara
County
9-County Bay
Area
Housing cost burden 38.6% 35.9% 36.9%
Severe housing cost burden 17.6% 16.1% 16.8%
Overcrowding 9.6% 8.2% 6.9%
Severe overcrowding 3.5% 2.9% 2.7%
Lacks complete plumbing 0.2% 0.4% 0.6%
Lacks complete kitchen 0.8% 0.9% 1.3%
Table 23: Housing Problems in San Jose, Santa Clara County, and the Bay Area, all households DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-65 ver. May 2023
As shown in greater detail below, these housing problems disparately impact people of color and renters and are disproportionately concentrated in the areas of the City which have more lower resources (per TCAC/HCD opportunity mapping), greater risk of displacement (per the UDP analysis), and more likely to be segregated by race and poverty (i.e., R/ECAP areas). b. Cost Burden and Severe Cost Burden
As summarized above, 38.6% of households in San José are cost burdened (i.e., pay 30% or more of the household’s monthly income for rent or mortgage), with 17.6% of all households are extremely cost burdened (i.e., pay 50% or more of the household’s monthly income for rent or mortgage). Renters are more cost burdened and more severely cost burdened than homeowners:
Tenure Number of Households
for whom cost burden
is calculated
Cost Burdened – i.e.,
30%+ income for
housing costs – by
number / %
Severely Cost
Burdened – i.e., 50%+
income for housing
costs – by number / %
Homeowner 183,636 53,274 / 29.0% 6,393 / 12.0%
Renter 135,509 69,760 / 51.5% 17,510 / 25.1%
TOTAL 319,145 123,190 / 38.6% 21,681 / 17.6%
Table 24: Housing Cost Burden by Tenure (2019 5-yr ACS) Likewise, most communities of color are more cost burdened and/or more severely cost burdened than the general population. Non-Hispanic Whites and Asian Indian and Chinese Americans are less housing cost burdened than the general population.
Race Number of Households
for whom cost burden
is calculated
Cost Burdened
– i.e., 30%+ income for
housing costs – by
number / %
Severely Cost
Burdened
– i.e., 50%+ income for
housing costs – by
number / %
Non-Hispanic White 114,705 36,820 / 32.1% 5,228 / 14.2% Black/African American 10,405 5,348 / 51.4% 1,439 / 26.9% Native American 655 230 / 35.1% 49 / 21.4%
AAPI 105,884 36,212/ 34.2% 5,323 / 14.7%
Asian Indian and
Chinese 47,186 12,704 / 26.9% NA
Southeast Asian 23,083 11,923 / 51.7% NA
All other AAPIs 35,615 11,585 / 32.5% NA
Latino/a/x 77,120 37,866 / 49.1% 8,936 / 23.6%
TOTAL 319,145 123,190 / 38.6% 21,681 / 17.6%
Table 25: Housing Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity (2019 5-yr ACS, 2019 1-yr ACS for AAPI sub-groups) DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-66 ver. May 2023
Map 23: Rent burdened households
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-67 ver. May 2023
Map 24: Severely rent burdened households
c. Overcrowding
As summarized above, 9.6% of households in San José are overcrowded (i.e., with over 1.01 occupants per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens) and 3.5% of households are severely overcrowded (i.e., with over 1.51 occupants per room, excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Disaggregating this data by tenure shows that renter households are more commonly overcrowded than owner households:
Tenure Number of Households
for which
overcrowding is
determined
Overcrowded
– i.e., 1.01+ persons
per room – by number
/ %
Severely Overcrowded
– i.e., 1.51+ persons
per room – by number
/ %
Homeowner 183,600 8,309 / 4.5% 2,169/ 1.2%
Renter 140,514 22,817 / 16.2% 9,145 / 6.5%
TOTAL 325,114 31,126 / 9.6% 11,314 / 3.5%
Table 26: Overcrowding by Tenure (2019 5-yr ACS)
Likewise, most communities of color are more overcrowded than the general population. Non-Hispanic Whites and Asian Indian and Chinese Americans are less overcrowded than the general population.
Severely overcrowded data is not available disaggregated by race/ethnicity.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-68 ver. May 2023
Race Number of Households
for which
overcrowding is
determined
Overcrowded
– i.e., 1.01+ persons
per room – by number
/ %
Severely Overcrowded
– i.e., 1.51+ persons
per room – by number
/ %
Non-Hispanic White 113,812 2,534 / 2.2% NA
Black/African American 10,906 737 / 6.8% NA
Native American 1,964 241 / 12.3% NA
AAPI 113,869 11,120 / 9.7% NA
Asian Indian and
Chinese 57,197 3,021 / 5.3% NA
Southeast Asian 31,981 3,582 / 11.2% NA
All other AAPIs 24,691 4,517 / 18.3% NA
Latino/a/x 78,210 16,189 / 20.7% NA
TOTAL 325,114 31,126 / 9.6% 11,314 / 3.5%
Table 27: Overcrowding by Race/Ethnicity (2019 5-yr ACS, 2019 1-yr ACS for AAPI sub-groups) Per Map 23, below, roughly correlating with other housing disparities, overcrowding is concentrated in the center and center-east of the City.
Map 25: Overcrowding and severe overcrowding
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-69 ver. May 2023
Correlated with the overall pattern of disparate housing needs, most communities of color tend to have larger household sizes while non-Hispanic Whites and Asian Indian and Chinese Americans tend to have smaller household sizes.
Race Average Household
Size
Average Household
Size Owner-Occupied
Units
Average Household
Size Renter-Occupied
Units
Non-Hispanic White 2.51 2.69 2.17
Black/African American 2.83 NA NA
Native American 2.92 NA NA
AAPI 3.32 3.53 2.98
Asian Indian and
Chinese 2.98 3.22 2.66
Southeast Asian 3.56 3.99 3.00
All other AAPIs 3.69 3.72 3.52
Latino/a/x 4.06 3.89 4.19
TOTAL 3.17 3.22 3.10
Table 28: Average household size by race and tenure (2017 1-year ACS) d. Substandard Housing
As summarized above, 0.2% of households in San José lack complete plumbing facilities and 0.8% of households lack complete kitchen facilities. Disaggregating this data by tenure reveals that substandard housing conditions are more of a problem in renter-occupied housing than in owner occupied housing:
Tenure Number of Households
for which complete
facilities are
determined
Lacks Complete
Plumbing Facilities –
by # / %
Lacks Complete
Kitchen Facilities – by
# / %
Homeowner 184,600 335 / 0.2% 627 / 0.3%
Renter 140,514 509 / 0.4% 2,055 / 1.5%
TOTAL 325,114 844 / 0.2% 2,682 / 0.8%
Table 29: Substandard housing by tenure (2019 5-year ACS) Per maps 24 and 25, below, in addition to the correlation between substandard housing and areas of concentrated poverty and racial/ethnic segregation (i.e., concentrations of substandard housing in central and central-east census tracts), there are census tracts with even higher percentages of substandard housing towards the periphery of the City. These census tracts are in neighborhoods with higher proportions of single-family homes and high rates of homeownership, where small numbers of substandard rental housing (in accessory dwelling units, as an example) will skew the percentages, with a high percentage of substandard units actually corresponding to a small number of substandard units.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-70 ver. May 2023
Map 26: Rental households lacking complete plumbing facilities
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-71 ver. May 2023
Map 27: Rental households lacking complete kitchen facilities
e. Disproportionate Housing Problems by Neighborhood Type Taken together, as shown in Table 27, below, housing problems are disproportionately concentrated in the areas of the City which have more lower resources (per TCAC/HCD opportunity mapping), greater risk of displacement (per UDP analysis), and more likely to be segregated by race and poverty (i.e., R/ECAP areas).
Geographic Area Rent Burdened Overcrowded
(Renters)
Lacks Complete
Plumbing
(Renters)
Lacks Complete
Kitchen
(Renters)
San José 51.5% 16.2% 0.4% 1.5%
TCAC/HCD: High
Resource
44.4%
11.3% 0.3% 1.6%
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource
48.4% 12.1% 0.2% 1.3%
TCAC/HCD: Low
Resource
58.8% 23.7% 0.7% 1.9%
UDP: Exclusive 46.5% 12.1% 0.1% 1.5%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-72 ver. May 2023
UDP: Moderate 49.2% 14.3% 0.5% 1.8%
UDP: Displacement 62.4% 23.0% 0.5% 1.2%
HUD R/ECAPs 59.8% 22.9% 1.6% 2.0%
All R/ECAPs 63.5% 21.9% 1.0% 1.9%
HCD RCAAs 44.0% 8.3% 0.4% 1.1%
CSJ RCAAs 37.4% 9.5% 0.2% 1.6%
Table 30 - Housing problems by geographic area (2019 5-yr ACS)
4. Other housing and neighborhood disparities
a. Displacement
i. Impacts of Displacement
A growing body of research is documenting the negative impacts of displacement, especially on low- income households of color. 50 Findings include the following:
• Displaced families more likely to live in precarious housing positions, more likely to become homeless;
• People displaced out of the market are likely to keep their current jobs in the region, leading to longer commutes, more vehicle miles travelled, more stress and time away from families; • Displacement disrupts people’s lives, takes them away from their social and familial networks, from cultural institutions and places of worship;
• Displaced people are more likely to move to communities with higher rates of poverty, higher crime rates, and fewer social supports;
• Children experiencing displacement are more likely to have increased absences and experience educational delays; and,
• Displacement disproportionately impacts people of color.
ii. Economic/Investment-driven Displacement
In the midst of the Greater Bay Area’s hot housing market, UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project (UDP) has observed a strong correlation between neighborhoods that were redlined and those currently experiencing displacement or are at risk of displacement.51 Of areas in San José that the HOLC categorized as “hazardous” (red) or “definitely declining” (yellow), 87% of these areas are experiencing displacement or are at risk of displacement. This legacy means that people at most risk of displacement are lower-income people of color and that the burden of displacement and dislocation is inequitably distributed. The disproportionate risk of displacement on communities of color in the racial breakdown of residents of neighborhoods of major UDP categories is reflected below:
UDP Category Non-
Hispanic
White
Black/
African
American
Native
American
Asian
Indian and
Chinese
Southeas
t Asian
All
other
AAPIs
Latino/a/x
50 See for e.g., the Bay Area Regional Health Inequities Initiative’s Displacement Brief. See also, for a more South Bay focused piece: https://www.urbandisplacement.org/blog/disruption -in-silicon-valley-the-impacts-of- displacement-on-residents-lives/
51 https://youtu.be/IRiOCEaFr0U; https://www.urbandisplacement.org/about/what-are-gentrification-and- displacement/
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-73 ver. May 2023
America
ns
Exclusive/ At
Risk of
Exclusion52
39.1% 2.1% 0.6% 18.9% 8.3% 8.3% 19.8%
Moderate/
Mixed-
Income53
28.2% 2.7% 0.5% 18.6% 10.6% 11.2% 25.3%
Displacement/
At Risk of
Displacement54
14.0% 3.6% 0.6% 9.4% 11.2% 8.6% 53.1%
Student/NA55 25.7%
3.9% 0.4% 15.6% 9.3% 8.6% 33.0%
San José Total 25.7% 3.0% 0.6% 15.3% 11.1% 10.0% 31.6%
Table 31: Racial/ethnic breakdown of residents of neighborhoods classified by displacement risk (2019 5-year ACS, highlighted values represent percentages higher than the Citywide proportion) Looking at distribution of each racial/ethnic group as to what proportion of each group lives in neighborhoods as classified by displacement risk, consistent with findings above, Non-Hispanic Whites and AAPIs (especially Asian Indian and Chinese Americans) disproportionately live in exclusionary neighborhoods while Latino/a/x and Southeast Asian people disproportionately live in neighborhoods that are experiencing displacement or at risk of displacement.
Racial / Ethnic
Group
Exclusive / At
Risk of Exclusion
Moderate /
Mixed-Income
Displacement /
At Risk of
Displacement
Student / NA
Non-Hispanic White 49.3% 42.1% 8.6% 0.1%
Black / African
American
27.0% 32.3% 15.8% 24.9%
AIAN 32.7% 34.2% 14.6% 18.5%
AAPI 45.3% 39.6% 12.5% 2.6%
Asian Indian &
Chinese
50.5% 39.9% 6.0% 3.6%
SE Asian 39.6% 36.7% 22.9% 0.9%
All Other AAPIs 43.2% 42.0% 11.8% 2.9%
52 “Exclusive/At Risk of Exclusion” is the sum of 3 UDP neighborhood typologies: stable/advanced exclusive, becoming exclusive, and at risk of becoming exclusive
53 “Moderate/Mixed Income” is the same as the UDP neighborhood typology of stable moderate/mixed i ncome 54 “Displacement/At Risk of Displacement” is the sum of 3 UDP neighborhood typologies: advanced gentrification, early/ongoing gentrification, and low-income/susceptible to displacement 55 “Student/NA” is the sum of 2 UDP neighborhood typologies: high student population and unavailable or unreliable data
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-74 ver. May 2023
Latino/a/x 33.6% 36.9% 29.2% 0.3%
TOTAL 42.5% 39.8% 16.8% 0.9%
Table 32: Proportion of population of each racial/ethnic group that lives in neighborhoods by displacement type As shown in Map 26, below, the areas of City that are at higher risk of displacement are in the center and center-east. As described throughout this document, these parts of the City have higher concentrations of vulnerable communities of color. Latino/a/x, Southeast Asian, Black, and Native American residents disproportionately live in neighborhoods with greatest displacement risk. Non- Hispanic White and Asian Indian and Chinese Americans disproportionately live in neighborhoods that are exclusionary or are becoming more exclusionary. The disparate impact of these patterns of risk and exclusion necessitate that displacement be addressed as a fair housing issue.
Map 28: Displacement status by UCB Urban Displacement Project Similarly, displacement risk correlates strongly with lower-resource census tracts – 84% of all tracts in San José that UDP designated as undergoing displacement or at risk of displacement are also designated low-resource census tracts.
UDP Category Total # of Tracts # / % of Tracts in
UDP Category
that are
# / % of Tracts in
UDP Category
that are
TCAC/HCD
# / % of Tracts in
UDP Category
that are
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-75 ver. May 2023
TCAC/HCD High
Opportunity
Medium
Opportunity
TCAC/HCD Low
Opportunity
Exclusive/ At Risk
of Exclusion
90 40 / 45.5% 33 / 37.5% 15 / 17.0%
Moderate/
Mixed-Income
85 30 / 35.3% 29 / 34.1% 26 / 30.6%
Displacement/ At
Risk of
Displacement
37 1 / 2.7% 5 / 13.5% 31 / 83.8%
Student/NA 6 2 / 33.3% 1 / 16.7% 3 / 50.0%
Table 33: UDP displacement risk analysis by TCAC/HCD opportunity map categories R/ECAP and RCAA census tracts have the following UDP typologies:
UDP Category Total # of Tracts # / % of Tracts
that are UDP
Exclusive / At Risk
of Exclusion
# / % of Tracts
that are UPD
Moderate /
Mixed-Income
# / % of Tracts
that are UDP
Displacement / At
Risk of
Displacement
HUD R/ECAPs 9 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 7 / 77.8%
All R/ECAPs 16 0 / 0% 0 / 0% 13 / 81.3%
HCD RCAAs 23 14 / 60.9% 8 / 34.8% 1 / 4.3%
CSJ RCAAs 46 34 / 75.6% 10 / 22.2% 1 / 2.2%
Table 34: UDP displacement risk analysis by R/ECAP and RCAA census tracts For more analysis of displacement in San José, including an analysis of displacement over time and a breakdown of displacement risk by City Council District, please see Appendix F.
iii. Disaster-driven displacement
In addition to risks of displacement driven by the real estate market, geologic and climate forces can create environmental disasters that drive displacement. As made clear in recent (i.e., 2017) flooding in San José (where low-income renters, primarily Vietnamese and Latino/a/x immigrants were disproportionately affected), environmental hazards unequally impact lower income communities that do not have as many options to relocate during emergencies and who tend to be disproportionately located in heightened hazard risk areas, where there have also been unequal investments in risk mitigation. Similarly, people with disabilities are more likely to be left behind and left for dead during natural disasters and disaster responses often overlook the needs of disabled people56.
56 See for e.g., https://disasterstrategies.org/blog-post/the-national-shelter-system-and-physical-accessibility-time- to-look-under-the-hood/
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-76 ver. May 2023
Figure 19: Flooding in San José, 2017 (photo credit: San Jose Mercury News) In the flood risk map below, there are significant areas of higher risk of flooding in the central and center-east parts of the City. These areas overlap with the concentration of R/ECAP neighborhoods as well as areas of higher risk of economic displacement and lower resources per the TCAC/HCD opportunity maps.
Map 29: Flood hazard zones (FEMA)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-77 ver. May 2023
Lower-income renters – especially people of color – bear the brunt of the existing affordable housing shortage and their adaptive capability to cope and recover from the impacts of environmental hazards are reduced due to systemic inequities and limited resources. Therefore, lower-income renters of color are more likely to be displaced post-disaster.
b. Expiring and At-risk Affordable Units
From 2012 to 2022, the City lost 291 units of affordable housing due to expiring affordability restrictions.
Table 35 - Affordable housing with expired affordability restrictions, 2012 to 2022 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-78 ver. May 2023
Map 30: Affordable housing with expired affordability restrictions, 2012 to 2022 Per Table 32, below, the majority of affordable units lost (i.e., approximately 70%) were in TCAC/HCD low resource neighborhoods with approximately 11% of units in high resource neighborhoods. The majority of units lost were in UDP moderate/mixed-income neighborhoods with 106 units (or 36%) lost in neighborhoods experiencing displacement or at risk of displacement.
Census Tract # of Units of
Affordable
Housing w/
Restrictions that
Expired, 2012-
2022
R/ECAP or RCAA? TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Zone
UDP
Displacement
Typology
5008.00 32 Neither Low Moderate
5009.01 16 R/ECAP Low Displacement
5011.01 36 Neither Low Moderate
5014.02 12 Neither Low Displacement
5015.00 50 Neither Low Displacement
5023.01 1 HCD RCAA High Exclusive
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-79 ver. May 2023
5027.07 1 Neither High Moderate
5029.02 1 HCD RCAA High Moderate
5029.08 18 HCD RCAA High Moderate
5042.01 29 Neither Moderate Exclusion
5063.04 4 Neither High Moderate
5063.05 28 Neither Moderate Displacement
5068.03 6 Neither High Moderate
5120.25 28 Neither Low Moderate
5120.27 29 Neither Low Moderate
Table 36: Expired affordable units from 2012-2022 by census tract typology Per Table 33, below, there are almost 30 properties that have affordable housing restrictions scheduled to expire by 2032, totaling 1,826 units.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-80 ver. May 2023
Table 37: Affordable housing units with affordability restrictions expiring prior to 2032 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-81 ver. May 2023
These at-risk units are spread throughout the city with approximately 12% of the units in TCAC/HCD high resource areas and approximately 41% in low resource areas and 47% in moderate resource areas.
Census Tract # of Units of
Affordable
Housing w/
Restrictions that
are Scheduled to
Expire by 2032
R/ECAP or RCAA? TCAC/HCD
Opportunity Zone
UDP
Displacement
Typology
5002 131 Neither Moderate Exclusive
5008 23 Neither Low Moderate
5009.01 151 R/ECAP Low Displacement
5013 4 R/ECAP Low High Student/NA
5017 22 Neither Low Displacement
5021.02 42 Neither Moderate Displacement
5029.06 23 Neither High Exclusive
5034.02 214 R/ECAP Low Displacement
5037.08 168 Neither Low Moderate
5037.1 137 R/ECAP Low Displacement
5043.22 12 Neither Moderate Moderate
5050.08 72 CSJ RCAA High High Student/NA
5050.09 271 Neither Moderate Moderate
5051 36 Neither Low Moderate
5063.05 160 Neither Moderate Displacement
5119.15 4 Neither Moderate Displacement
5119.16 122 Neither High Moderate
5120.05 36 Neither Moderate Exclusive
5120.24 79 Neither Moderate Exclusive
5120.32 1 Neither Moderate Exclusive
5120.35 84 Neither Moderate Moderate
5120.38 34 Neither Moderate Moderate
Table 38: At-risk affordable units, 2023-2032, by census tract typology However, the at-risk units in high resource neighborhoods represent a higher percentage of existing affordable housing areas and, therefore, represent a significant threat to ongoing efforts by the City to make affordable housing siting and distribution more equitable.
Geographic Area Number of
Existing
Affordable
Housing Units
Units Lost
from 2012-
2022
Units Lost as
a % of
Existing
Affordable
Units
Units At-Risk
from 2023-
2032
Units At-Risk
as a % of
Existing
Affordable
Units
San José 24,999 291 1.2% 1,826 7.3%
TCAC/HCD: High
Resource
2,550 31 1.2% 217 8.5%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-82 ver. May 2023
TCAC/HCD:
Medium
Resource
7,522 57 0.8% 854 11.4%
TCAC/HCD: Low
Resource
14,927 203 1.4% 755
5.1%
UDP: Exclusive 4,765 30 0.6% 270 5.7%
UDP: Moderate 7,522 155 2.1% 750 10.0%
UDP:
Displacement
12,145 106 0.9% 730 6.0%
All R/ECAPs 7,309 16 0.2% 506 6.9%
HCD RCAAs 863 20 2.3% 0 0.0%
CSJ RCAAs 1,658 20 1.2% 72 4.3%
Table 39: Expired and at-risk affordable housing as a % of existing affordable housing, by geographic area
Map 31: Affordable housing with affordability restrictions scheduled to expire by 2032 Please note that in the City’s analysis of the California Housing Partnership’s data on at risk properties the City noted the following differences with the City’s records:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-83 ver. May 2023
Development Name / Address # of Units Notes
Villa Savanah Apartments
4501 Renaissance Dr.
138 Affordability restrictions extended to Feb. 2055
Country Hills
124 Rancho Dr.
62 Affordability restrictions extended to Sep. 2064
Conrad House
1797 Conrad Ave.
4 Not in City records of subsidized housing; property is a single family home
Henry Street
349 South Henry
5 Not in City records of subsidized housing; property is a single family home
San Jose Gardens
4668 Albany Dr.
162 Affordability restrictions extended to May 2035
Mayfair Golden Manor
2627 Madden Ave.
210 Affordability restrictions extended to Oct. 2065
Capitol Manor
175 North Capitol
33 Section 8 subsidies expire 10/1/33
Homebase Homes
1033 Lick Ave.
24 Already expired and reported as lost
Milagro
2850 Rose Ave.
15 Section 8 subsidies expire 10/1/33
1713 Ross Cir. 4 Already expired and reported as lost
1726 Ross Cir. 4 Already expired and reported as lost
1731 Ross Cir. 4 Already expired and reported as lost
1794 Donna Ln. 4 Already expired and reported as lost
3825 Barker Dr. 4 Already expired and reported as lost
5668 Hoffman Ct. 4 Affordability restrictions extended to Mar. 2076 5684 Hoffman Ct. 4 Affordability restrictions extended to Mar. 2076 Table 40: Discrepancies between CHPC At-Risk and City analysis
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-84 ver. May 2023
C. Analysis of Demographics by Housing Type
1. Overview
As shown in further detail below, the geographic patterns of segregation described above – especially in terms of racial segregation – translate into disproportionate population distributions within different housing typologies and tenures. For example, homeownership is disproportionately non-Hispanic White while rent-stabilized apartment buildings are disproportionately Latino/a/x.
2. Race and Homeownership
According to the 2019 5-year ACS, there are approximately 185,000 owner-occupied housing units in the City of San José. Roughly 41% (or a little less than 75,000 households) of these homeowners are non- Hispanic White, in contrast to 26% of the City’s population being non-Hispanic White.
Figure 20: Race/ethnicity of homeowners vs. race/ethnicity of the City as a whole (2019 5-year ACS) As can be seen in Table 33, below, this homeownership gap is consistent across different neighborhood types, except for RCAAs, where AAPIs have the highest rates of homeownership. For example, even though non-Hispanic Whites who live in R/ECAP areas have a lower homeownership rate than non- Hispanic Whites citywide, non-Hispanic Whites who live in R/ECAP areas have a higher homeownership rate than all other racial/ethnic groups living in R/ECAP areas. Please note that disaggregated AAPI tenure data is not available at the census tract level.
Category Non-Hispanic
White
Black Latino/a/x AAPI
# % # % # % # %
San José 74,811 65.7% 3,361 30.8% 31,012 39.7% 71,152 63.1% TCAC/HCD: High
Resource 45,931 73.9% 950 38.7% 6,498 48.1% 35,012 72.9% TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource 29,493 59.0% 1,459 27.5% 9,975 37.0% 24,967 58.6% TCAC/HCD: Low
Resource 10,535 55.9% 1,193 32.3% 17,431 40.0% 18,016 54.0% 41%
2%0%
39%
17%
Homeowners by Race
Non-Hispanic White Black/African American
Native American AAPI
Latino/a/x
26%
3%
1%
36%
32%
Population by Race/Ethnicty
Non-Hispanic White Black/African American
Native American AAPI
Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-85 ver. May 2023
UDP: Exclusive 45,293 75.7% 1,641 49.0% 14,164 51.7% 40,167 74.0% UDP: Moderate 34,647 60.2% 1,528 27.8% 13,074 40.5% 30,956 59.2% UDP: Displacement 5,169 44.8% 409 17.4% 6,561 28.1% 6,491 42.0% HUD R/ECAPs 978 46.2% 34 8.4% 1,032 24.1% 1,764 40.2% All R/ECAPs 1,785 37.9% 34 3.9% 1,753 19.6% 2,803 32.3% HCD RCAAs 22,954 80.2% 381 51.0% 2,802 53.1% 6,507 81.2% CSJ RCAAs 36,681 76.0% 566 38.8% 4,306 49.4% 20,821 66.8% Table 41: Homeownership rates by race and geography (2019 5-year ACS)
3. Publicly Supported Housing Analysis
a. Overview of the Publicly Supported Housing Analysis
In 2021, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCR) completed a Publicly Supported Housing Analysis for jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether the need for affordable housing is being met and whether patterns of affordable housing siting concentrate communities of color or other protected classes in low-opportunity areas. Per the LCCR analysis, in Santa Clara County, each category of publicly supported housing (public housing, Project- based Section 8, other multifamily, Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV), and Low-Income Housing Tax Credit units (LIHTC)) is represented, although that representation varies greatly depending upon the individual municipality. Affordable housing (including LIHTC) makes up less than 5% of the total housing stock in all but two of the entitlement jurisdictions in Santa Clara County – the two jurisdictions are Gilroy and San José. Overall, it is clear the amount of publicly supporting housing available in Santa Clara does not rise to meet the level of need.
b. San José Publicly Supported Housing by Type
Per the LCCR analysis, San José has one of the highest proportions of its housing stock as affordable housing. LIHTC units predominate, with HCV units (which are not fixed units) following closely behind. It is important to note that there is frequently overlap between LIHTC units and HCV households as LIHTC owners have been required to accept vouchers for much longer than source of income discrimination protections have been in place and because LIHTC rents are typically within HCV payment standards.
Relative to other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, the City does not have a strong concentration of Project-Based Section 8 or other multifamily units, and there are no Public Housing units.
Category # of Units % of Total Housing Stock
Public Housing NA NA
Project-based Section 8 2,809 0.9%
Other Multifamily 201 0.1%
HCV Program 12,926 4.1%
LIHTC 16,606 5.3%
Table 42: San Jose Publicly Supported Housing by Type (LCCR analysis) c. Demographics of San José Publicly Supported Housing
Overall, the racial/ethnic breakdown of the entire stock of publicly supported housing is similar to the racial/ethnic demographics of the City as a whole, but non-Hispanic Whites underrepresented within the affordable housing stock (17.7% of the publicly supported housing stock and 38.4% of the City’s households) and Black/African American households overrepresented (8.3% of the publicly supported DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-86 ver. May 2023
housing stock and 3.3% of the City’s total households). There is greater variation within specific housing or program types (e.g., AAPIs are overrepresented in Project-based Section 8 properties and underrepresented in LIHTC properties).
Category Non-Hispanic
White
Black Latino/a/x AAPI
# % # % # % # %
Project-based Section 8 560 19.9% 91 3.2% 510 18.2% 1,530 54.5% Other Multifamily 29 14.3% 7 3.5% 60 29.8% 103 51.2%
HCV Program 1,429 11.1% 1,394 10.8% 3,222 24.9% 4,796 37.1% LIHTC 3,731 22.6% 1,193 7.2% 5,270 31.9% 3,872 23.4%
Total Publicly
Supported Housing
5,749 17.7% 2,685 8.3% 9,062 27.8% 10,301 31.7%
Total CSJ Households 117,782 38.4% 10,170 3.3% 77,280 25.2% 94,004 30.6% 0-30% of AMI 13,755 26.7% 2,370 4.6% 18,650 36.1% 15,660 30.4% 0-50% of AMI 21,915 24.6% 3,855 4.3% 34,600 38.5% 23,700 26.6% 0-80% of AMI 35,349 27.2% 5,600 4.3% 48,540 37.3% 34,250 26.3% Table 43: Racial/Ethnic breakdown of Publicly Supported Housing (LCCR analysis)
4. City of San José Affordable Housing Portfolio
a. Overview of the City of San José portfolio
The City of San José Housing Department has funded approximately 200 affordable housing developments, totaling over 16,000 units of affordable housing. As a subset of these properties, San José currently monitors a portfolio of 176 properties, totaling over 15,000 units of affordable housing.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-87 ver. May 2023
Figure 21: Snapshot of CSJ affordable housing portfolio57 As part of monitoring the portfolio, the Housing Department tracks basic resident demographic information.
b. Demographics of CSJ affordable housing residents
i. Race
Of the approximately 33,000 tenants living in the CSJ monitored housing, there is self-identified racial/ethnic data for approximately 81% of the population (i.e., approximately 27,000 tenants). Of the tenants for whom data is known, the racial/ethnic breakdown is as follows:
Category Non-
Hispanic
White
African
American
Native
American
AAPI Latino/a/x Multi-
racial/Other
CSJ
Affordable
Housing
Portfolio
10.0% 8.1% 3.7% 26.3% 36.2% 15.6%
Citywide
(2019 5-
year ACS)
25.7% 3.0% 0.6% 36.4% 31.6% 2.7%
Lower-
income
Households
27.2% 4.3% NA 26.3% 37.3% NA
Table 44: Racial/ethnic breakdown of CSJ monitored affordable housing residents
ii. Income Levels
Household income levels are known for effectively 100% of all tenants living in CSJ monitored affordable housing:
Category Moderate Income Low Income Very Low Income Extremely Low Income
CSJ Affordable
Housing Portfolio
3.2% 34.7% 52.4% 9.6%
Table 45: Income profile of CSJ monitored affordable housing residents
iii. Seniors and Disability Status
Persons 55 and older constitute 44% of the tenants living in CSJ monitored affordable housing. Of this population 15% report having some form of disability. In contrast, 6% of the general population living in CSJ monitored affordable housing reported having some form of disability.
57 CSJ Rent Rolls Portal - https://sanjose.dataportal.city/portal/reporting DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-88 ver. May 2023
5. Geographic Distribution of Affordable Housing
There are approximately 25,000 units of covenanted affordable housing in the City of San José. This number includes those in the publicly supported housing analysis as described above as well as a number of smaller, predominantly special needs developments that received City of San José support but not LIHTC or HUD funding (and thus were not counted in the LCCR analysis) and any non-subsidized units restricted as affordable as part of inclusionary housing compliance. These 25,000 units of restricted affordable housing account for 7.7% of the City’s total housing stock and are located all across the City, in every Council District. However, per the table below, these units are disproportionately concentrated in lower-opportunity, lower-resource neighborhoods with the greatest risk of displacement.
Geographic Area Number of
Affordable
Housing Units
% of Units in
Geographic
Area that are
Affordable
% of Rental
Units in
Geographic
Area that are
Affordable
Affordable
Units in
Geographic
Area as a % of
all Affordable
Units in the City
San José 24,999 7.7% 17.8% 100%
TCAC/HCD: High Resource 2,550 2.0% 6.6% 10.2%
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource
7,522 5.8% 12.2% 30.1%
TCAC/HCD: Low Resource 14,927 14.7% 28.0% 59.7%
UDP: Exclusive 4,765 3.2% 10.9% 19.1%
UDP: Moderate 7,522 5.0% 11.2% 30.1%
UDP: Displacement 12,145 22.0% 33.8% 48.6%
UDP: Student/NA 567 6.2% 7.7% 2.3%
HUD R/ECAPs 2,588 22.8% 34.6% 10.4%
All R/ECAPs 7,309 31.0% 42.6% 29.2%
HCD RCAAs 863 2.0% 8.4% 3.5%
CSJ RCAAs 1,658 1.8% 5.9% 6.6%
Table 46: Geographic distribution of CSJ monitored affordable housing units
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-89 ver. May 2023
Map 32: Affordable housing (current projects and pipeline) with R/ECAP and RCAA overlays
6. Rent-Stabilized Housing
The City of San José Apartment Rent Ordinance (ARO) limits rent increase on apartments with three or more units that were built and occupied prior to September 7, 1979. The ARO applies to over 38,000 units of housing in the City. Per a 2019 City of San José commissioned analysis of ARO housing,58 the plurality of residents of ARO rent-stabilized housing are Latino/a/x (please see Figure 20, below).
58 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/58855/637257392314200000
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-90 ver. May 2023
Figure 22: Race/ethnicity by ARO renters
As the ARO applies to pre-1980 constructed buildings, ARO regulated units tend to be located in the older, more central parts of the City. This means that the neighborhoods that have disproportionately more ARO units also tend to be lower resource neighborhoods (per TCAC/HCD opportunity metrics), at higher risk of displacement (per UDP metrics), and with higher concentrations of lower-income communities of color (e.g., R/ECAP neighborhoods).
Geographic Area Number of ARO
Units
% of Units in
Geographic
Area that are
ARO
% of Rental
Units in
Geographic
Area that are
ARO
ARO Units in
Geographic
Area as a % of
all ARO Units in
the City
San José 38,468 11.8% 27.4% 100%
TCAC/HCD: High Resource 11,106 8.6% 28.6% 28.9%
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource
14,157 11.0% 23.0% 36.8%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-91 ver. May 2023
TCAC/HCD: Low Resource 13,205 13.0% 24.8% 34.3%
UDP: Exclusive 6,194 4.2% 14.2% 16.1%
UDP: Moderate 16,809 11.2% 25.0% 43.7%
UDP: Displacement 12,748 23.0% 35.5% 33.1%
UDP: Student/NA 2,717 29.9% 37.0% 7.1%
HUD R/ECAPs 2,812 24.8% 37.6% 7.3%
All R/ECAPs 6,532 27.7% 38.1% 17.0%
HCD RCAAs 2,781 6.4% 27.1% 7.2%
CSJ RCAAs 4,640 5.1% 16.6% 12.1%
Table 47: Proportion of units in geographic area that are restricted under the ARO As can be seen in Map 31, below, AROs are generally located in the center of the City, running along a east-to-west meridian, with the largest concentration of units in and around downtown.
Map 33: ARO units
7. Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Participant Demographics The Santa Clara County Housing Authority administers the HCVs program for approximately 17,000 households, of which almost 13,000 rent in the City. The breakdown of these San José HCV participant households is as follows:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-92 ver. May 2023
Household Size Number of
Households
Percentage of
Total Households
1 person 6,129 47.7%
2 people 3,027 23.6%
3 people 1,587 12.4%
4 people 960 7.5%
5 or more people 1,134 8.8%
Table 48: HCV participant household sizes (2022, SCC HA) Female-headed households account for almost 2/3 (66.0%) of all HCV households. The total population of people served (estimated to be more than 25,000 individuals) includes 7,044 persons with disabilities (i.e., 28%) and 8,403 seniors (aged 62 and older). The racial/ethnic of breakdown HCV participants is:
Figure 23: Race/Ethnicity of HCV participant households (2022, SCC HA)
8. Mobilehome Residents
Of the 25 largest cities in the U.S., San José has amongst the largest number of mobilehome parks and one of the largest proportions of mobilehomes of its total housing stock:
City Number of Occupied
Housing Units
Number of Occupied
Mobilehomes
% Mobilehomes of
Housing Stock
Jacksonville, FL 338,991 15,143 4.5%
San José, CA 325,114 11,098 3.4%
Phoenix, AZ 565,832 16,939 3.0%
Oklahoma City, OK 242,748 7,036 2.9%
El Paso, TX 226,787 6,283 2.8%
Austin, TX 380,392 5,599 1.5%
San Antonio, TX 501,400 7,362 1.5%
Dallas, TX 513,443 6,024 1.2%
San Diego, CA 507,580 5,523 1.1%
1.4%
10.4%
33.0%
32.2%
23.0%
Native American Black/African American AAPI
Non-Hispanic White Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-93 ver. May 2023
Houston, TX 858,374 7,785 0.9%
Los Angeles, CA 1,383,869 8,539 0.6%
Table 49: Mobilehomes as a percentage of housing stock (2019 5-year ACS) Per San José’s inventory of units regulated under various rent stabilization ordinances, there are 59 mobilehome parks with a total of 10,840 mobilehome spaces (a slight discrepancy with the U.S. Census data in the table above), housing approximately 35,000 residents. Per U.S. Census data, by householder race/ethnicity, the racial/ethnic breakdown of mobilehomes is as follows:
Category Non-Hispanic
White
Black, African
American
Native
American
AAPI Latino/a/x
Mobilehome
Householders
32.9% 1.8% 1.2% 38.0% 26.1%
All CSJ
Householders
35.0% 3.4% 0.6% 35.1% 24.1%
Table 50: Racial/ethnic breakdown of mobilehome park householders (2019 5-year ACS) Anecdotally, there has been a trend of more seniors moving into mobilehomes as a more affordable option and 12 of the mobilehome parks in the City are age restricted to seniors. Per the U.S. Census, the estimated age breakdown of mobilehome residents is as follows:
Category 15- to 34-years Old 35- to 64-years Old 65-years Old and Up Mobilehome Rental
Householders
16% 63% 21%
Mobilehome Owner
Householders
7% 65% 29%
All Mobilehome
Householders
8% 65% 28%
All CSJ Householders 19% 61% 21%
Table 51: Age breakdown of mobilehome park householders (2019 5-year ACS) Disability status by mobilehome resident is not available through the U.S. Census.
9. Renters in Single-family Units and Duplexes
Rentals in single-units and duplexes represent over 1/3 of the City’s rental housing stock. However, single-units and duplexes are exempt under the City’s Apartment Rent Ordinance and Tenant Protection Ordinance.
Geographic Area # of Renter HHs
in Single Units +
Duplexes
# of HHs in
Single Units +
Duplexes
% of Single
Units +
Duplexes in
Area that are
Rented
% of Area
Rental Housing
Stock that are
Single Units +
Duplexes
San José 49,698 172,769 23.3% 35.4%
TCAC/HCD: High Resource 16,806 103,593 16.2% 43.2%
TCAC/HCD: Medium
Resource
18,046 75,742 23.8% 30.0%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-94 ver. May 2023
TCAC/HCD: Low Resource 20,294 58,901 34.5% 38.1%
UDP: Exclusive 21,547 120,747 17.8% 49.4%
UDP: Moderate 23,777 94,221 25.2% 35.8%
UDP: Displacement 9,787 24,633 39.7% 26.6%
UDP: Student/NA 818 2,449 33.4% 11.2%
HUD R/ECAPs 1,470 4,082 36.0% 19.7%
All R/ECAPs 2,991 7,226 41.4% 17.4%
HCD RCAAs 6,089 38,542 15.8% 59.4%
All RCAAs 11,317 73,329 15.4% 40.6%
Table 52: Renters in single units and duplexes (2019 5-year ACS)
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-95 ver. May 2023
D. Analysis of Housing Needs for Specific Populations
1. Persons with disabilities, including developmental disabilities a. Demographic overview
According to the 2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS), there are 88,523 persons with disabilities living in the City of San José, or 8.6% of the City’s civilian, non-institutionalized population.59 From 2014 to 2019, the number of persons with disabilities increased at a faster rate than the general population – i.e., the City’s population grew by 4.2% and the population with disabilities grew by 9.2%. 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
1,023,950 982,892 41,058 / 4.2%
Population with
Disabilities
88,533 81,049 7,484 / 9.2%
% of Total 8.6% 8.2%
Table 53 Persons with Disabilities (2019 5-year ACS)
The 2 most identified disabilities (from a list of 6 possible choices) were ambulatory difficulty and independent living difficulty. Please note that these are not mutually exclusive categories. 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Hearing difficulty 23,535 23,449 86 / 0.4%
Vision difficulty 15,692 14,081 1,611 / 11.4%
Cognitive difficulty 35,654 31,195 4,459 / 14.3%
Ambulatory difficulty 46,852 41,782 5,070 / 12.1%
Self-care difficulty 21,871 18,906 2,965 / 15.7%
Independent living
difficulty
39,770 34,420
5,350 / 15.5%
Table 54 Disability by Type (2019 5-year ACS)
For more detailed breakdowns of the City’s disabled population please see Appendix G. b. Community engagement
The Housing Department met with members of the disabled community on January 22, 2022, to gather feedback on challenges to securing and maintaining stable housing. Approximately twenty people attended the meeting to share their concerns and brainstorm solutions. Concerns shared included high cost of housing, scarcity of HCVs, difficulty to find owner who accepts vouchers, accessibility issues (e.g., stairs in home, wait times for inspection, denial of accommodation requests), insufficient social security
59 Please note that the ACS systematically undercounts the population of people with disabilities. As one example of the problems with the ACS treatment of disability, the 6 categories of disability in the ACS questionnaire (listed in Table 45, above) is only a limited subset of the wide range of disability experiences. For comparison, the national percentage of people with disabilities per the ACS is 12.6% versus 26.7% per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (2019). ACS data, though problematic, was used for this analysis because of the availability of various time series and tract-level data.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-96 ver. May 2023
benefits to cover housing costs, unresponsiveness by landlords for requests for reasonable accommodations, and lack of resources needed to navigate housing applications and benefit systems.
The Housing Department staffs a part-time senior development officer, who is also a disability advocate, to facilitate increasing access to the department’s housing programs, improving access practices within the department and to deepen communication and outreach to the disability community. This senior development officer also encourages the entire City to do the same processes, thereby promoting accessibility for all residents.
c. How the community is currently being served
As shown above in Table 21 and noting issues with the U.S. Census undercount of people with disabilities, at least 8.6% of the City’s population has a disability. Persons with disabilities often face limited earning potential as the result of their disabilities and often experience discrimination. 60 Additionally, some persons with disabilities may have self-care and mobility limitations that require housing design features such as wheelchair ramps, holding bars, special bathroom designs, wider doors, and other design features. As reported above, community members identify housing accessibility is an acute problem. Data about the availability of accessible housing, even in within the portfolio of housing that has been subsidized by the City, is inconsistent, incomplete, and unreliable.
For persons with developmental disabilities, however, more robust data is collected and maintained by the California Department of Developmental Services and the statewide network of regional centers.
The California Department of Developmental Services currently provides services to persons with developmental disabilities through a statewide system of 21 regional centers, four developmental centers, and two community-based facilities. The San Andreas Regional Center (SARC) serves four counties, including Santa Clara County. Per data provided by SARC, there are approximately 7,000 persons with developmental disabilities living in San José, of whom, approximately 4,300 are adults.
Approximately two-thirds (or 2,800) developmentally disabled adults living in San José are residing in the home of a guardian; 10 percent are living independently with support; and 24% percent, or approximately 1,000, live in Community Care or Intermediate Care Facilities; several of these facilities are operated by the County with State funding.61 However, the Regional Center only serves people with developmental disabilities with medical documentation received prior to age 18. As identified by community input in our focus group sessions, adults over 18 with disabilities diagnosed during adulthood, who seek Regional Center assistance are turned away. Also, youth who are “higher functioning” are not registered with the Regional Center.
The Department of Developmental Services reports that, between September 2015 and June 2021, 5% fewer people with Developmental Disabilities were able to be housed in licensed care facilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities) in Santa Clara County, even as the adult population in need of residential options outside the family grew. This trend increases the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services specifically targeting persons with developmental disabilities. Santa Clara County’s reduced supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that San José adults with developmental disabilities will be forced out
60 https://www.huduser.gov/PORTAL/sites/default/files/pdf/housing_discrimination_disability.pdf 61 From data provided by the San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021, as collected and processed by Housing Choices
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-97 ver. May 2023
of the County when their parents are no longer able to house them. While reduced utilization of licensed care facilities may be seen as a positive outcome, there remains a shortage of affordable, service-enriched housing. The Department of Developmental Services also reports that the population of persons aged 62 and older with developmental disabilities grew substantially (by 35%) from 2015 to 2021. This increase is generally attributable to well-documented gains in life span, rather than any substantial in migration. Longer life spans mean that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who house the majority of people with developmental disabilities in the City.
d. Gaps analysis
There are a number of significant gaps in coverage for housing for persons with disabilities, including the following:
• Housing affordability: Social security benefits for persons with disabilities is insufficient to pay for market-rate housing in an expensive area like San José; • Support services and supportive housing: There is not enough supportive housing or supportive services to allow disabled people to live more independently. For example, for the majority of developmentally disabled adults who live with aging parents, what happens when they no longer can access familial support systems?
• Housing accessibility: The super-majority of San José’s housing stock was built prior to the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act and most housing units are in need of substantial work to become fully accessible. Per community feedback, disabled renters have significant difficulties with landlords refusing or inadequately addressing requests for reasonable accommodations;
• Housing discrimination: Per Section D, below, the majority of fair housing complaints and inquiries in San José are related to issues of disability discrimination.
2. Familial Status
a. Large households
Large households are defined by the HUD as households with five or more members. Large families or 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.
According to the 2019 5-year ACS, there are 49,165 households with five or more persons in the City of San José, which makes up 15% of the City’s total households. From 2014-19, the number and percentage of large households in San Jose fell slightly from 16% to 15%. 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
1-Person Household 63,185 61,133 2,052 / 3%
2-Person Household 93,856 85,407 8,449 / 10%
3-4 Person Household 118,908 114,509 4,399 / 4%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-98 ver. May 2023
5 or more Person
Household
49,165 49,535 (370) / (1%)
Total Households 325,114 310,584 14,530 / 5%
Table 55 : Households by Household Size
56% of the large family households are owners while 44% are renters. From 2014-19, the owner and renter percentage of large households in San Jose stayed the same.
HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release provides some data on the income distribution among large family households. CHAS indicates that 28% of large family households were extremely or very low-income, earning less than 50% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This percentage is not any different from the ELI/VLI percentage for smaller family households. Forty-three percent of large-family households earned 100% or more of the AMI compared to 51% for smaller family households.
b. Female-headed households
According to the 2019 5-Year American Community Survey (ACS), 11.5% of San Jose households (37,319 households) are female-headed family households, down slightly over 5 years. 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Households 325,114 310,584 14,530 / 4.7%
Women-headed Family
Households
37,319 38,493 (1,174) / (3.0%)
% of Total 11.5% 12.4%
Table 56: Female-headed households
Female-headed households with children face unique housing challenges. They often deal with pervasive gender inequality that results in lower wages for women. Moreover, the added expense for childcare can make finding a home that is affordable more challenging.
About 15% of the female-headed family households fall below the poverty level compared with 5% of all San Jose families who fall below the poverty level. For female-headed households with children under 18, the challenge is even greater, with 29% falling below the Poverty Level.
Women of color face significantly worse housing problems than any other group in San Jose. The Bay Area Equity Atlas highlights the cost burden experienced by females - 2019 IPUMS data for San Jose indicates that, while 58% of all female renters in San Jose are cost burdened (compared with 48% of males), 69% of female Black renters and 62% of female Latina renters in San Jose are cost burdened.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-99 ver. May 2023
Figure 24 – Housing Burden Women of Color
c. Multigenerational households and households with other “non-traditional” family living arrangements Nationally, according to the Pew Research Center, the number and percentage of multigenerational households have been on the rise since the 1980s.62 Two demographic factors are driving these trends.
One is that increased housing costs are forcing families to double up or take on other relatives to defray housing costs – the most common of which is that young adults move in with their parents63. Another is that increasing numbers of immigrants – especially AAPI and Latino/a/x households – are arriving with the pre-existing cultural practice of multigenerational living.
Most housing units in the U.S. are designed for one of two basic living arrangements: (1) a nuclear family consisting of parents and their minor children, or (2) a single or a couple without children. Fair housing violations are possible when housing providers presume that these are the only types of family or household arrangements or that they limit rental or sale of housing on the basis of such family status.
In San José, a city with high housing costs and a high percentage of immigrants, there is a slightly higher rate of occurrence of types of multi-generational and non-traditional family household arrangements.
Non-nuclear family
member of household
# of persons living in
San José households
% of all people living in
San José households
FOR COMPARISON:
National %
Grandchildren of
Householder
25,026 2.5% 2.4%
62 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/04/05/a-record-64-million-americans-live-in-multigenerational- households/
63 2014 was the first year since the census began recording such data (in 1880!) where living in their par ents’ home was the largest single housing arrangement for 18-34 year old adults. https://www.pewresearch.org/social- trends/2016/05/24/for-first-time-in-modern-era-living-with-parents-edges-out-other-living-arrangements-for-18- to-34-year-olds/
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-100 ver. May 2023
Parents or in-laws of
Householder
36,823 3.6% 1.8%
Adult children of
Householder
111,835 11.0% 9.6%
Spouse of adult child 7,782 0.8% 0.5%
Siblings of Householder 23,568 2.3% 1.3%
All other relatives of
householder (non-
spouse, non-minor
children)
30,574 3.0% 1.5%
Nonrelatives living in a
family household
3,654 0.4% 0.1%
Table 57: Persons living in "non-traditional" family households (2019 5-year ACS) d. Community engagement
The City does not have outreach initiatives to target large, multi-generational, or female-headed households. The Housing Department held a working group focused on barriers to access to rental housing where challenges about finding suitable housing for large families were expressed. Participants stated large families often cram into smaller housing units due to high housing costs. e. How the community is currently being served
i. Large and multigenerational households
There are no specific City sponsored programs targeting large or multigenerational households.
However, such households can avail themselves of City programs specifically designed to improve housing opportunities through preservation and rehabilitation of existing affordable housing stock and the construction of new, affordable homes.
The City’s Rent Roll Portal (which covers 176 properties or 15,504 units) as of March 10, 2022 reveals that 20% of the tenants living in City monitored affordable housing projects are large families (with 5 or more family members).
ii. Woman-headed households
The City provides affordable housing for single women and funds an array of facilities, programs, and services to assist them. The City currently has 1,070 emergency shelter beds and transitional housing beds that serve homeless individuals including women with children and victims of domestic violence.
The City also funds the Supportive Housing Employment Initiative to develop and launch an employment engagement system focused on homeless (men and) women in rapid rehousing programs.
City Policy also requires developers, contractors and/or sub-recipients of City funding solicit bids from women and minority owned businesses. In bid notifications, it is required to include a statement that encourages MBE/WBE businesses to apply.
f. Gaps analysis
i. Large and multigenerational households
The 2019 5-Year ACS data reveals that there are 89,065 occupied housing units in San Jose that have 4 or more bedrooms, 27% of the total housing units. Most of them (75,839 or 85%) are owner occupied while 15% (13,226) are renter occupied. If we assume that a minimum of 4 bedrooms is required to DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-101 ver. May 2023
house a large person household, the city potentially has housing available to accommodate its 27,532 large family owner households. But large family renter households have a housing unit deficit – 13,226 housing units to accommodate 21,638 large family households. Moreover, the cost of owning or renting large family housing may make it prohibitive for the 28% of the large family households who earn 50% or less of the AMI.
ii. Female-headed households
The City does not provide enough affordable housing specifically for female-headed households.
3. Elderly
a. Demographic overview
According to the 2019 5-year ACS, there are 128,611 persons at or over the age of 65 living in the City of San José or 13% of the city’s population.
From 2014 to 2019, the number of seniors grew at a much faster pace than the general population – i.e., the city’s population grew by 4.2% while the senior population grew by 19.5%. 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Population 1,027,690 986,320 41,370 / 4.2%
Age 65+ 128,611 107,654 20,957 / 19.5%
% of Total 12.5% 10.9%
Table 58: Population Age 65+
Approximately 36% of San José’s seniors are AAPI, 32% are Latino/a/x, and 26% are non-Hispanic White.
About 33% of San José’s senior population have a disability. Most of San José’s Seniors own their homes (70%). A larger proportion of San José’s seniors live alone (36%) when compared with 19% of all households who live alone.
CHAS 2013-17 tabulation reveals that homeownership rates vary significantly by income level. Only 43% of extremely low-income senior households own their home, while 86% of those senior households with incomes at or above the AMI own their homes.
The CHAS data also reveals how vulnerable seniors with fixed income are – 60% of San José’s Seniors are considered lower income, earning 80% or less of the AMI, compared with 41% of all San José households who are lower income. Forty-four percent of San José’s Seniors are cost burdened, paying 30% or more of their income for housing costs, compared with 37% of all San José households who are cost burdened.
b. Community engagement
The Housing Department held a focus group on January 29, 2020 with seniors to hear their concerns and gather feedback. The City has a Senior Citizen Commission which studies, reviews, evaluates and makes recommendations to the City Council on any matters affecting elderly people in the City, including housing.
c. How the community is currently being served
Seniors often have housing needs related to the following factors: fixed, relatively low incomes, high health care costs, and physical disabilities. Because of the high birth-rate during the mid-20th century and improved healthcare, seniors are living longer and are becoming a larger portion of the population DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-102 ver. May 2023
everywhere. An expansion in the senior population creates the special need of scaled-down housing size, ADA accessibility, and other amenities that give seniors access in the community.
Senior populations have a wide range of housing needs that include daily care-provider assistance to assisted living facilities. However, surveys show that the many seniors prefer to “age in place.” Services are provided by the City and County that assist seniors who are on Medi-Cal to remain in their home for as long as possible.
About 27% of San José’s rent restricted affordable housing (4,474 apartments) and 17% (1,792) of San José’s mobile home lots are restricted to Seniors.
Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFE) are regulated by the California Community Care Licensing Division (CCLD) of the Department of Social Services. It provides services to persons 60 years and over. RCFEs are assisted living facilities, retirement homes, and board and care homes. According to the Department of Social Services data, there are 149 licensed residential elder care facilities in San José with a capacity to serve 2,885 residents.
Federal funding also provides for community based Senior services such as Meals on Wheels and Senior Nutrition and Wellness program. These services help San José’s low-income seniors improve health and quality of life, prevent or reduce their isolation and depression, and/or increase their housing stability improving their opportunities to age in place.
d. Gaps analysis
With the senior population growing at a much higher rate than the general population, the demand for affordable Senior Housing is expected to accelerate in the future. Currently there are about 87,059 households in San José with at least one person over the age of 65. City-assisted affordable housing apartments meet only a small percentage of the need for senior housing.
4. Unhoused People
a. Demographic overview
Homelessness, as well as a lack of affordable housing for extremely low-income people continues to be a pressing issue for the City of San José, the County of Santa Clara, and for the region as a whole.
According to HUD’s 2019 Annual Homeless Assessment Report, among the 48 Major City Continuums of Care, the County of Santa Clara has:
• The fourth largest homeless population,
• The second largest unsheltered homeless population,
• The third largest chronically homeless population, and • The third largest unaccompanied homeless youth (under 25) population.
Locally, the January 2019 homeless census and survey counted 6,097 persons experiencing homelessness in San José, which was an increase of 40% from the 2017 homeless census. Of the 6,097 people counted, 5,117 were unsheltered. This means that 84% of San José’s homeless population sleeps outdoors on the street, in parks, tents, encampments, vehicles, abandoned properties and/or bus and train stations.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-103 ver. May 2023
Figure 25 PIT Homeless Survey 2019
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-104 ver. May 2023
Map 34: Homeless residents by Council District
Preliminary data for the 2022 Point in Time count for San José was released in May 2022. It shows that San José’s total homeless count increased 11% to 6,739 in 2022. Even though the total homeless population increased 11%, a significant investment in housing the homeless paid off, with the sheltered homeless population going up 74% (to 1,708) and the unsheltered homeless population dropping 2% (to 5,031).
Between January 29 and February 28, 2019, the City of San José administered a survey of its homeless population to a randomized sample of individuals and families currently experiencing homelessness. The Homeless Survey effort resulted in 925 unique, complete, and valid surveys collected in the City of San José. In order to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences of individuals and families experiencing homelessness in the City of San José, respondents were asked basic demographic questions including age, gender, sexual orientation, and ethnicity:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-105 ver. May 2023
• Age: Fifteen percent (15%) of survey respondents were under the age of 25 at the time of the 2019 survey. One-fifth (20%) of respondents were between the ages of 25 and 40, and 65% were 41 years or older.
• Gender & Sexual Orientation: Nearly two-thirds (65%) of survey respondents identified as male, 34% identified as female, 1% identified as transgender, and <1% did not identify as male, female, or transgender. Among the female respondents, 2% indicated that they were currently pregnant.
• Race & Ethnicity: For race and ethnicity, per the 2019 homeless survey, the top four responses were 44 percent White, 24 percent multi-racial, 19 percent Black, and 8 percent said they were American Indian or Alaskan Native. Forty-three percent of respondents reported they were of Latinx/Hispanic ethnicity. See the following tables for Racial and Ethnic makeup among the chronically homeless, homeless veterans, and homeless youth populations for San José.
Table 59: Homelessness by Race, San José
In comparison to the general population of San José, a higher percentage of homeless survey respondents identified as Hispanic or Latinx (42% homeless respondents compared to 32% in the general population). A much higher proportion of homeless survey respondents identified as Black or African American when compared to the general population (19% compared to 3% general population), whereas a smaller percentage of the homeless survey population identified as Asian (4% compared to 36% general population).
This disproportionate numbers of Black, Native American, and Latino/a/x homeless persons is consistent with the larger regional data, per Figure 24, below.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-106 ver. May 2023
Figure 26: Homelessness by race, Santa Clara County64
Just as San José is home to disproportionately more lower-income people and has a greater share of people of color than the surrounding Santa Clara County, San José’s homeless population is a disproportionately larger than that of Santa Clara County. That is, San José’s homeless population is roughly two-thirds of the County’s population (6,739 of 10,028) while San José’s total population is a little over half of the County’s population (1.03 million of 1.92 million). Similarly, San José’s homeless population represents 19% of the 9-county Bay Area’s population while San José’s total population is 13% of the 9-county Bay Area’s population. As described above, from 2019 to 2022, the number of persons experiencing homelessness in San José increased by 11% -- as compared to 3% in Santa Clara County as a whole and 9% in the 9-county Bay Area.65
b. Community engagement
The Housing Department met with homeless individuals and families on December 12, 2019. Issues identified included 1) issues with the VI-SPDAT tool to accurately assess needs of individual, lack of housing at levels a person transitioning from homelessness can afford, lack of support in transitioning from homelessness to living in a home, and lack of centralized place to receive services. The Housing Department met with formerly homeless residents living in permanently supportive housing on February 2, 2022. Residents spoke of their concerns with the lack of supportive services, high staff turnover, poor property management including lack of response to issues raised, where to go when issues raised consistently ignored, and concerns of safety. Residents also spoke of issues encountered when transitioning out of homelessness including lack of education on maintaining a home including buying furniture or paying bills.
The Housing Department staffs an outreach team as part of its Homelessness Response Framework. The outreach team engages with the unsheltered population, offers services and shelter, and is the primary contact for the Coordinated Assessment System.
c. How the community is currently being served
To assist populations experiencing homelessness in San José and counteract the impacts on the community, the City of San José’s Housing Department developed the Homelessness Response Framework, which uses a Coordinated Assessment System, beginning with an Outreach Team that serves as the first point of entry for those who are unsheltered into the system. At the outset of outreach, obtaining basic needs are facilitated. Individuals experiencing homelessness are then added to the Coordinated Assessment System and matched with the appropriate housing program. Housing programs are coordinated with each other and include client referral to the following:
• Interim Housing, which provides temporary housing and site-based services, and is effective for certain homeless sub-populations.
• Permanent Supportive Housing, which provides long-term rental subsidies and intensive case management for households with disabilities and special needs.
64 https://destinationhomesv.org/documents/2020/10/2020-2025-community-plan-to-end-homelessness.pdf/ 65 See for e.g., https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco-reports-small-dip-in-biennial-homeless- count/2892009/
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-107 ver. May 2023
• Rapid Rehousing System, which provides time-limited subsidies and supportive services to households that can achieve economic self-sufficiency within the program term.
The City of San José and the County provide an array of facilities, programs, and services to assist individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Services include, but are not limited to:
• Housing for Families with Children
• Domestic Violence, Family & Children Issues
• Drop-In Day Time Service Centers
• Housing for Single Men & Women
• Rental & Other Assistance
• Medical, Mental Health & Recovery Programs
• Veterans Services
• Legal Referrals
• Food & Meals
• Youth Services
• Employment/Vocational Services
• VTA Services
• Homeless Outreach
The City operates five interim housing communities, which are sometimes called Bridge Housing Communities (BHCs). The first BHC opened in January 2020 to provide interim housing for formerly unhoused individuals. The purpose of interim housing is to give participants an opportunity to stabilize their lives and work toward self-sufficiency. The City does not charge people rent while they live at BHCs or other interim housing sites.
Permanent Supportive Housing provides residents with affordable housing with no time constraints on their stay at the property, as well as on site Mental and Physical Health services. The 2021 Continuum of Care Housing Inventory Count (HIC) by the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing reports 3,433 permanent supportive housing beds in San José. The HIC also reports the City’s count of 1,759 emergency shelter beds, 956 rapid rehousing beds, and 366 transitional housing beds in 2021.
There are 298 Adult Residential facilities in San José with the capacity to accommodate 4,689 individuals. There are 237 Residential Elder Care Facilities with the capacity to accommodate 3,477 individuals.
The City provides opportunities for homeless families and individuals living in cars and recreational vehicles (RVs) to park in safe places overnight. More than 1,000 people sleep in vehicles on any given night in San José. The Safe Parking Program allows businesses and non-profits to establish Safe Parking Areas in their parking lots.
d. Gaps analysis
A lack of funding to construct much-needed affordable housing is a significant system gap. In addition, there is a lack of enough service providers to address the level of need, which also requires funding.
However, significant planning and new funding sources (Measure A, HEAP, and federal funds) will help to counteract such deficiencies. San José partnered with Santa Clara County for the Community Plan to DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-108 ver. May 2023
End Homelessness-2015-2020, build strong partnerships across County departments, local governments, the business sector, and non-profit and philanthropy to leverage resources. A new plan is in development for the next five years. The partners will meet to discuss progress over the previous five- year plan to develop new strategies for better outcomes. Additionally, San José adheres to Coordinated Assessment System to connect each individual experiencing homelessness with the appropriate housing as described in the plan.
5. Extremely Low-Income Persons
a. Demographic overview
According to 2021 HCD Income Limits, a family of four making an annual income of $49,700 in Santa Clara County is considered an Extremely Low-Income (ELI) household. CHAS 2013-17 tabulation reveals that 16.2% of San José households (51,924 households) are ELI households.
ELI households face significant housing challenges, especially in a high-cost economy like the Silicon Valley. Their wages are low and stagnant. They are forced to compete with higher wage earners for the limited supply of affordable housing. According to The Gap, a 2021 report published by the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there are just 29 homes available for every 100 extremely low-income households in the San José-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara metro area. This number was reported pre-pandemic and does not include the housing needs of the homeless population. The COVID pandemic most certainly has exacerbated this already critical situation.
Bay Area’s lowest earners end up spending so much of their paychecks on rent, that they have little or nothing left over for other expenses. CHAS 2013-17 tabulation reveals that 80% of San José’s ELI households are cost burdened, paying 30% or more of their income on rent out of whom 63% are severely cost burdened, paying 50% or more of their income on rent. When compared with the Cost Burden of all San José households, the difference is stark. 37% of all San José households are cost burdened out of whom 17% are severely cost burdened.
b. Community engagement
The Housing Department met with a focus group of extremely low-income affordable housing residents of King’s Crossing on March 7, 2022. The main concern raised at the meeting was the poor management of their building. Residents complained of lack of supportive services, safety concerns of non-residents entering the building, and general lack of responsiveness by management to concerns raised by tenants. c. How the community is currently being served
The City contracts with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) to administer San José's HCV Program. This is SCCHA’s largest rental assistance program with about 17,000 participants Countywide.
By law, the Housing Authority must provide 75 percent of the vouchers to applicants whose incomes do not exceed 30 percent of the area median income (extremely low income).
In addition to the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, there are approximately 216 in-service, income-restricted affordable housing developments in San José, that contain a total of 19,221 apartment units, out of which 2,296 (12%) are income restricted to ELI households.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-109 ver. May 2023
d. Gaps analysis
For this current RHNA cycle, the City has been able to meet only 13% of its ELI housing goal. This slower pace in building affordable units generally reflects the time and difficulty in assembling competitive affordable housing financing layers, as well as the scarcity of local, State and federal subsidies that are needed to build affordable homes.
Housing data available from the Santa Clara County Housing Authority indicates that the agency administers 6,025 HCVs in the City of San José. Assuming 75% of these vouchers belong to ELI households, about 4,520 ELI households may be served through this program. In addition to the 2,296 income restricted affordable homes in San José, a total of 6,816 apartments are available to the 51,924 ELI households in San José, satisfying only 13% of the ELI housing need.
The City Council has proposed many initiatives to increase the supply of ELI housing. The City Council has directed that 45% of the City’s subsidies be spent on ELI apartments. In June 2018, the City adopted a Housing Crisis Workplan, which proposed strategies and policy actions to enable the facilitation of 25,000 new housing units by 2023 that included 10,000 affordable units including ELI housing.
6. Farmworkers
a. Demographic overview
The Santa Clara Valley Agricultural Plan reports that the County’s agricultural industry employs over 8,000 residents and contributes around $830 million annually to the economy. While some counties have an idea of how many workers live in and travel through their borders, there is no solid estimate of how many farmworkers there are in Santa Clara County at any given time.
Agricultural workers occupy a very small percentage of San José’s workforce. According 2019 5-year ACS data, 2,117 employed civilians over the age of 16 were employed in Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting occupations – 0.4% of the civilian workforce.
Farmworkers have unique problems. Many are migrant workers, undocumented and/or have temporary visas, working in an environment that is surrounded by pesticides. Most farmworkers continue to work long hours outdoors even when air quality is substandard. Many female farmworkers experience sexual harassment on the job sites. Often farmworkers represent a shadow community because many are undocumented or from indigenous communities and may fear retaliation for raising concerns. b. Community engagement
Aside from county-wide efforts to connect to the farmworker community in Santa Clara, the City does not have any designated programs or outreach to target farmworkers or their families. The City is currently working with the County and some other cities in the County to work with a consultant to design a collaborative process or meeting to engage with farmworkers in the county around issues of housing needs.
c. How the community is currently being served
There are fewer than 1,800 agricultural housing units in Santa Clara County. A unit can mean a house, mobile home, apartment or even a separate room within an apartment. Only two new farmworker group housing projects have been built in the past decade in Santa Clara County.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-110 ver. May 2023
Farmworkers derive their primary income from agricultural labor, and generally fall into the Very Low (VLI) or Low-Income (LI) category based on the AMI. Depending on a farmworker’s occupation within the industry, they can move seasonally or remain long term on one farm.
Most farmworker households qualify for traditional affordable housing programs, yet they remain underserved under these traditional housing models. They may remain underserved due to distrust of government and future citizenship availability. Affordable housing is incredibly impacted in the region due to high demands and extreme shortage and aspects of farmworker life often make them ineligible.
For some households it is challenging to commit to a long-term lease, due to seasonal changes in employment. Many farmworker households include non-family members, often not allowed in affordable housing developments.
d. Gaps analysis
Traditional funding streams for farmworker housing have diminished over time. The U.S. Housing Act of 1949 established federal loan (Section 514) and grant (Section 516) programs for the purchase, construction, and repair of farmworker housing. This program finances less than 1,000 units nationwide annually. It is estimated that there are approximately 800 families on the waitlist for every development funded through this program. The Fiscal Year 2020 budget did not include any funding for this program.
Developers have also struggled to bundle USDA dollars with other affordable housing funding programs that often prioritize infill projects and those that are near transit and other community benefits.
In Santa Clara County, recent zoning changes allow development of farmworker housing with a simpler and cheaper special permit or planning clearance, costing $500 to $6,000, depending on whether the project is for short-term or long-term housing. This is compared to a prior use permit – that costs $14,000 and takes up to nine months to receive.
7. Veterans
a. Demographic overview
According to the 2019 5-year American Community Survey (ACS), there are 26,296 veterans living in the City of San José, or 3.3% of the City’s population. Of these veterans, the majority (54.5%) are aged 55 or older, followed by 20% of veterans aged 35-54 years. Veterans in San José are overwhelmingly (92.2%) male, and non-Hispanic white (54.5%).
The 2019 point in time census found the number of homeless family members in San José was 313, down from 340 in 2017. The number of homeless veterans was 476, up slightly from 468 in 2017.
Table 60: Veterans experiencing homelessness by race, City of San José DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-111 ver. May 2023
b. Community engagement
The Housing Department met with a group of veteran advocates and service providers on January 25, 2022. Concerns raised by the group included lack of affordable housing, accessibility of housing units, lack of reasonable accommodation request approvals and 290 status as a barrier to obtain housing.
Several support service agencies exist and operate within the City to assist veterans and their housing needs.
c. How the community is currently being served
The HIC is a point-in-time inventory of provider programs within a Continuum of Care that provide beds and units dedicated to serve people experiencing homelessness. In the 2021 HIC Survey for San José, there were 1,138 beds for veteran households without children, and 705 for veteran households with children.
Acting on behalf of the City of San José Housing Authority, the City contracts with the Santa Clara County Housing Authority (SCCHA) to administer and manage the Section 8 Voucher program and public housing programs within San José. The SCCHA receives federal funding to run housing assistance for homeless veterans under the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (VASH). Agencies providing support services for veterans include Veteran Families (SSVF), Goodwill of Silicon Valley, HomeFirst, Office of Veterans Services and Veterans’ Support Service Agency (VSSA). Of the 12,191 housing vouchers in use in San José, 349 are for use by Veterans.
d. Gaps analysis
Despite efforts at the City and County level to address veterans experiencing homelessness, homelessness veterans increased slightly from 2017 to 2019. Although there are several programs designed to assist housing veterans, veterans continue to experience housing insecurity.
8. LGBTQ
a. Demographic overview
In the decennial census and in the ACS, households headed by a couple can identify whether the couple is “same sex” and whether the couple is married or are unmarried partners. This is the only data available through the ACS that relates to LGBTQ+ identity.66 It is an incomplete and insufficient slice of data and does not include options for trans or non-binary gender identities and no accounting of persons who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual but who are not a head of household or are not coupled with and living with a head of household. Given these systemic gaps in the data, according to the 2019 5-year ACS, in San José, there were 1,441 households headed by same-sex married couples and 1,082 households headed by same-sex unmarried couples.
b. LGBTQ unhoused population
While there are limited national data on the number of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ+) individuals experiencing homelessness, available data suggest LGBTQ+ individuals
66 The U.S. Census Pulse Survey, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/11/census-bureau-survey-explores- sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity.html, has a deeper and more varied approach to gender and sexual identities than most other Census products. However, these data are not collected at a geographic level that is useful for San José’s analysis.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-112 ver. May 2023
experience homelessness at higher rates, especially those under the age of 25.67 More than one in ten (12%) survey respondents identified as LGBTQ+ in 2019, down from 35% in 2017. Similar numbers of individuals identified as LGBTQ+ in 2017 and 2019, but the increase in overall homelessness drove down the percentage of individuals experiencing homelessness in 2019. Of those, 47% identified as bisexual, 24% identified as lesbian, and 18% identified as gay.
c. Community engagement
The Housing Department met with LGBTQ+ community members on 3 occasions during AFH preparation. Meetings were held in person on December 18, 2019, and via zoom on January 25th and February 15th of 2022. The most pressing concerns raised in the meetings were lack of affordable housing, detrimental health impacts and safety issues due to lack of housing and limitations of shelter housing for non-gender confirming individuals. Community members also identified the lack of funding for LGBTQ+ targeted services and institutions and pressed for the creation of a full continuum of housing (shelters, transitional housing, and permanent supportive housing) that specifically serve LGBTQ+ people as well as more funding and training for service organizations to provide culturally competent/relevant services.
c. How the community is currently being served
There City has one shelter and several organizations that serve the LGBTQ+ community. New Haven Inn is an inclusive shelter in downtown San José with focused support for individuals who identify as LGBTQ+. LGBTQ+ serving organizations include the Bill Wilson Center, the Billy DeFrank Center, and the LGBTQ Youth Space.
The Santa Clara County Office of LGBTQ Affairs first opened its doors in January of 2016. The office was founded with the intention of providing support to the LGBTQ+ community living in Santa Clara County, as well as acting as a central resource hub on LGBTQ+ affairs. d. Gaps analysis
There is a general shortage of shelter beds in the City, and only one shelter, New Haven Inn, that provides focused support to the LGBTQ+ community. According to the 2021 LGBTQ+ Older Adults in Santa Clara County study from the Santa Clara Office of LGBTQ Affairs, 54.1% of survey respondent and San José residents were not confident they will be able to continue living in their current housing. Per above, community feedback identified substantial gaps in the number of culturally competent service providers and facilities.
9. Domestic Violence Survivors
a. Demographic overview
There is insufficient data at the local level documenting the demographics of domestic violence survivors.
67 City of San José, 2019 Homelessness Census and Survey, Comprehensive Report, https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/38890/636987964835130000
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-113 ver. May 2023
b. Community engagement
The Housing Department held a focus group with women and domestic violence survivors on December 13, 2019. Common barriers to housing for women and domestic violence survivors were lack of shelter beds, lack of affordable housing, and documentation issues to apply for housing if prior documentation was in the name of husband and general lack of support in transitioning to living without partner. c. How the community is currently being served
The City has sponsored 5 affordable housing projects with 128 apartments that house victims of domestic violence and for women with children at high risk of becoming homeless or making the transition from homelessness to self-sufficiency.
d. Gaps analysis
Per feedback from service providers and survivors, demand far exceeds the supply of housing targeting survivors of domestic violence.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-114 ver. May 2023
E. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
1. Summary and findings
There is a continued need for fair housing rights and education and enforcement, especially in the rental market. Despite ongoing efforts, there is still evidence of housing discrimination beyond what becomes official complaints, especially in terms of discrimination of people with disabilities (large numbers of inquiries reported despite a smaller percentage of complaints filed; multiple reports from community members during our community outreach process) and source of income discrimination (multiple reports during community engagement of voucher-holders being turned away from rental opportunities). Working with fair housing providers to provide workshops to educate the public, including landlords, realtors, non-profit agencies, and others about fair housing laws and regulations, continues to be needed
2. Legal findings, lawsuits, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgments related to fair housing
HUD maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status, and retaliation. HCD also provides data for each County and census tracts, when available, through the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources. Data compiled by HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) and provided to the state database shows 13 cases for the County of Santa Clara.68 Of these cases, seven are related to a disability bias, three are related to a racial bias, and three are related to familial status. HUD also tracks inquiries submitted in each jurisdiction. While these are not official cases, there is still value to identify concerns that residents have about possible discrimination. These inquiries may not have been pursued by the resident for any number of reasons. The dataset shows 225 inquiries in San José related to a disability bias. This is the same pattern reported by the claims filed locally with Project Sentinel for the City as discussed below.
The City contracts with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley to coordinate a consortium of fair housing service providers (“consortium”). Through this contract, five programs provide services to support fair housing in San José. These programs include the Asian Law Alliance (ALA), Mental Health Advocacy Project, Project Sentinel (PS), and Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA). These programs help make housing available to all through community education and by enforcing the fair housing laws. Through investigation, direct representation, and individual counseling, the programs provide free legal services to people who have experienced discrimination in acquiring or keeping housing in San José.
The annual report for the consortium details the number of fair housing investigations, legal representations and client brief legal services provided. For FY19-20 there were 40 Fair Housing investigations, 47 legal representations and 75 client brief legal services. For FY20-21 there were 40 Fair Housing investigations, 34 legal representations and 81 client brief legal services. Performance
68 HCD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data and Mapping Resources, “FHEO Cases _ Total _2020_ dataset” is a list of all the Title VIII fair housing cases filed by FHEO from 01/01/2006 - 06/30/2020, accessed April 2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-115 ver. May 2023
measurements report 75% of complainants receiving legal services improve access or availability of housing for their protected category in both FY19-20 and FY20-21.69 Please see Appendix G for additional documentation of review of legal findings, enforcement actions, settlements, or judgments related to fair housing issues and of other AFH required analyses, including compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations.
3. Enforcement and outreach capacity
a. Fair Housing testing, complaints, and investigations The Fair Housing Act authorizes the Department of Justice to pursue suit in instances in which illegal housing discrimination patterns or practices are identified. The Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice created the Fair Housing Testing Program to conduct fair housing testing investigations to help local jurisdictions determine if landlords, property managers, real estate agents, mortgage lenders, and property insurers are granting equal treatment and services to the protected classes under fair housing law. Fair housing testing is a method to evaluate the extent to which a protected class is provided different treatment and/or information in the process of renting or purchasing a home.70 In addition to testing, Project Sentinel conducts investigation through interviews and other methods. With a very low rental vacancy rate, often there is not an opportunity to conduct a fair housing test and Project Sentinel utilizes other investigative tools.
The City contracts with local service provider Project Sentinel to conduct fair housing testing and investigation in local apartment complexes. The testing program, administered through CDBG funds, looks for any evidence of differential treatment among sample local apartment complexes. Following the testing, the service provider submits findings to the local jurisdiction and conducts educational outreach to landlords that showed differential treatment during the test.
Over the past two years (FY18-19 and FY19-20), Project Sentinel conducted 93 fair housing investigations, including 15 cases that involved fair housing testing. Of those 15 cases, six were complaint-based testing cases, meaning the testing was initiated after a San José resident contacted Project Sentinel with an allegation of housing discrimination and requested assistance in proving or disproving the discrimination claim. In review of Project Sentinel’s database reporting for the last four years (FY16-FY17 to FY19-20), 226 complaints were processed. Of these 226 complaints, 118 complaints were based on disability (52 percent).
69 City of San Jose Grants Management San Jose Fair Housing Legal and Educational Services Collaborative CDBG Annual Reports for FY1920 and FY2021.
70 U.S. Department of Justice. “Fair Housing Testing Program.” Webpage tab. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_testing.php DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-116 ver. May 2023
2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 Total
Age 1 1
Arbitrary 1 1 2
Disability 36 34 18 30 118
Familial Status 12 11 9 3 35
Gender Identity 6 1 7
Habitability 3 3
Immigration Status 1 1 2
Marital Status 1 1
National Origin 10 17 1 3 31
Unknown 0
Race 4 4 2 2 12
Sex 6 7 1 14
Total 71 74 40 41 226
Pr otected Category
Different Terms/Conditions 13 10 6 5 34
Eviction 7 1 3 3 14
Hostile Environment 6 8 3 17
Intimidation/Harassment 3 4 3 10
Modification/Accessibility 1 1 1 1 4
Reasonable Accommodation 25 28 14 25 92
Repairs/Maintenance 5 1 6
Refuse to Rent 17 12 6 4 39
Refuse to Sell 1 1
Uknown 2 2 1 5
Sexual Harassment 3 1 4
Total 71 74 40 41 226
Type of Complaint
Table 55: Project Sentinel Fair Housing Complaints
b. Education and outreach
Project Sentinel conducted 53 fair housing educational workshops and trainings, including 19 to housing providers, in addition to participating in community events, trade shows, and distributing fair housing brochures to San José residents and housing providers.
In addition to legal services and representation, the consortium provides ongoing Fair Housing outreach and education services related to Fair Housing on behalf of the City. This work included group trainings on housing discrimination and fair housing rights. From July 2019 to June 2021, collectively the consortium provided 52 educational and outreach events. Performance measures for these events report that 80% of presentation attendees at Fair Housing Presentations are more educated and familiar with the laws governing housing.71 Project Sentinel hosted a Fair Housing Symposium on April 21st and May 7th of 2021. Over 200 people participated in the symposium.
4. Fair Housing issues reported during community and stakeholder engagement In development of the current Assessment of Fair Housing, the City of San José sought the input of individuals throughout the city to identify housing challenges and solicit input on possible solutions. In focus groups, the question was asked “What are some of the biggest obstacles you or your clients have
71 City of San Jose Grants Management San Jose Fair Housing Legal and Educational Services Collaborative CDBG Annual Report for FY1920 and FY2021.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-117 ver. May 2023
had to overcome in trying to get (and maintain) stable housing?” and “What do you think government agencies (city, county, housing authority) should be doing to eliminate/reduce those problems (described in answer to question above)?” The City, where possible, partnered with community-based organizations to reach populations of protected classes. Twenty-one focus groups were held, from December 2019 to March 2022. Prior to COVID-19, meetings were held in person. After, meetings were held online via zoom. Over 278 people took advantage of the in-person and online meeting opportunities. In addition, ten working groups were held to dive deeper into housing issues of 1) access to rental housing and rental housing production, 2) increasing homeownership opportunities for people from protected classes, 3) increasing access to areas of high opportunity and 4) increasing resources in underserved neighborhoods. In total, 191 people attended the working group meetings and weighed in on strategies to address these housing issues. In addition to the meetings, the City has administered three surveys in hopes to better understand the housing issues residents are facing. Within this broad range of community input, the following legal issues related to fair housing were most commonly identified:
• Source of income discrimination (specifically for persons with vouchers), • Disability discrimination (lack of accessible housing, lack of responsiveness for requests for reasonable accommodation).
• Lack of capacity amongst nonprofit and legal organizations to assist all those that are in need of services.
• Differing perspectives and interpretation of reasonable accommodation standards make them difficult to resolve.
In addition, there were recommendations from residents and community stakeholders to extend some form of legal protections for housing for the following classes:
• Undocumented immigrants,
• Persons with criminal records (e.g., recommendations for the City to “Ban the Box”).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-118 ver. May 2023
Appendices
List of Appendices
Appendix A: AFFH Segregation Report: San José
Appendix B: Disaggregated AAPI Data and Analysis
Appendix C: Methodology for Alternative R/ECAP & RCAA Criteria Appendix D: Displacement Analysis
Appendix E: Additional Demographic Data about Persons with Disabilities Appendix F: Additional Fair Housing Enforcement and Education Documentation DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-119 ver. May 2023
Appendix A
AFH Segregation Report: San José
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
1 AFFH SEGREGATION REP ORT: SAN JOSE
UC Merced Urban Policy Lab and ABAG/MTC Staff
Version of Record: March 06, 16:00:17
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
2 0.1 Table of content
0.1 Table of content .................................................................................................... 2
0.2 List of figures ....................................................................................................... 3
0.3 List of tables ........................................................................................................ 3 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................. 4
1.2 Defining Segregation ............................................................................................... 5
1.3 Segregation Patterns in the Bay Area ........................................................................... 5
1.4 Segregation and Land Use ......................................................................................... 6 2 Racial Segregation in City of San Jose .............................................................................. 8
2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation (within City of San Jose) ......................................... 8
2.2 Regional Racial Segregation (between San Jose and other jurisdictions) ................................ 16 3 Income Segregation in City of San Jose ........................................................................... 21
3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation (within San Jose) ................................................ 21
3.2 Regional Income Segregation (between San Jose and other jurisdictions) .............................. 27 4 Appendix 1: Summary of Findings ................................................................................. 31
4.1 Segregation in City of San Jose ................................................................................. 31
4.2 Segregation Between City of San Jose and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region ............... 31 5 Appendix 2: Segregation Data ...................................................................................... 33 6 References .............................................................................................................. 37
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
3 0.2 List of figures
Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of San Jose (2020) ............................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for San Jose Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ........ 11 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for San Jose Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ... 14 Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in San Jose Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ........................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of San Jose and Surrounding Areas (2020) .................................................. 16 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of San Jose Compared to All Bay Area Jurisdictions (2020) ...................... 18 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in San Jose and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020) ............. 19 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of San Jose (2015) ............................................................................ 22 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for San Jose Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for San Jose Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ........................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for San Jose Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of San Jose and Surrounding Areas (2015) ............................................... 28 Figure 13: Income Demographics of San Jose Compared to Other Bay Area Jurisdictions (2015) ................ 29
0.3 List of tables
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Jose .............................................. 10 Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Jose ......................................... 13 Tabl
e 3: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within San Jose ............................................. 15 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, San Jose and the Region ....................................................... 17 Table 5: Regional Racial Segregation Measures .......................................................................... 20 Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Jose .................................... 23 Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Jose ................................ 25 Table 8: Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within San Jose ............................................ 26 Tabl
e 9: Population by Income Group, San Jose and the Region ...................................................... 28 Table 10: Regional Income Segregation Measures ....................................................................... 30 Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in San Jose ....................................................... 33 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in San Jose ...................................................... 34 Table 13: Regional Racial Segregation Measures ......................................................................... 35 Table 14: Regional Income Segregation Measures ....................................................................... 35 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, San Jose and the Region ...................................................... 36 Table 16: Population by Income Group, San Jose and the Region .................................................... 36
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
4 1 INTRODUCTION
The requirement to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing (AFFH) is derived from The Fair Housing Act of 1968, which prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, or sex—and was later amended to include familial status and disability.1 The 2015 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Rule to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing and California Assembly Bill 686 (2018) mandate that each jurisdiction takes meaningful action to address significant disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity. 23 AB
686 requires that jurisdictions incorporate AFFH into their Housing Elements, which includes inclusive community participation, an assessment of fair housing, a site inventory reflective of AFFH, and the development of goals, policies, and programs to meaningfully address local fair housing issues. ABAG and UC Merced have prepared this report to assist Bay Area jurisdictions with the Assessment of Fair Housing section of the Housing Element.
Assessment of Fair Housing Components
The Assessment of Fair Housing includes five components, which are discussed in detail on pages 22-43 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:
A: Summary of fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity B: Integration and segregation patterns, and trends related to people with protected characteristics
C: Racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty D: Disparities in access to opportunity
E: Disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk
1.1 Purpose of this Report
This report describes racial and income segregation in Bay Area jurisdictions. Local jurisdiction staff can use the information in this report to help fulfill a portion of the second component of the Assessment of Fair Housing, which requires analysis of integration and segregation patterns and trends related to people with protected characteristics and lower incomes. Jurisdictions will still need to perform a similar analysis for familial status and populations with disability.
This report provides segregation measures for both the local jurisdiction and the region using several indices. For segregation between neighborhoods within a city (intra-city segregation), this report includes isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Theil’s-H index. The isolation index measures
1 https://www.justice.gov/crt/fair-housing-act-2
2 HCD AFFH Guidance Memo
3 The 2015 HUD rule was reversed in 2020 and partially reinstated in 2021.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5 segregation for a single group, while the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two groups.
The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. HCD’s AFFH guidelines require local jurisdictions to include isolation indices and dissimilarity indices in the Housing Element. Theil’s H index is provided in addition to these required measures. For segregation between cities within the Bay Area (inter-city segregation), this report includes dissimilarity indices at the regional level as required by HCD’s AFFH guidelines. HCD’s AF FH guidelines also require jurisdictions to compare conditions at the local level to the rest of the region; and this report presents the difference in the racial and income composition of a jurisdiction relative to the region as a whole to satisfy the comparison requirement.
1.2 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. 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.
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.
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 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).
1.3 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 DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
6 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.”4 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.
1.4 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). 5 ABAG/MTC plans to
issue a separate report detailing the existing land use policies that influence segregation patterns in the Bay Area.
4 For more information, see https://belonging.berkeley.edu/most-segregated-cities-bay-area-2020. 5 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
7 Definition of Terms - Geographies
Neighborhood: In this report, “neighborhoods” are approximated by tracts.6 Tracts are statistical geographic units defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for the purposes of disseminating data. In the Bay Area, tracts contain on average 4,500 residents. Nearly all Bay Area jurisdictions contain at least two census tracts, with larger jurisdictions containing dozens of tracts.
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.
6 Throughout this report, neighborhood level segregation measures are calculated using census tract data.
However, the racial dot maps in Figure 1 and Figure 5 use data from census blocks, while the income group dot maps in Figure 8 and Figure 12 use data from census block groups. These maps use data derived from a smaller geographic scale to better show spatial differences in where different groups live. Census block groups are subdivisions of census tracts, and census blocks are subdivisions of block groups. In the Bay Area, block groups contain on average 1,500 people, while census blocks contain on average 95 people.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
8 2 RACIAL SEGREGATION I N CITY OF SAN JOSE
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.7 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 race8
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”)9
2.1 Neighborhood Level Racial Segregation ( within City of San Jose) Racial dot maps are useful for visualizing how multiple racial groups are distributed within a specific geography. The racial dot map of San Jose in Figure 1 below offers a visual representation of the spatial distribution of racial groups within the jurisdiction. 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.
7 More information about the Census Bureau’s definitions of racial groups is available here:
https://www.census.gov/topics/population/race/about.html. 8 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. 9 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
9 Figure 1: Racial Dot Map of San Jose (2020)
Universe: Population. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of San Jose and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
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 City of San Jose the most isolated racial group is Asian residents. San Jose’s isolation index of
0.487 for Asian residents means that the average Asian resident lives in a neighborhood that is 48.7% Asian. 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 San Jose for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 can be found in Table 1 below. Among all 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
10 The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides the average isolation index value across Bay Area jurisdictions for different racial groups in 2020. 10 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 0.491, meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a white resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1% white.
Table 1: Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Jose San Jose Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.382 0.443 0.487 0.245
Black/African American 0.042 0.039 0.038 0.053
Latinx 0.454 0.459 0.426 0.251
White 0.522 0.440 0.352 0.491
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 2 below shows how racial isolation index values in San Jose compare to values in other 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 isolation index values among Bay Area jurisdictions.
Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the isolation index value for that group in City of San Jose, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for racial groups in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.
10 This average only includes the 104 jurisdictions that have more than one census tract, which is true for all comparisons of Bay Area jurisdictions’ segregation measures in this report. The segregation measures in this report are calculated by comparing the demographics of a jurisdiction’s census tracts to the jurisdiction’s demographics, and such calculations cannot be made for the five jurisdictions with only one census tract (Brisbane, Calistoga, Portola Valley, Rio Vista, and Yountville).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
11 Figure 2: Racial Isolation Index Values for San Jose 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.
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 one 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).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
12 Dissimilarity Index Guidance for Cities with Small Racial Group Populations 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 4), 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 City of San Jose, the Black/African American group is 2.7 percent of the population - so staff should be aware of this small population size when evaluating dissimilarity index values involving this group.
Table 2 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in San Jose 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 all dissimilarity index values are shown across three time periods (2000, 2010, and 2020).
In San Jose the highest segregation is between Latinx and white residents (see Table 2). San Jose’s Latinx /white dissimilarity index of 0.461 means that 46.1% of Latinx (or white) residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Latinx residents and white residents.
The “Bay Area Average” column in this table provides 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
13 For example, Table 2 indicates that the average Latinx/white dissimilarity index for a Bay Area jurisdiction is 0.207, so on average 20.7% of Latinx (or white residents) in a Bay Area jurisdiction would need to move to a different neighborhood within the jurisdiction to create perfect integration between Latinx and white residents in that jurisdiction.
Table 2: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Jose San Jose Bay Area
Average
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.483 0.497 0.456 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.413* 0.387* 0.373* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.536 0.487 0.461 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.458 0.436 0.400 0.168
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.
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 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
Figure 3 below shows how dissimilarity index values in City of San Jose compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction. For each racial group pairing, the spread of dots represents the range of dissimilarity index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each racial group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in San Jose, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Similar to Figure 2, local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between white residents and communities of color in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region. However, staff should be mindful of whether a racial group in their jurisdiction has a small population (approximately less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population), as the dissimilarity index value is less reliable for small populations.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
14 Figure 3: Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for San Jose 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.
Note: 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. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 4), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.
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 San Jose 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 San Jose 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 San Jose DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
15 was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating that neighborhood level racial segregation in San Jose is more than in the average Bay Area city.
Table 3 : Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation within San Jose San Jose Bay Area
Average
Index 2000 2010 2020 2020
Theil's H Multi-racial 0.169 0.161 0.136 0.042
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 4 below shows how Theil’s H index values for racial segregation in San Jose compare to values in other Bay Area jurisdictions in 2020. In this chart, each dot represents a Bay Area jurisdiction.
Additionally, the black line notes the Theil’s H index value for neighborhood racial segregation in San Jose, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood racial segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.
Figure 4: Theil’s H Index Values for Racial Segregation in San Jose 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
16 2.2 Regional Racial Segregation ( between San Jose 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 5 below presents a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in San Jose as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.
Figure 5: Racial Dot Map of San Jose and Surrounding Areas (2020) Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
Note: The plot shows the racial distribution at the census block level for City of San Jose and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people.
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 San Jose 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, San Jose has a lower share of white residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
17 Table 4: Population by Racial Group, San Jose and the Region San Jose Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 26.6% 32.1% 38.5% 28.2%
Black/African American 3.3% 2.9% 2.7% 5.6%
Latinx 30.2% 33.2% 31.2% 24.4%
Other or Multiple Races 3.9% 3.2% 4.2% 5.9%
White 36.0% 28.7% 23.3% 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 6 below compares the racial demographics in San Jose to those of all 109 Bay Area jurisdictions.11 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 Ar ea jurisdictions.
Additionally, the black line within each racial group notes the percentage of the population of City of San Jose represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among all 109 jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different racial groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.
11 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
18 Figure 6: Racial Demographics of San Jose 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.
The map in Figure 7 below also illustrates regional racial segregation between San Jose and other jurisdictions. This map demonstrates how the percentage of people of color in San Jose 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
19 Figure 7: Comparing the Share of People of Color in San Jose and Vicinity to the Bay Area (2020)
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Census State Redistricting Data (Public Law 94-171) Summary File, 2020 Census of Population and Housing, Table P002.
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.
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 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.12 The regional value for the Theil’s H index measures how
12 For more information on HCD’s recommendations regarding data considerations for analyzing integration and segregation patterns, see page 31 of the AFFH Guidance Memo.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
20 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
21 3 INCOME SEGREGATION I N CITY OF SAN JOSE
Definition of Terms - Income Groups
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.
3.1 Neighborhood Level Income Segregation ( within San Jose) Income segregation can be measured using similar indices as racial segregation. Income dot maps, similar to the racial dot maps shown in Figures 1 and 5, are useful for visualizing segregation between multiple income groups at the same time. The income dot map of San Jose in Figure 8 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
22 Figure 8: Income Dot Map of San Jose (2015)
Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of San Jose and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.
The isolation index values for all income groups in San Jose for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 6 below.13 Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in San Jose. San Jose’s isolation index of 0.465 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate -income resident in San Jose lives in a neighborhood that is 46.5% Above Moderate-income. Among all income groups, the Above Moderate-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming less 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 0.269,
13 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
23 meaning that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction a very low-income resident lives in a neighborhood that is 26.9% very low-income.
Table 6: Income Group Isolation Index Values for Segregation within San Jose San Jose Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.366 0.415 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.137 0.174 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.207 0.203 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.532 0.465 0.507
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 9 below shows how income group isolation index values in San Jose 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 San Jose, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the isolation index for that group. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels for income groups in their jurisdiction compare to the rest of the region.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
24 Figure 9: Income Group Isolation Index Values for San Jose 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 Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Table 7 below provides the dissimilarity index values indicating the level of segregation in San Jose 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. 14 Segregation in San Jose
between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income increased 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 0.198, so on average 19.8% 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.
14 For more information, see page 32 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
25 In 2015, the income segregation in San Jose between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions (See Table 7). This means that the lower- income residents are more segregated from other residents within San Jose compared to other Jurisdictions in the region.
Table 7: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation within San Jose
San Jose Bay Area
Average
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.332 0.352 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.418 0.450 0.253
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 10 below shows how dissimilarity index values for income segregation in San Jose 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 index values among Bay Area jurisdictions. Additionally, the black line within each income group pairing notes the dissimilarity index value in San Jose, and each dashed red line represents the Bay Area average for the dissimilarity index for that pairing. Local staff can use this chart to contextualize how segregation levels between lower-income residents and wealthier residents in their jurisdiction compared to the rest of the region.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
26 Figure 10: Income Group Dissimilarity Index Values for San Jose 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 Moderate- Income Summary Data.
The Theil’s H Index values for neighborhood income group segregation in San Jose 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 San Jose was about the same amount as it had been in 2010. In 2015, the Theil’s H Index value for income group segregation in San Jose was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions, indicating there is more neighborhood level income segregation in San Jose than in the average Bay Area city.
Table 8 : Theil’s H Index Values for Income Segregation within San Jose San Jose Bay Area
Average
Index 2010 2015 2015
Theil's H Multi-income 0.099 0.101 0.043
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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
27 Figure 11 below shows how Theil’s H index values for income group segregation in San Jose 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 San Jose, and the dashed red line represents the average Theil’s H index value across Bay Area jurisdictions.
Local staff can use this chart to compare how neighborhood income group segregation levels in their jurisdiction compare to other jurisdictions in the region.
Figure 11: Income Group Theil’s H Index Values for San Jose 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 Moderate- Income Summary Data.
3.2 Regional Income Segregation ( between San Jose 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 12 below presents an income dot map showing the spatial distribution of income groups in San Jose as well as in nearby Bay Area jurisdictions.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
28 Figure 12: Income Dot Map of San Jose and Surrounding Areas (2015) Universe: Population.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, American Community Survey 5-Year 2011-2015 Low- and Moderate- Income Summary Data.
Note: The plot shows the income group distribution at the census block group level for City of San Jose and vicinity. Dots in each block group are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of individuals.
When looking at income segregation between jurisdictions in the Bay Area, one can examine how San Jose differs from the region. The income demographics in San Jose for the years 2010 and 2015 can be found in Table 9 below. The table also provides the income composition of the nine-county Bay Area in 2015. As of that year, San Jose had a higher share of very low-income residents than the Bay Area as a whole, a similar share of low-income residents, a similar share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents.
Table 9: Population by Income Group, San Jose and the Region San Jose Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 27.93% 33.16% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 10.76% 14.57% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 18.16% 17.9% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 43.16% 34.37% 39.4%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
29 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.
Figure 13 below compares the income demographics in San Jose to other Bay Area jurisdictions. 15 Like the chart in Figure 3, 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 San Jose population represented by that group and how that percentage ranks among other jurisdictions. Local staff can use this chart to compare the representation of different income groups in their jurisdiction to those groups’ representation in other jurisdictions in the region, which can indicate the extent of segregation between this jurisdiction and the region.
Figure 13: Income Demographics of San Jose 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 Moderate- Income Summary Data.
15 While comparisons of segregation measures are made only using the 104 jurisdictions with more than one census tract, this comparison of jurisdiction level demographic data can be made using all 109 jurisdictions.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
30 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 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 betwe en 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
31 4 APPENDIX 1: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
4.1 Segregation in City of San Jose
• The isolation index measures the segregation of a single group, and the dissimilarity index measures segregation between two different groups. The Theil’s H-Index can be used to measure segregation between all racial or income groups across the city at once. • As of 2020, Asian residents are the most segregated compared to other racial groups in San Jose, as measured by the isolation index. Asian residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to come into contact with other racial groups. • Among all racial groups, the white population’s isolation index value has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other racial groups between 2000 and 2020. • According to the dissimilarity index, within San Jose the highest level of racial segregation is between Latinx and white residents.16
• According to the Theil’s H-Index, neighborhood racial segregation in San Jose declined between 2010 and 2020. Neighborhood income segregation stayed about the same between 2010 and 2015.
• Above Moderate-income residents are the most segregated compared to other income groups in San Jose. Above Moderate-income residents live in neighborhoods where they are less likely to encounter residents of other income groups.
• Among all income groups, the Above Moderate-income population’s segregation measure has changed the most over time, becoming less segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
• According to the dissimilarity index, segregation between lower-income residents and residents who are not lower-income has increased between 2010 and 2015. In 2015, the income segregation in San Jose between lower-income residents and other residents was higher than the average value for Bay Area jurisdictions.
4.2 Segregation Between City of San Jose and Other jurisdictions in the Bay Area Region
• San Jose has a lower share of white residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a higher share of Latinx residents, a lower share of Black residents, and a higher share of Asian/Pacific Islander residents.
16 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. ABAG/MTC recommends that when cities have population groups that are less than 5% of the jurisdiction’s population (see Table 15 in Appendix 2), jurisdiction staff could focus on the isolation index or Thiel’s H-Index to gain a more accurate understanding of neighborhood-level racial segregation in their jurisdiction.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
32 • Regarding income groups, San Jose has a higher share of very low-income residents than other jurisdictions in the Bay Area as a whole, a similar share of low-income residents, a similar share of moderate-income residents, and a lower share of above moderate-income residents.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
33 5 APPENDIX 2: SEGREGAT ION DATA
Appendix 2 combines tabular data presented throughout this report into a more condensed format. This data compilation is intended to enable local jurisdiction staff and their consultants to easily reference this data and re-use the data in the Housing Element or other relevant documents/analyses.
Table 11 in this appendix combines data from Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3 in the body of the report.
Table 12 in this appendix combines data from Table 6, Table 7, and Table 8 in the body of the report.
Table 13 represents a duplication of Table 5 in the body of the report; Table 14 represents a duplication of Table 10 in the body of the report; Table 15 in this appendix represents a duplication of Table 4 in the body of the report, while Table 16 represents a duplication of Table 9 in the body of the report.
Table 11: Neighborhood Racial Segregation Levels in San Jose San Jose Bay Area
Average
Index Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Isolation
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.382 0.443 0.487 0.245
Black/African American 0.042 0.039 0.038 0.053
Latinx 0.454 0.459 0.426 0.251
White 0.522 0.440 0.352 0.491
Dissimilarity
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. White 0.483 0.497 0.456 0.185 Black/African American vs. White 0.413* 0.387* 0.373* 0.244 Latinx vs. White 0.536 0.487 0.461 0.207
People of Color vs. White 0.458 0.436 0.400 0.168
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.169 0.161 0.136 0.042
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. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
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 percent of the jurisdiction population, leading to unreliable numbers.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
34 Table 12: Neighborhood Income Segregation Levels in San Jose San Jose Bay Area
Average
Index Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Isolation
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 0.366 0.415 0.269
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.137 0.174 0.145
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.207 0.203 0.183
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 0.532 0.465 0.507
Dissimilarity
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.332 0.352 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.418 0.450 0.253
Theil's H Multi-racial All 0.099 0.101 0.043
Universe: Population.
Source: Income 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
35 Table 13: 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.
Table 14: 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
36 Table 15: Population by Racial Group, San Jose and the Region San Jose Bay Area
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 26.64% 32.09% 38.54% 35.8%
Black/African American 3.3% 2.91% 2.71% 5.6%
Latinx 30.17% 33.16% 31.21% 28.2%
Other or Multiple Races 3.86% 3.16% 4.24% 24.4%
White 36.04% 28.69% 23.3% 5.9%
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. Data for 2000 is standardized to 2010 census tract geographies and is from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Table P004.
Table 16: Population by Income Group, San Jose and the Region San Jose Bay Area
Income Group 2010 2015 2015
Very Low-Income (<50% AMI) 27.93% 33.16% 28.7%
Low-Income (50%-80% AMI) 10.76% 14.57% 14.3%
Moderate-Income (80%-120% AMI) 18.16% 17.9% 17.6%
Above Moderate-Income (>120% AMI) 43.16% 34.37% 39.4%
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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
37 6 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.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-157 ver. May 2023
Appendix B
Disaggregated AAPI Data and Analysis
National disaggregated AAPI data1
By most national housing and economic metrics, the aggregated group of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs) is doing well. The AAPI homeownership rate is higher than other communities of color. Poverty is lower. Rent burden is lower. AAPI median household income is higher than non-Hispanic White median household income. However, as shown in Figures 26 and 27, below, housing and economic data varies widely by AAPI-subgroup, with Asian Indian and Chinese sub-groups (the 2 AAPI largest sub-groups in the U.S., accounting for over 40% of the AAPI population) skewing most metrics to show higher degrees of economic success than would characterize most other sub- groups.
1 This analysis largely drawn from https://prosperitynow.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Policy/CAPACD - PN_AAPI_Fact_File_FINAL_11.10.20.pdf
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-158 ver. May 2023
Figure 1: National disaggregated AAPI economic data
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-159 ver. May 2023
Figure 2: National disaggregated AAPI housing metrics
AAPIs are a diverse collection of communities who have had widely divergent pathways to this country (including populations – like Native Hawaiians – who were indigenous to the U.S. territorial boundaries), DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-160 ver. May 2023
different and varied histories in this country. Per analysis by the Pew Research Center, AAPIs are the most economically divided racial/ethnic group in the U.S.:2
Figure 3: Economic inequality within major racial/ethnic groups Therefore, in order to get a better picture of the economic and housing conditions of AAPIs, aggregate data is inadequate. AAPI Data, to the extent that they are available, should be disaggregated.
2 https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-inequality-in-the-u-s-is-rising-most-rapidly- among-asians/
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-161 ver. May 2023
San José disaggregated AAPI data
a. Overview
Similar to data about national AAPI groups, housing and economic data in San José varies widely by AAPI sub-group. Disaggregating AAPI data reveals a much more nuanced picture of segregation in San José, in which internal segregation within the AAPI community is more profound than between AAPIs and non- Hispanic Whites or even between non-Hispanic Whites and any other racial/ethnic group. For these reasons, City staff has analyzed – to the extent that data is available – disaggregated AAPI data throughout our AFH, breaking the larger category of AAPI into the following sub-groups:
• Chinese (including Taiwanese) and Asian Indians,
• Southeast Asians,
• All other AAPIs.
b. Geography of AAPIs in San José / Demographics of 4 Largest Sub-groups Per Map 34, below, Chinese Americans and Indian Americans tend to be the predominant Asian ethnicities in the western, northern, and southern areas of the City and Vietnamese and Filipino/a/x Americans tend to be the predominant Asian ethnicities in the central and eastern areas of the City.
Map 1: Distribution of AAPI population by ancestry/ethnicity DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-162 ver. May 2023
These patterns of geographic distribution roughly correlate with San José’s broader patterns of segregation by race and income, with Chinese and Indian people being the predominant Asian ethnicity in West and South San José which are richer and whiter and Vietnamese (with some Filipino/a/x tracts) being the predominant Asian ethnicity in Central and East San José which is less white and lower income.
These four AAPI subgroups – Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese, and Filipino/a/x – the four largest subgroups by population in San José, look even more distinct from each other (and from the larger racial category) when looking at their housing and economic statistics. Per Table 48, below, Vietnamese households in San José have a lower median household income, larger average households, and a higher rate of rent burdened households than San José households in the aggregate. Conversely, Indian and Chinese households in San José have higher median household incomes, smaller average households, and a lower rate of rent burdened households than San José households in the aggregate. Filipino/a/x household economic indicators are generally above Vietnamese and below Indian and Chinese.
AAPI Ethnic
Group
San José
Population
Median
Household
Income
Average
Household
Size
% of Renters
who are Rent
Burdened
Home-
ownership
Rate
San José TOTAL 1,021,786 $115,893 3.07 50.8% 55.2%
Asian
Aggregate
385,177 $119,229 3.23 46.4% 63.6%
Vietnamese 124,680 $83,175 3.58 67.4% 61.1%
Chinese 109,184 $168,302 3.28 48.2% 73.3%
Indian 74,856 $229,179 3.12 15.5% 60.2%
Filipino/a/x 71,528 $146,969 3.85 45.5% 59.4%
Figure 4: San José Disaggregated AAPI Economic and Housing Data, 2019 1-year ACS Likewise, looking at population distribution across TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map major categories reveals distinctly different socio-spatial distributions:
TCAC/HCD
Opportunity
Category
% of City’s
Total
Population
in Category
% of City’s
AAPI
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Vietnamese
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Chinese
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Asian
Indian
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Filipino/a/x
Population
in Category
High 33.3% 38.8% 19.1% 56.2% 53.8% 23.5%
Medium 34.7% 28.3% 30.9% 30.0% 35.2% 38.0%
Low 31.9% 33.0% 50.1% 13.8% 11.0% 38.6%
Table 1: Population distribution by Race/Ethnicity by major TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map category These different groups are emblematic of the AAPI sub-categories created by City staff to further analyze patterns of segregation in our city. Vietnamese Americans are the single largest group in the Southeast Asian sub-category. Indian Americans and Chinese Americans (including Taiwanese) are the groups that define the high proportion tech visa sub-category. And, the Filipino/a/x population’s distribution across the TCAC/HCD’s categories more closely approximates the overall category of AAPIs.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-163 ver. May 2023
c. AAPIs who represent a High Proportion of Tech-related Visas As with national AAPI data, Asian Indian and Chinese economic data skews aggregate AAPI data points upward (see Appendix C: Disaggregated AAPI Data and Analysis for more details). That is, Asian Indian and Chinese relative economic success drives aggregate AAPI data around household income, homeownership rate, households that are not rent burdened, etc. 3 These differential statistics are largely due to patterns of immigration and employment related to the tech industry and the sector’s high usage rates of high-skilled foreign immigrants, particularly from China and India. Nationally, including renewals, there are over 600,000 highly educated, professional class visas issued4 each year. At over 400,000 visas annually, the H-1B visa5 is single largest and most well-known of these programs.
Over 75% of H-1B visas are issued to immigrants from India and China:
Table 2: H-1B Visas, 2017-2019
Country of origin statistics are similar across other categories of high-skilled employment visas6.
Annually, tens of thousands highly skilled employment visas are issued for employees at locations in Santa Clara County. While not all of these high-skilled immigrants end up living in San José, these visas represent an annual influx into the region of highly paid (though perhaps not relative to their peers7), highly educated immigrants from China and India. These immigrants tend to settle in west, southwest, and northeast San José, where the school districts are perceived to be better. These immigrants and their children have reshaped the demographics of many formerly predominantly white neighborhoods.
Yet, despite shifts in racial demographics, these neighborhoods remain expensive (and therefore exclusionary) as well as high resource/high opportunity.
Interestingly, while a high proportion of these tech-driven immigrants live in high resource/high opportunity neighborhoods – similar to the population of non-Hispanic Whites – they do not have the same geographic distribution pattern as non-Hispanic Whites. The Dissimilarity Index between non-
3 https://prosperitynow.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Policy/CAPACD-PN_AAPI_Fact_File_FINAL_11.10.20.pdf 4 https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/visa-statistics.html 5 See for e.g., https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/29/h-1b-visa-approvals-by-us-metro-area/ 6 See for e.g., analysis at https://prosperitynow.org/sites/default/files/PDFs/Policy/CAPACD- PN_AAPI_Fact_File_FINAL_11.10.20.pdf showing over 50% of EB Visas issued to immigrants from China and India and https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/18/more-foreign-grads-of-u-s-colleges-are-staying-in-the- country-to-work/ showing over 50% of OPT Visas issued to immigrants from China and India. Together, these 2 visa programs account for approximately 200,000 annual visa issuance s. 7 https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wage-levels/ DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-164 ver. May 2023
Hispanic Whites and the Asian immigrants with a high proportion tech visas is 45.5, suggesting that the groups are segregated from each other. Chinese and Indians tend to cluster in different high resource neighborhoods in the western part of the City close to Cupertino. While non-Hispanic Whites tend to cluster in high resource neighborhoods in the southern part of the City. d. Southeast Asian Americans
From the 1970s, San José has been a magnet city for immigrants and refugees from Southeast Asia.
Outside of Vietnam, San José is the city with the largest population of Vietnamese people8.
In defining the category of Southeast Asian9, City of San José staff included only persons from countries covered by the Indochinese Refugee Act of 1975: Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. From these countries there are probably close to 10 different, distinct ethnic groups admitted as refugees. The U.S. Census tracks 4: Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, and Hmong.
Unlike the majority of Asian immigrants who come to this country with some form of either institutional support (have a visa through some form of employment or through an educational institution) or family sponsorship, post-1975 refugees from Southeast Asia came to the U.S. with nothing and arrived in a country that provided minimal/insufficient support. While these communities have displayed incredible strength and resilience in the face of trauma, racism, and indifference, economic indicators reveal that many Southeast Asian Americans continue to struggle, even generations after coming to this country.
In San José, as shown above for the Vietnamese community, the majority of Southeast Asian American communities live in TCAC/HCD Low Resource census tracts.
TCAC/HCD
Opportunity
Category
% of City’s
Total
Population
in Category
% of City’s
AAPI
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Vietnamese
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Cambodian
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Hmong
Population
in Category
% of City’s
Laotian
Population
in Category
High 33.3% 38.8% 19.1% 10.7% 11.9% 18.0%
Medium 34.7% 28.3% 30.9% 29.8% 35.2% 30.2%
Low 31.9% 33.0% 50.1% 59.5% 52.9% 51.8%
Table 3: Population distribution by Southeast Asian groups by major TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map category e. All other AAPIs
Not including the AAPI subgroups in the high proportion tech visa category (Asian Indians and Chinese (including Taiwanese)) and the Southeast Asian category (Cambodians, Hmong, Lao, and Vietnamese),
8 The Los Angeles region – Orange County, in particular – has a larger population of Vietnamese Americans than San José and the greater Bay Area. However, no single city in the LA MSA has a larger population of Vietnamese Americans than San José.
9 For more background on Southeast Asian communities https://www.searac.org/ is a good place to start. For an academic piece with good background on the history of SE Asian refugees and definition of terms, please see A Historical Analysis of Southeast Asian Refugee Communities: Post-war Acculturation and Education in the U.S., by Stacy Kula and Susan Paik
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-165 ver. May 2023
there are 15 other AAPI subgroups that the Census records as having at least 300 people (listed in rough order from largest to smallest):
• Filipino/a/x,
• Korean,
• Japanese,
• Pakistani,
• Samoan,
• Thai,
• Micronesian,
• Indonesian,
• Guamanian/Chamorro,
• Native Hawaiian,
• Bangladeshi,
• Indonesian,
• Nepalese,
• Burmese,
• Malaysian.
Aggregating these diverse subgroups (some of whom have large, established populations that have been in this country for over a century; some of whom are small populations made exclusively of recent immigrants/refugees) into a catchall category is not entirely sensical (though no less nonsensical than the original, overarching AAPI racial category). However, per the dissimilarity analysis summarized below, while the Southeast Asian and high proportion tech visa Asian groups are geographically dissimilar, the grouping of All Other AAPIs has a low segregation score between both Southeast Asians and High Proportion Tech Visa Asians – indicating that patterns of geographic distribution are similar to both other populations and that the aggregated category of “All Other AAPIs” is effectively a geographic and demographic bridge between the two more geographically and economically dissimilar AAPI sub- populations.
Item / Comparison Southeast Asian vs.
Asian Indian and
Chinese
Southeast Asian vs. All
Other AAPIs
Asian Indian and
Chinese vs. All Other
AAPIs
Dissimilarity Index
Value
0.53 0.36 0.33
Characterization of
Dissimilarity
Moderate Segregation
/ Borderline High
Segregation
Low Segregation Low Segregation
Table 4: Disaggregated AAPI Categories Similarity/Dissimilarity Notably, the degree of segregation between Southeast Asians and high proportion tech visa Asians (i.e., Asian Indians and Chinese) is higher than between AAPIs and non-Hispanic Whites.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-166 ver. May 2023
Likewise, looking at Other AAPIs’ distribution across the City by TCAC/HCD Opportunity map categories, All Other AAPIs’ spatial distribution is between the two poles represented by the Southeast Asians on one pole and high proportion tech visa Asians on the other, with all other AAPIs existing in a middle ground.
TCAC/HCD
Opportunity
Category
% of City’s
Total
Population in
Category
% of City’s
AAPI
Population in
Category
% of City’s
Asian Indian
and Chinese
Population in
Category
% of City’s SE
Asian
Population in
Category
% of City’s All
Other AAPI
Population in
Category
High 33.3% 38.8% 55.1% 18.8% 34.2%
Medium 34.7% 28.3% 32.5% 30.8% 36.6%
Low 31.9% 33.0% 12.4% 50.4% 29.1%
Table 5: Disaggregated AAPI Categories population distribution by Race/Ethnicity by major TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map category
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-167 ver. May 2023
Appendix C
Rationale and Methodology for Alternative R/ECAP and RCAA Criteria
This appendix provides further detail and explanation on City of San José staff’s methodology for creating alternative criteria for more locally applicable definitions of Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (RECAPs) and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA).
HUD R/ECAPs
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) identifies 11 census tracts as R/ECAPs in San José10:
1. 5009.02
2. 5013.00
3. 5016.00
4. 5031.05
5. 5031.10
6. 5031.13
7. 5031.17
8. 5032.14
9. 5036.04
10. 5037.09
11. 5037.10
HUD’s definition of R/ECAP’s definition of R/ECAPs has two fundamental problems:
1. Old Data: HUD uses 2013 5-year ACS data to define R/ECAPs11. This data a decade old. In a hot, dynamic market like the Bay Area, even data that is a few years old is stale. For example, from 2010 to 2020, median gross rent in San José rose from $1,585 to $2,232, an increase of 41% (compared to an increase of 18% for the national median gross rent). These rapidly rising housing costs have been driving displacement and demographic change, especially in lower- income neighborhoods.
2. National Poverty Data: California has both a substantially higher cost of living (especially housing costs) and a higher minimum wage than the rest of the country. This means both that lower wage workers in California have higher incomes than their counterparts across the country and that their relatively higher income does not translate into a substantially higher quality of life. That is, there are people in California who have incomes higher than the federal poverty line but who have effectively the same economic standing as people in poverty in lower cost regions. Therefore, economic need in California should be determined at higher incomes than the national poverty threshold.
10 Per https://egis.hud.gov/affht/
11 https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-168 ver. May 2023
Updated R/ECAPs Using HUD’s Definition
HUD defines R/ECAPs as census tracts where:
1. Non-Hispanic Whites represent less than 50% of the tract population AND
2. The tract has high poverty as defined by one of the following, whichever is lower:
• The tract Poverty Rate is over 40% -OR-
• The tract Poverty Rate is greater than 3 times the regional/MSA poverty rate.12 Using the above criteria but with 2019 5-year ACS data (instead of 2010 data as used by HUD in their published list of R/ECAPs), there are 7 R/ECAP census tracts in San José (green highlighted tracts are also on the published HUD list as described above):
1. 5009.01
2. 5009.02
3. 5010.00
4. 5013.00
5. 5016.00
6. 5037.09
7. 5057.00
However, simply updating the data doesn’t solve for the problem of using national poverty data, as described above.
California Poverty Rate R/ECAPs
Because of California’s higher cost of living relative to the nation, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) has defined a higher income threshold for determining poverty in California. Based on PPIC’s analysis of 2019 data, a family of four making less than $35,600 is beneath the PPIC calculation of California’s poverty line.13 Using this income threshold, there are 8 R/ECAP census tracts in San José (purple highlighted tracts are also on the published HUD list as describe above) that are less than 50% non-Hispanic white and have over 40% of households making less than $35,000 (purple highlighted tracts are also on the published HUD list as described above):
1. 5009.02
2. 5010.00
3. 5031.05
4. 5031.22
5. 5031.23
6. 5037.09
7. 5037.10
8. 5037.12
12 Per 2019 5-year ACS data, the Santa Clara County poverty rate was 7.5%. Three times this rate is 22.5%.
Therefore 22.5% was used as the benchmark poverty rate for the updated R/ECAP analysis. 13 https://www.ppic.org/publication/poverty-in-california/ DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-169 ver. May 2023
Combined List of R/ECAP Tracts
Because City of San José staff intends that our AFH analysis comply with HUD guidelines AND because we want our data to be more current AND because we want our analysis to be relevant to the economic context of the state and the region, we are using the HUD published list of tracts as well as the updated list of tracts (HUD definition with 2019 5-year ACS) and the tracts based upon the estimated PPIC California Poverty Rate. The table below summarizes all the qualifying factors for each of the 17 census tracts on the City of San José combined list of R/ECAPs (highlighted cells indicate the qualifying economic metric):
Tract Qualifies
under which
R/ECAP
definition
2013 Poverty
Rate
2019 Poverty
Rate
% of
Households
with annual
income less
than $35,000
% Non-
Hispanic
White
5009.01 Updated-HUD 30.8% 26.1% 26.2% 31.3%
5009.02 HUD,
Updated-HUD,
CA Poverty
49.5% 43.6% 40.1% 23.0%
5010.00 Updated-HUD,
CA Poverty
22.9% 28.8% 43.3% 22.9%
5013.00 HUD,
Updated-HUD
31.7% 29.5% 24.2% 20.5%
5016.00 HUD,
Updated-HUD
35.9% 24.0% 27.1% 49.0%
5031.05 HUD, CA
Poverty
33.9% 18.1% 43.2% 31.0%
5031.10 HUD 34.1% 18.6% 19.7% 3.4%
5031.13 HUD 32.2% 17.2% 23.8% 10.5%
5031.17 HUD 31.8% 13.4% 29.4% 2.0%
5031.22 CA Poverty 19.1% 22.1% 59.3% 5.0%
5031.23 CA Poverty 20.4% 15.5% 41.9% 26.3%
5032.14 HUD 32.3% 16.6% 35.4% 38.7%
5034.02 HUD 29.3% 15.2% 24.1% 3.2%
5036.01 HUD 32.3% 15.2% 21.0%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-170 ver. May 2023
5037.09 HUD,
Updated-HUD,
CA Poverty
35.8% 38.1% 52.4% 3.4%
5037.10 HUD, CA
Poverty
31.1% 15.9% 45.4% 4.6%
5037.12 CA Poverty 17.3% 16.3% 41.8% 2.7%
5057.00 Updated-HUD 20.6% 25.1% 14.9% 35.6%
The table below summarizes that all the combined R/ECAP tracts are in low opportunity TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas; are experiencing displacement, at risk of displacement or have a high student population; and, are in school districts with high rates of students of free lunch or reduced lunch.
Tract Simplified
TCAC/HCD
Opportunity
Category
UDP
Simplified
Category
School
District(s)
2019
Median
household
income
2019 Gross
Median
Rent
2019
Median
Home
Value
5009.01 Low Displacement SJUSD $90,822 $1,901 $721,200 5009.02 Low High Student SJUSD $45,000 $1,636 $1,150,000 5010.00 Low Displacement SJUSD $40,453 $1,452 $833,900 5013.00 Low High Student SJUSD $116,250 $1,750 $992,800 5016.00 Low High Student SJUSD $62,932 $1,897 $786,600 5031.05 Low Displacement Franklin-
Mckinley;
ESUHSD
$44,545 $686 $666,300
5031.10 Low Displacement Franklin-
Mckinley;
ESUHSD
$49,844 $1,611 NA
5031.13 Low Displacement SJUSD $76,528 $1,865 $610,500 5031.17 Low Displacement Franklin-
Mckinley;
ESUHSD $57,857 $1,626 $567,900
5031.22 Low Displacement Franklin-
Mckinley;
ESUHSD
$26,019 $737 NA
5031.23 Low Displacement SJUSD $47,636 $1,619 NA
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-171 ver. May 2023
5032.14 Low Displacement Franklin-
Mckinley;
ESUHSD
$60,136 $1,173 NA
5034.02 Low Displacement Alum Rock;
ESUHSD
$51,100 $1,522 $606,500
5036.01 Low Displacement SJUSD $51,050 $1,474 $651,100
5037.09 Low Displacement Alum Rock;
ESUHSD
$30,724 $810 $744,600
5037.10 Low Displacement Alum Rock;
ESUHSD
$44,688 $972 $657,700
5037.12 Low Displacement Alum Rock;
ESUHSD
$44,911 $1,455 $440,600
5057.0014 Moderate Moderate Santa Clara
Unified
School
District
$88,333 $1,876 $1,071,400
RCAAs
Per HCD’s guidance on Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs),15 City of San José staff have developed a locally specific definition of RCAAs. The HCD’s RCAA criteria has two components: income and proportion of non-Hispanic Whites. The cited national criteria for a RCAA was a tract where the median annual income $112,852 (i.e., 150% of a state median income of $75,235) and where the tract was over 49.125% non-Hispanic White (i.e., 125% of the jurisdiction-wide proportion of non-Hispanic White of 39.3%). In San José, there were 23 Census Tracts that met these criteria. However, as discussed in Appendix B above, in Silicon Valley, because of the prevalence of tech professionals in the region, immigrants from India and China (who are the primary beneficiaries of a set of immigration policies which privilege high skilled, highly educated tech workers) have residential distribution patterns that are more similar to non-Hispanic Whites than to other communities of color. 16
14 NOTE: Tract 5057 was removed as a R/ECAP area because the 2019 poverty rate is not reflected by the number of households making under $35,000, calling into question whether the 2019 poverty rate is a reliable number.
Further, the does not display other characteristics associated with R/ECAP areas in San José (i.e., is not a low opportunity area, is not at risk of displacement, and is not in a school district with a high percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch.
15 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf, p.33 16 Per Appendix B, above, in the Silicon Valley, immigrants who are the greatest pro portion of beneficiaries of high skill, high tech visas – i.e., immigrants from India and China – are affluent and tend to live in the area’s more exclusionary areas. For example, 55.1% of all persons of Indian and Chinese descent in San Jos é live in census tracts that are high or highest opportunity per TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map analysis. By comparison, 48.2% of non - Hispanic Whites live in high or highest opportunity census tracts – the highest proportion of any racial/ethnic
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-172 ver. May 2023
Therefore, for a City of San José specific RCAA definition, using the same median annual income threshold, the San José specific RCAA racial composition threshold is 67.25% of the population of the tract at non-Hispanic White or Asian Indian or Chinese (i.e., 125% of the jurisdiction-wide combined proportion of non-Hispanic Whites plus Asian Indians plus Chinese of 53.8%).
With these revised criteria, there are 46 total RCAA tracts in the City, per the following qualifying criteria:
Tract
[1] = HCD RCAA only
[2] = CSJ RCAA only
[3] = Both RCAAs
% Non-Hispanic
White
% Asian Indian +
Chinese
Combined % non-
Hispanic White +
Asian Indian +
Chinese
2019 Median
Income
5005.00 [1] 57.0% 4.5% 61.5% $133,162
5023.01 [3] 66.4% 3.3% 69.7% $162,235
5024.00 [3] 66.3% 5.7% 72.0% $128,889
5025.00 [3] 65.0% 7.1% 72.1% $179,205
5026.03 [2] 63.1% 7.5% 70.6% $151,696
5027.02 [3] 53.9% 14.8% 68.7% $162,933
5028.00 [1] 53.4% 7.4% 60.8% $144,870
5029.01 [3] 55.8% 13.4% 69.2% $122,614
5029.02 [3] 59.9% 11.0% 70.9% $162,045
5029.03 [3] 61.8% 6.9% 68.7% $150,139
5029.07 [3] 61.1% 6.4% 67.5% $146,389
5029.08 [1] 52.5% 7.6% 60.1% $136,563
5030.01 [3] 66.7% 9.1% 75.8% $188,674
5030.02 [3] 61.7% 8.9% 70.6% $146,600
5030.03 [3] 60.0% 7.8% 67.8% $139,500
5033.30 [2] 9.7% 62.5% 72.2% $210,313
5033.34 [2] 20.3% 47.9% 68.2% $250,000+
5050.06 [2] 24.2% 56.3% 80.5% $166,174
group if AAPIs are not disaggregated. But when disaggregated, Asian Indian and Chinese Americans are more concentrated in high opportunity neighborhoods than non-Hispanic Whites.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-173 ver. May 2023
5050.08 [2] 23.0% 44.8% 67.8% $142,540
5058.00 [1] 51.5% 6.0% 57.5% $135,662
5059.00 [2] 48.6% 20.1% 68.7% $113,398
5062.02 [2] 39.7% 31.7% 71.4% $156,169
5063.02 [1] 48.3% 19.9% 68.2% $138,750
5066.03 [1] 52.4% 13.9% 66.3% $173,000
5066.04 [2] 48.3% 23.8% 72.1% $156,711
5068.02 [3] 58.8% 14.0% 72.8% $152,045
5068.03 [3] 52.2% 19.7% 71.9% $158,750
5068.04 [2] 64.1% 16.3% 80.4% $161,806
5069.00 [2] 65.9% 11.9% 77.8% $193,667
5074.02 [2] 60.6% 18.9% 79.5% $172,639
5078.07 [2] 15.2% 71.8% 87.0% $192,979
5078.08 [2] 19.6% 67.0% 86.6% $218,229
5079.03 [2] 20.2% 65.7% 85.9% $192,813
5079.04 [2] 26.7% 61.7% 88.4% $206,607
5079.05 [2] 19.3% 57.8% 77.1% $149,514
5079.06 [2] 21.2% 64.7% 85.9% $211,250
5119.05 [2] 45.9% 33.3% 79.2% $209,167
5119.07 [2] 38.6% 28.6% 67.2% $185,795
5119.09 [2] 43.0% 35.1% 78.1% $221,538
5119.10 [3] 60.8% 17.2% 78.0% $233,125
5119.11 [3] 54.3% 16.4% 70.7% $133,219
5119.12 [2] 34.5% 33.4% 67.9% $234,861
5119.13 [3] 61.3% 16.7% 78.0% $184,821
5119.14 [3] 57.8% 16.4% 74.2% $200,673
5120.45 [1] 53.1% 11.4% 64.5% $131,900
5122.00 [2] 66.9% 2.9% 69.8% $139,479
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-174 ver. May 2023
Tract Simplified
TCAC/HCD
Opportunity
Category
UDP
Simplified
Category
School
District(s)
2019 Gross
Median Rent
2019 Median
Home Value
5005.00 [1] Moderate Exclusive SJUSD $1,603 $1,088,700 5023.01 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD;
Campbell
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,077 $1,429,200
5024.00 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $2,023 $1,129,700
5025.00 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $1,787 $1,246,800
5026.03 [2] High Exclusive Cambrian;
Campbell
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,441 $1,205,900
5027.02 [3] High Moderate Campbell
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,473 $1,057,400
5028.00 [1] High Exclusive Cambrian;
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,826 $1,146,200
5029.01 [3] High Moderate Cambrian;
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$1,912 $989,700
5029.02 [3] High Moderate Cambrian;
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$3,500+ $1,149,200
5029.03 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,045 $1,155,000
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-175 ver. May 2023
5029.07 [3] High Moderate Union; SJUSD $3,004 $953,200 5029.08 [1] High Moderate Cambrian;
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,158 $996,600
5030.01 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $2,898 $1,157,800
5030.02 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $1,931 $1,063,400
5030.03 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,024 $979,700
5033.30 [2] High Exclusive Evergreen $2,827 $1,279,400 5033.34 [2] High Exclusive Evergreen $3,500+ $1,660,000 5050.06 [2] Moderate Exclusive Santa Clara;
Orchard
$2,925 $822,100
5050.08 [2] High Unavailable or
Unreliable
Data
Santa Clara $2,958 NA
5058.00 [1] High Moderate SJUSD $2,336 $1,008,900
5059.00 [2] High Moderate Santa Clara $2,068 $1,120,500 5062.02 [2] High Exclusive Moreland;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,296 $1,392,100
5063.02 [1] Moderate Exclusive Campbell
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,254 $1,062,800
5066.03 [1] High Moderate Moreland;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,569 $1,130,000
5066.04 [2] High Exclusive Campbell
Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$1,850 $1,257,900
5068.02 [3] High Exclusive Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,565 $1,173,300
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-176 ver. May 2023
5068.03 [3] High Moderate Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,336 $1,170,300
5068.04 [2] High Exclusive Union;
Campbell
UHSD
$3,500+ $1,277,000
5069.00 [2] High Exclusive Los Gatos;
Campbell
UHSD
$2,378 $1,633,000
5074.02 [2] High Exclusive Moreland;
Saratoga;
Campbell
UHSD
$3,351 $1,784,900
5078.07 [2] High Exclusive Cupertino;
Fremont UHSD
$3,117 $1,687,000
5078.08 [2] High Exclusive Cupertino;
Fremont UHSD
$3,321 $1,774,800
5079.03 [2] High Exclusive Cupertino;
Fremont UHSD
$3,500+ $1,667,600
5079.04 [2] High Exclusive Cupertino;
Fremont UHSD
$3,268 $1,692,400
5079.05 [2] High Moderate Cupertino;
Fremont UHSD
$2,183 $1,501,900
5079.06 [2] High Exclusive Cupertino;
Fremont UHSD
$3,500+ $1,669,200
5119.05 [2] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,375 $1,379,000
5119.07 [2] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,500+ $1,176,000
5119.09 [2] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,282 $1,509,800
5119.10 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,500+ $1,549,700
5119.11 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $1,677 $1,358,000
5119.12 [2] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,500+ $1,394,600
5119.13 [3] High Exclusive Union; SJUSD;
Campbell
UHSD
NA $1,272,700
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-177 ver. May 2023
5119.14 [3] High Exclusive SJUSD $3,500+ $1,210,700
5120.45 [1] High Exclusive Oak Grove;
ESUHSD
$3,004 $874,100
5122.00 [2] High Exclusive Morgan Hill,
SJUSD
$2,309 $984,400
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-178 ver. May 2023
Appendix D
Displacement Analysis
The UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project has done 2 major analyses about gentrification and displacement in the SF Bay Area. The first was released in 2017 (using 2015 5-year ACS data, so will be referred to as the 2015 map or dataset) and the second was released in 2021 (using 2019 5-year ACS data, the 2019 map or dataset). Every census tract in the Bay Area (including San José) was analyzed for displacement / displacement risk based upon such data as rent, home values, rent burden, change in rent and home values, income of residents, etc. In our comparison of the 2015 UDP analysis of City of San José census tracts to the 2019 UDP analysis, City staff makes the following findings:
1. San José is becoming more Exclusive/Exclusionary: In 2015, there were 39 census tracts designated as Exclusive / At Risk of Becoming Exclusive. In 2019, this number increased to 90 census tracts, or 42% of the entire City.
2. San José neighborhoods designated as Stable are rapidly changing: In 2015, there were 96 census tracts designated as Stable moderate / Mixed-income. Almost half of these “Stable” tracts (i.e., 48%) became Exclusive / At Risk of Becoming Exclusive by 2019.
3. Lower-income neighborhoods are experiencing high rates of displacement: Per the 2015 data, there were 74 census tracts were designated as Displacement / At Risk of Displacement tracts.
Despite expansion of the definition of the category to include all lower-income census tracts, the number of these tracts was reduced by half.
The bottom line is that displacement is occurring at a rapid pace in our City and the character and composition of our City community is changing. There is a shrinking window of opportunity to prevent the disruption of lower-income people’s lives due to such displacement. Because low-income people (especially renters) in San José are disproportionately people of color, this is a fair housing and racial justice issue and needs to be addressed with urgency.
Overall Change in UDP Typologies
Rapidly rising rents (see Section immediately following) are driving shifts in the types of neighborhoods in the City. In the approximate past 5 years, per the table below, neighborhoods in the City have shifted dramatically towards becoming higher income and more exclusive, with fewer neighborhoods Category Exclusive / At
risk of
becoming
exclusionary
Stable
Moderate /
Mixed-income
Displacement /
At risk of
displacement
Student / NA
Recent (2019 5-yr ACS) 90 85 37 6
Previous (2015 5-yr ACS) 39 96 74 9
Change +51 -11 -37 -3
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-179 ver. May 2023
# of People living in these
Tracts (2019)*
474,278 443,574 187,653 31,328
% of City Population 42% 39% 17% 3%
* = some Census tracts include unincorporated areas or cross city boundaries so total population of census tracts in San José exceeds the total City population Rising Rents
Citywide, according to the 5-year ACS, median gross rent rose by 33%, from $1,585 in 2015 to $2,107 in 2019. Per the chart below, at a 5-year percentage increase of 35%, rents rose the fastest in census tracts designated as “Displacement / At risk of displacement” by the UPD per 2015 data.
Decreasing numbers of lower-income households
The number of households in San José earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 17%, with the largest numeric decreases in non-Hispanic White households (a decrease of over 12,000 households) and Latino/a/x households (a decrease of almost 11,000 households).
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 148,831 46,090 1,322 7,269 43,404 48,375
2015 179,407 58,579 1,541 7,886 50,137 59,026
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
$2,000
$2,200
$2,400
$2,600
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by UDP 2015 Typology
Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion Stable Moderate / Mixed-income Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-180 ver. May 2023
# HHs
change (30,576) (12,489) (219) (617) (6,733) (10,651)
% HHs
change -17% -21% -14% -8% -13% -18%
Please not that the decrease in numbers of households making less than $100,000 per year does not signify that all of these households have been displaced from the City. Many of these households likely still live in the City but with an increased annual household income (i.e., a household that was making less than $100,000 in 2015 made more than $100,000 in 2019). It is, however, a potential indicator of displacement and where the changes are the greatest flag potential places and communities where displacement is likely happening.
Shifting demographics
This loss of lower-income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the City saw an 2% decrease in non-Hispanic White population, a 1% decrease in Latino/a/x population, and a 9% increase in AAPI population – all while the total population of the City increased by 3%.
Displacement and neighborhood change by City of San José Council District, 2015 to 2019
District One
From 2015 to 2019, D1 became more exclusive.
26% 27%
1% 1%3% 3%
36% 34%
32% 33%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
Citywide Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-181 ver. May 2023
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 11 11 2 0
2015 9 10 5 0
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +2 +1 -3 0
Median rent in the district rose from $1,688 in 2015 to $2,214 in 2019, an increase of 31%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Displacement/At risk of displacement” rose the fastest, at 38% over the 5-year period.
The number of households in D1 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by over 11%, with the largest numeric decrease in non-Hispanic White households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 18,850 8,291 79 1,308 5,029 3,672
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by 2015 UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-182 ver. May 2023
2015 23,882 10,829 90 1,081 6,762 4,713
# HHs
change (5,032) (2,538) (11) 227 (1,733) (1,041)
% HHs
change -21% -23% -12% 21% -26% -22%
This loss of lower-income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the District saw an 8% decrease in non-Hispanic White population, a 13% decrease in Latino/a/x population, and a 2% increase in AAPI population.
District Two
From 2015 to 2019, D2 became more exclusive.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 9 11 1 0
2015 5 14 2 0
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +4 -3 -1 0
33% 35%
0% 0%3% 2%
44% 42%
16% 17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-183 ver. May 2023
Median rent in the district rose from $1,835 in 2015 to $2,366 in 2019, an increase of 29%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Stable Moderate / Mixed-income” rose the fastest, at 32% over the 5-year period.
The number of households in D2 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 16%, with the largest numeric decrease in non-Hispanic White households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 13,778 5,164 147 477 3,151 4,633
2015 16,415 6,270 71 943 3,684 5,179
# HHs
change (2,637) (1,106) 76 (466) (533) (546)
% HHs
change -16% -18% 107% -49% -14% -11%
Despite the decrease in the number of lower-income households, the overall racial/ethnic demographic mix of the neighborhood stayed relatively constant with small increases in the AAPI and Latino/a/x populations – 7% and 5% increases respectively – that were slightly higher than the overall District population increase of 4%.
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by 2015 UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-184 ver. May 2023
District Three
From 2015 to 2019, D3 experienced a high level of displacement with a number of low-income neighborhoods at risk of displacement transitioning to moderate income or student neighborhoods.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 1 7 12 3
2015 0 1 21 1
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +1 +6 -9 +2
Median rent in the district rose from $1,303 in 2015 to $1,810 in 2019, an increase of 39%. Rents in tracts that were classified in 2015 as “Stable Moderate / Mixed-income” rose the fastest, at 41% over the 5-year period (though this only was 1 tract).
30% 31%
1% 0%3% 4%
27% 26%
35% 35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-185 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D3 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 11%, with the largest numeric decrease in Latino/a/x households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 22,163 4,849 243 1,269 5,749 9,732
2015 25,029 5,725 326 1,182 5,901 11,813
# HHs
change (2,866) (876) (83) 87 (152) (2,081)
% HHs
change -11% -15% -25% 7% -3% -18%
This loss of lower income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the District saw an 3% decrease in Latino/a/x population, despite a 4% overall increase in the District’s total population.
The district transitioned from being a majority Latino/a/x district to having a plurality. $1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by 2015 UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-186 ver. May 2023
District Four
From 2015 to 2019, D4 experienced a high level of displacement with all low-income neighborhoods at risk of displacement transitioning to moderate income or student neighborhoods.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 8 11 0 2
2015 4 11 5 1
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +4 0 -5 +1
Median rent in the district rose from $2,086 in 2015 to $2,666 in 2019, an increase of 28%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Displacement / At risk of displacement” rose the fastest, at 47% over the 5-year period.
21% 21%
1% 1%4% 4%
24% 22%
48% 51%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-187 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D4 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 14%, with the largest numeric decrease in AAPI households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 14,049 2,755 30 819 7,963 2,231
2015 16,375 3,305 41 667 9,029 3,069
# HHs
change (2,326) (550) (11) 152 (1,066) (838)
% HHs
change -14% -17% -27% 23% -12% -27%
Despite the decrease in numbers of low-income households, the District saw a 10% increase in population, led by a 13% increase in the AAPI population. The District’s Latino/a/x population dropped by 1%.
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by 2015 UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-188 ver. May 2023
District Five
From 2015 to 2019, D5 experienced a high level of displacement with the majority of all low-income neighborhoods at risk of displacement transitioning to moderate income or at risk of exclusion neighborhoods.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 10 7 6 0
2015 1 5 17 0
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +9 +2 -11 0
Median rent in the district rose from $1,427 in 2015 to $1,865 in 2019, an increase of 31%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Exclusive / At risk of exclusion” rose the fastest, at 46% over the 5-year period (though this only was 1 tract).
15% 15%
0% 0%3% 3%
65% 63%
15% 17%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-189 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D5 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 14%, with the largest numeric decrease in Latino/a/x households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 16,681 2,084 216 615 4,983 8,801
2015 21,269 2,869 186 865 6,059 11,310
# HHs
change (4,588) (785) 30 (250) (1,076) (2,509)
% HHs
change -22% -27% 16% -29% -18% -22%
Despite the decrease in the number of lower-income households, the overall racial/ethnic demographic mix of the neighborhood stayed relatively constant, with a small increase (3%) in the Latino/a/x populations.
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by 2015 UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-190 ver. May 2023
District Six
From 2015 to 2019, D6 experienced a high level of displacement with the majority of all low-income neighborhoods at risk of displacement transitioning to moderate income or at risk of exclusion neighborhoods.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 9 9 4 1
2015 7 5 10 1
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +2 +4 -6 0
Median rent in the district rose from $1,518 in 2015 to $2,001 in 2019, an increase of 32%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Displacement / At risk of displacement” rose the fastest, at 38% over the 5-year period.
9% 10%1% 1%2% 2%
27% 27%
60% 60%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-191 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D6 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 14%, with the largest numeric decrease in non-Hispanic White households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 22,557 10,178 300 1,246 3,237 6,946
2015 26,374 12,544 239 1,277 3,343 8,408
# HHs
change (3,817) (2,366) 61 (31) (106) (1,462)
% HHs
change -14% -19% 26% -2% -3% -17%
This loss of lower-income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the District saw an 3% decrease in non-Hispanic White population, a 6% decrease in Latino/a/x population, and an 18% increase in AAPI population.
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by 2015 UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-192 ver. May 2023
District Seven
From 2015 to 2019, 6 census tracts classified as stable low-income (and thus included in the “Stable Moderate / Mixed-income” category) were reclassified as “Low-income/Susceptible to displacement” (and thus included in the “Displacement / At risk of displacement” category). Including these reclassifications, the majority of tracts in D7 are experiencing displacement or at risk of displacement.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 5 4 12 0
2015 1 13 5 2
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +4 -9 +7 -2
Median rent in the district rose from $1,378 in 2015 to $1,629 in 2019, an increase of 18%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Displacement / At risk of displacement” rose the fastest, at 23% over the 5-year period.
44% 47%
1% 1%4% 3%
18% 15%
28% 31%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-193 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D7 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 12%, with the largest numeric decrease in Latino/a/x households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 18,354 2,043 142 453 7,499 8,058
2015 20,764 2,436 283 712 8,204 8,937
# HHs
change (2,410) (393) (141) (259) (705) (879)
% HHs
change -12% -16% -50% -36% -9% -10%
This loss of lower-income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the District saw an a 6% decrease in Latino/a/x population, a 44% decrease in Black population and an 5% increase in AAPI population.
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by 2015 UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-194 ver. May 2023
District Eight
From 2015 to 2019, D8 became more exclusive.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 12 9 0 0
2015 3 15 2 1
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +9 -6 -2 -1
Median rent in the district rose from $2,090 in 2015 to $2,510 in 2019, an increase of 20%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Stable Moderate / Mixed-income” rose the fastest, at 21% over the 5-year period.
8% 7%1% 1%2% 3%
43% 41%
45% 47%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-195 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D8 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 22%, with the largest numeric decrease in Latino/a/x households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 9,777 2,742 69 304 4,130 2,412
2015 12,553 3,575 86 531 4,728 3,568
# HHs
change (2,776) (833) (17) (227) (598) (1,156)
% HHs
change -22% -23% -20% -43% -13% -32%
This loss of lower-income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the District saw a 3% decrease in Latino/a/x population, an 11% decrease in non-Hispanic White population and a 5% increase in AAPI population.
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-196 ver. May 2023
District Nine
From 2015 to 2019, D9 became more exclusive.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 11 10 0 0
2015 7 12 2 0
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +4 -2 -2 0
Median rent in the district rose from $1,528 in 2015 to $2,317 in 2019, an increase of 35%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Stable Moderate / Mixed-income” rose the fastest, at 39% over the 5-year period.
14% 16%
0% 0%2% 3%
57% 54%
25% 26%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-197 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D9 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 24%, with the largest numeric decrease non-Hispanic White households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 14,711 9,033 138 373 2,287 2,654
2015 19,449 13,003 203 520 2,301 3,178
# HHs
change (4,738) (3,970) (65) (147) (14) (524)
% HHs
change -24% -31% -32% -28% -1% -16%
This loss of lower-income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the District saw a 2% decrease in non-Hispanic White population and a 25% increase in AAPI population. $1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-198 ver. May 2023
District Ten
From 2015 to 2019, D10 became more exclusive.
Exclusive / At risk
of exclusion
Stable Moderate
/ Mixed-income
Displacement / At
risk of
displacement
Student / NA
2019 14 6 1 0
2015 2 10 5 4
# of Tracts Change
2015 to 2019 +12 -4 -4 -4
Median rent in the district rose from $1,829 in 2015 to $2,405 in 2019, an increase of 32%. Rents in tracts with that were classified in 2015 as “Stable Moderate / Mixed-income” rose the fastest, at 33% over the 5-year period.
55% 59%
1% 1%2% 3%
20% 15%
18% 19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-199 ver. May 2023
The number of households in D10 earning less than $100,000 in annual income decreased by 17%, with the largest numeric decrease non-Hispanic White households making less than $100,000 per year.
Total
Households
earning
<$100k/yr
Non-
Hispanic
White HHs,
<$100k/yr
Black HHs
<$100k/yr
Native
American
HHs
<$100k/yr
AAPI HHs
<$100k/yr
Latino/a/x
HHs
<$100k/yr
2019 148,831 46,090 1,322 7,269 43,404 48,375
2015 179,407 58,579 1,541 7,886 50,137 59,026
# HHs
change (30,576) (12,489) (219) (617) (6,733) (10,651)
% HHs
change -17% -21% -14% -8% -13% -18%
This loss of lower-income households contributed to an overall racial/ethnic shift where the District saw a 6% decrease in non-Hispanic White population and a 10% increase in AAPI population. $1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
5-Year Increase in Rents by UDP
Typology Categories
Exclusive / At Risk of Exclusion
Stable Moderate / Mixed-income
Displacement / At Risk of Displacement
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-200 ver. May 2023
43% 46%
0% 1%3% 3%
29% 27%
20% 20%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2019 2015
District Racial/Ethnic Breakdown
Total NH White Native American Black AAPI Latino/a/x
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-201 ver. May 2023
Appendix E
Additional Demographic Data about Persons with Disabilities
This Appendix contains additional demographic data about San José’s approximately 90,000 residents with disabilities. This data is from the U.S. Census American Community Survey and is subject to the constraints/limitations of its source.
Persons with Disability by Race/Ethnicity
Relative to the City’s overall racial/ethnic breakdown, Latino/a/x individuals and AAPIs are underrepresented in the disabled population. This may be due to a number of different factors including the relative younger age of communities with higher proportions of recent immigrants; the lack of outreach and materials for non-English speaking populations; the tendency to over-diagnose Black and Indigenous children with disabilities.
Civilian, Non-institutionalized Population with Disabilities 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Non-Hispanic White 30,057 (30.4%) 30,863 (38.0%%) -754 / -2.4% Black/African American 3,792 (4.3%) 3,607 (4.5%) 185 / 5.1% Native American,
Alaskan Native
781 (0.9%) 1,012 (1.2%) -231 / -22.8%
AAPI 27,820 (31.4%) 23,481 (29.0%) 4,339 / 18.5%
Latino/a/x 24,480 (27.7%) 21,333 (26.3%) 3,147 / 14.8% TOTAL [# (100%)] 88,533 (100%) 81,049 (100%)
Civilian, Non-institutionalized Population, Total (for comparison of racial/ethnic breakdown) 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Non-Hispanic White 262,932 (25.7%) 269,555 (27.4%) -6,623 / -2.5% Black/African American 30,533 (3.0%) 30,863 (3.1%) -330 / -1.1% Native American,
Alaskan Native
5,715 (0.6%) 6,220 (0.6%) -505 / -8.1%
AAPI 373,079 (36.4%) 330,619 (33.6%) 42,460 / 12.8%
Latino/a/x 323,581 (31.6%) 325,392 (33.1%) -1,811 / -0.6% TOTAL [# (%)] 1,023,950 (100%) 982,892 (100%)
Race/Ethnicity by Disability
Non-Hispanic White
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-202 ver. May 2023
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
262,932 269,555 -6,623 / -2.5%
Disabled Population 30,057 30,811 -754 / -2.4%
% of Total 11.4% 11.4%
Black/African American
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
30,533 30,863 -330 / -1.1%
Disabled Population 3,792 3,607 185 / 5.1%
% of Total 12.4% 11.7%
Native American, Alaskan Native
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
5,715 6,220 -505 / -8.1%
Disabled Population 781 1,012 -231 / -22.8%
% of Total 13.7% 16.3%
Asian American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
373,079 330,619 42,460 / 12.8%
Disabled Population 27,820 23,481 4,339 / 18.5%
% of Total 7.5% 7.1%
Latino/a/x
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
323,581 325,392 -1,811 / -0.6%
Disabled Population 24,480 21,333 3,147 / 14.8%
% of Total 7.6% 6.6%
Persons with Disability by Gender
Civilian, Non-institutionalized Population with Disabilities DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-203 ver. May 2023
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Male 41,632 (47.0%) 38,467 (47.5%)
Female 46,910 (53.0%) 42,582 (52.5%)
TOTAL [# (100%)] 88,533 (100%) 81,049 (100%)
Gender by Disability
Male
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
516,412 492,875 23,537 / 4.8%
Disabled Population 41,632 38,467 3,165 / 8.2%
% of Total 8.1% 7.8%
Female
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
507,538 490,017 17,521 / 3.6%
Disabled Population 46,910 42,582 4,328 / 10.2%
% of Total 9.2% 8.7%
Persons with Disability by Age
As we age, we become more vulnerable to certain categories of disabilities. Therefore, there is a higher proportion of persons with disabilities in older age ranges. In recent years, San José’s population has been aging which should correlate with increasing rates of persons with disabilities in the overall population.
Civilian, Non-institutionalized Population with Disabilities 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Under 5 years 516 (0.6%) 465 (0.6%) 51 / 11.0%
5 to 17 years 5,582 (6.3%) 5,194 (6.4%) 388 / 7.5%
18 to 64 years 40,460 (45.7%) 37,513 (46.3%) 2,947 / 7.9% 65 years and older 41,975 (47.4%) 37,877 (46.7%) 4,098 / 10.8% TOTAL [# (100%)] 88,533 (100%) 81,049 (100%)
Civilian, Non-institutionalized Population, Total (for comparison of age breakdown) 2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Under 5 years 63,025 (6.2%) 67,201 (6.8%) -4,176 / -6.2% 5 to 17 years 167,432 (16.4%) 169,192 (17.2%) -1,760 / -1.0% DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-204 ver. May 2023
18 to 64 years 666,685 (65.1%) 640,834 (65.2%) 25,851 / 4.0% 65 years and older 126,808 (12.4%) 105,665 (10.8%) 21,143 / 20% TOTAL [# (100%)] 1,023,950 (100%) 982,892 (100%)
Age by Disability
Under 5 years
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
63,025 67,201 -4,176 / -6.2%
Disabled Population 516 465 51 / 11.0%
% of Total 0.8% 0.7%
5 to 17 years
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
167,432 169,192 -1,760 / -1.0%
Disabled Population 5,582 5,194 388 / 7.5%
% of Total 3.3% 3.1%
18 to 64 years
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
666,685 640,834 25,851 / 4.0%
Disabled Population 40,460 37,513 2,947 / 7.9%
% of Total 6.1% 5.9%
65 years and older
2019 5-yr ACS 2014 5-yr ACS Change # / %
Total Civilian, Non-
institutionalized
Population
126,808 105,665 21,143 / 20.0%
Disabled Population 41,975 37,877 4,098 / 10.8%
% of Total 33.1% 35.8%
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-205 ver. May 2023
Appendix G
Additional Fair Housing Enforcement and Compliance Documentation Consortium Case Study
The City contracts with the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley to coordinate a consortium of fair housing service providers (Consortium). Through this contract, five programs provide services to support fair housing in San José. These programs include the Asian Law Alliance (ALA), Mental Health Advocacy Project, Project Sentinel (PS), and Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA). To illustrate the types of fair housing issues that the Consortium has observed to be increasing San José, the Consortium reported the following case study:
Ms. M’s ex-partner was a Section 8 voucher holder who lived with their three minor children in a unit. Sadly, he contracted COVID-19, was hospitalized, and then passed away. Before he passed away, he asked the then pregnant Ms. M to move into his apartment with her current partner to care for their children. She moved in, updated the landlord on what was happening, and paid two month’s rent in advance. She reached out to Housing Authority to be added to the voucher.
However, Ms. M was hospitalized for 3 weeks from complications of her case of COVID-19, diagnosed with heart failure, and had a pre-term cesarean section. She returned home from the hospital one day before received a 3-day eviction notice for unauthorized occupancy. When she was served an unlawful detainer lawsuit, she connected with the Law Foundation. A Law Foundation Attorney took on Ms. M’s eviction case for full representation. A reasonable accommodation request was made asking for more time for Ms. M to be added to her children’s Section 8 voucher and once done, dismiss the case against her. The request was denied, as the landlord claimed Ms. M was not a tenant who was entitled to reasonable accommodations.
However, Law Foundation was able to continue to negotiate and Ms. M, her partner, and newborn were successfully added to the voucher. The case settled with a move-out agreement that provided Ms. M a little over 3 months to move out with her family.
Document Review / Records Search
In addition to what was presented in Section D., above, City staff performed the following Fair Housing document reviews and records searches.
Recent HUD enforcement actions related to fair housing cases were reviewed. Documents issued by HUD for 2020 Fair Housing Act Charges and 2020-2019 Conciliation Agreements did not include any cases or allegations of discriminatory redlining in San José.17 HCD also has a role in enforcing state housing laws and may get involved with monitoring or providing letters that involve a potential violation of a jurisdiction’s housing element; however, HCD did not issues letters to the City of San José in 2018-2019 related to enforcement of Fair Housing Element Law.18
17 HUD Fair Housing Enforcement Activity, “Documents Issued by HUD in Fair Housing Cases,”https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/enforcement, accessed March 2022. 18 HCD Accountability and Enforcement, “Enforcement Letters Issued,” updated: 05/18/2021, https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/accountability-enforcement.shtml, accessed March 2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-206 ver. May 2023
In reviewing the Department of Justice housing enforcement case records for the City of San José, there was no cases filed with the California Northern District.19 In reviewing the letters of findings issued and lawsuits filed by the State of California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General from 2018-2020, there were no reports pertaining to housing rights enforcement for the City of San José.20
There also did not appear to be reports of complaints or cause determinations from Department of Fair Housing and Employment (DFEH) against the City of San José.21 In a search on the DFEH website, there were notices of settlements for cases within the City of San José:
• DFEH settled a case in 2017 against an owner who had several apartment complexes and rental homes in San José who had been discriminating against tenants with disabilities by not allowing them to have emotional support animals. DFEH stated in the settlement, that the law requires landlords to modify policies, including no-pet policies, to reasonably accommodate people with disabilities.22
• DFEH filed a case in Santa Clara County Superior Court against San José property owners in 2017 for denying the reasonable accommodation requests of tenants with disabilities who presented medical documentation attesting to their need for an assistance animal. The case, which DFEH settled, was based on a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Civil Rights Act, after the landlord told them they did not need a dog to survive.23 As part of the settlement these cases, the property owners agreed to develop fair housing policies, including updating antidiscrimination policies and adding policies for reasonably accommodating applicants and tenants with disabilities, post fair housing posters, and attend annual fair housing training.
City Compliance with Fair Housing Laws and Regulations
Per below, the City of San José maintains and develops fair housing policies in response to advancements in state law and best practices.
19 U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, “Housing and Civil Enforcement Cases,”https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing- and-civil-enforcement-cases, accessed March 2022.
20 California HCD, “Accountability and Enforcement,” https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/ accountability- enforcement.shtml, accessed March 2022.
21 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), “Legal Records and Reports, ”https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/legalrecords/#reportsBody, accessed on March 2022. 22 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), “Landlord to Pay $100,000 to Settle Fair Housing Case Involving Emotional Support Animals,” https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2017/11/Chow-PR- 20171129.pdf, accessed March 2022
23 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), “LANDLORD TO PAY $40,000 TO SETTLE FAIR HOU.S.ING CASE INVOLVING EMOTIONAL SUPPORT ANIMAL,” https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2017/07/Chen- PR2017-07-05.pdf, accessed March 2022.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-207 ver. May 2023
Requirement Response
California Fair Employment and
Housing Act (FEHA) (Part 2.8
(commencing with Section
12900)
of Division 3 of Title 2)
The Introduction to the Housing Element defines fair housing under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act and states the City’s intent to further fair housing in accordance with state requirements by identifying and removing impediments and constraints.()Keyconstraints.
Key policies to further fair housing choice in the City include XS-18, S-20, S-21, S-22, S-24 and S-26. Y, Z
FEHA Regulations (California
Code of Regulations (CCR), title
2, sections 12005-12271)
In summarizing and applying the information and results of the AI, the Housing Element discusses the need for the City of San Jos ée to increase availability of affordable units among the important actions. In support of this policy, strategies including XX S-20 to develop fair-housing compliant tenant preferences and issue Notices of Funding Availability (NOFAs) for City funds that award points for serving protected classes populations and XX P-10 continue to work with developers to standardize fees, requirements, approvals to develop streamlined permitting and fee processes and reduce other barriers.
outreach In support of Goal 3 Housing stability and opportunities to build wealth for all residents, one of the proposed strategies, S-23, is activities on Fair Housing challenges, programming, and
solutions, one of the proposed activities is to Create basic ‘Know Your Rights and Responsibilities’ materials for landlords and tenants in multiple languages and Increase S-22 prioritize programs and funding to do more extensiveon fair housing testing, outreach/education and legal representation and policy work. .
Government Code section
65008 covers actions of a city,
county, city and county, or
other local government
agency, and makes those
actions null and void if the
action denies an individual or
group of individuals the
enjoyment of residence,
landownership, tenancy, or
other land use in the state
because of membership in a
protected class, the method of
financing, and/or the intended
occupancy.
The policy framework and recommended programs in the Housing Element are based on the foundation that state law requires citizens in the City of San Josée to have fair housing choice, free from discrimination based on membership in a protected class, as stated in the introduction of the Housing Element.() In addition, several policies strategies specifically support housing opportunities for individuals and communities. Several of these strategies include: S-16 Require affirmative fair housing marketing to be done in English plus top 3 languages for all City-funded affordable housing; S-17 Complete a report to review best practices in housing formerly incarcerated people and assess the feasibility, impact and enforcement options of a Fair Chance / Ban the Box ordinance for rental housing applicants that would limit the use of criminal records by property managers when they are screening prospective tenants; S-21 Continue to fund nonprofit organizations to affirmatively further Fair Housing throughout the City, and develop metrics to better understand the City's impact from funding fair housing grantees; S-24 Increase fair housing education, monitoring, and enforcement in target neighborhoods, especially on source of income discrimination; I-26 Engage in and support efforts at the state and federal levels to amend fair housing laws to allow for race-targeted DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-208 ver. May 2023
housing assistance in jurisdictions where the jurisdiction has made documented findings of fact that race-based housing discrimination has occurred; and P-17 Fully implement and evaluate effectiveness of the City’s new Affordable Housing Siting Policy in generating new affordable housing developments in higher opportunity areas.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-209 ver. May 2023
Requirement Response
Government Code section
8899.50 requires all public
agencies to administer
programs and
activities relating to housing
and community development
in a manner to affirmatively
further
fair housing and avoid any
action that is materially
inconsistent with its obligation
to affirmatively
further fair housing.
State law requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing. The Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara (HACSC) provides rental housing assistance to low income households throughout the County. The HACSC and the Housing Authority of the City of San José (HACSJ) entered into a cooperative agreement in 1976 where the HACSC manages all of the HACSJ's housing programs. Chapter 1, 24 CFR 982.53 (b) (2) of the HACSC Administrative Plan states “The PHA will affirmatively further fair housing in the administration of the program.”i The HACSC plan also outlines steps to affirmatively further fair housing, including not denying any family or individual the equal opportunity to apply for or receive assistance under the Section 8 Programs on the basis of ancestry, color, disability, familial or marital status, national origin, race, religion, gender, gender identity, sex, sexual orientation or source of income.
Government Code section
11135 et seq. requires full and
equal access to all programs
and activities
operated, administered, or
funded with financial
assistance from the state,
regardless of
one’s membership or
perceived membership in a
protected class.
The City complies with the full and equal access provisions of standard state grant funding agreements.
Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code,
§ 65915.)
The City’s Municipal Code General Plan callsallows for more affordable housing policies units at greater densities than otherwise allowed under applicable zoning district and General Plan land use designation that will allow affordable residential development at densities beyond the maximum density allowed under an existing Land Use/Transportation Diagram designation , consistent with the minimum requirements of the State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) and local ordinances.
Housing Accountability Act
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5.)
The City has established objective approval requirements for the types of housing covered by the Housing Accountability Act. In addition, the Housing Element Section 4.3.8 provides a comprehensive constraints analysis based on housing types covered by the Housing Accountability Act (e.g., emergency shelters, farmworker housing).
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-210 ver. May 2023
Requirement Response
No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, §
65863)
The goals, policies, and programs and strategies listed throughout the Housing
Element are intended to help reduce barriers to and create opportunities for housing production. In accordance with State requirements, the City prepares Housing Element Annual Progress Reports after each calendar year to assess the City’s progress toward its eight-year regional housing needs target (RHNA) housing production targets and toward the implementation of housing activities identified in the Housing Element. Appendix XX Chapter 5 of the Housing Element provides the City of San Jose Adequate Sites Inventory based on the housing unit target meet the RHNA target, the City, per California Government Code. In addition, there are sufficient properties Citywide for lower-income housing according to State requirements. In addition, XX requires the City to also look at housing production goals by Community Planning Area based on an analysis of feasible site suitability.
Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov.
Code, § 65913.1)
HCD approved Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)'s RHNA Plan in January of 2022. The City is compliant with this section, as demonstrated by the (Adequate) Sites Inventory in thehe 2021-2029 Housing Element which identified identifies capacity of over XXX74,330 units to meet a housing need of XXX 62,200 housing units. The City has determined its housing capacity for the Adequate Sites Inventory through an in-depth review of all vacant and developable land. The City conducted a comprehensive inventory of all vacant and nonvacant developable land within the City limits that allows for housing and available to develop within the Housing Element planning period.
While State law requires that the City demonstrate enough housing capacity to meet RHNA targets, the City chooses to inventory all potentially developable land. This approach has been adopted in acknowledgment that many factors affect housing development feasibility, including decisions by private property owners and developers.()
Excessive subdivision standards
(Gov. Code, § 65913.2.)
This is a longstanding section of the state code that restricts a jurisdiction from imposing criteria that would make housing development infeasible and consider the effect of ordinances adopted and actions taken by it with respect to the housing needs.
The City’s code is in compliance with state law.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-211 ver. May 2023
Requirement Response
Limits on growth controls (Gov.
Code, § 65302.8.)
Housing elements in California are required to demonstrate the jurisdiction can accommodate the projected housing need and analyze the impact of any growth management controls. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) was originally adopted and incorporated into the San José 2020 General Plan by a unanimous vote of the City Council in November 1996 The UGB, like the prior growth management programs and policies that preceded it, has been very effective at managing the City’s rapid growth without inhibiting it. New development has successfully occurred only within the City’s urban service area. Since establishing the UGB, the rate of development has not declined; the City has issued building permits for over (55,000) XXX residential units and millions of square feet of commercial development. Other governmental
and non-governmental constraints to housing production are acknowledged and discussed in Chapter 4 of the the Housing Element.() In addition,
Chapter XX provides analysis of constraints and zoning analysis.
Actions the City has taken to reduce constraints include: Eliminated commercial space requirements in many affordable housing developments, Adopted new downtown and citywide design guidelines to facilitate a consistent and efficient review process of proposed developments and Established a dedicated planner that streamlines entitlements and provides additional support to 100% affordable developments that reserve at least 30% of the units for extremely low income or permanent supportive households.XYZ
(streamlining accessory dwelling unit, density bonus program for micro-units, allow by-right development of transitional housing facilities and permanent supportive housing in zones that allow multifamily housing.)
Housing Element Law (Gov.
Code, § 65583, esp. subds.
(c)(5), (c)(10).)
The plan strives to identify more than
needed housing capacity in order to facilitate compliance with the new No Net Loss requirements and provide a comprehensive set of goals, objectives, policies and proposed programs to affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing for all in San Josée. It identifies this housing capacity primarily on sites located near transit and in walkable areas, consistent with General Plan and Climate Action Plan, many of which are non-vacant. The Housing Element supports the developability of non-vacant sites with substantial data, analysis, and recent development examples.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-212 ver. May 2023
Community input from the last Analysis of Impediments
The City prepared the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) with the assistance of LeSar Development Consultants (LDC) for the 2016 to 2020 time period. The purpose of the AI is to assemble fair housing information, identify any existing impediments to fair housing choice, and recommend actions to overcome those impediments.
Approximately 4,847 entities, organizations, agencies, and persons were directly engaged via outreach efforts and asked to share materials with their beneficiaries, partners, and contacts. Through these communications, stakeholders were invited to participate in one of the forums planned throughout the County and to submit survey responses.
The following themes emerged for the housing issue area:
• Ensure availability of affordable housing, including transitional housing • Provide legal services to protect fair housing rights and to mediate tenant/landlord legal issues • Address affordable housing eligibility restrictions to expand the number of residents who can qualify
• Provide affordable rental housing for low income families, at-risk families and individuals with disabilities
• Fund additional homeless prevention programs
• Provide rental subsidies and assistance for low income families to support rapid re-housing A Regional Needs Survey was conducted to solicit input from residents and workers in the County of Santa Clara. To give as many people as possible the chance to voice their opinion, emphasis was placed on making the survey widely available and gathering a large number of responses rather than administering the survey to a controlled, statistically representative pool.
A total of eleven regional and community forums were held to gather community input and feedback for the creation of the City’s Consolidated Plan and AI. Three regional forums were held in Mountain View, San José, and Gilroy from September 2014 to November 2014; the City held four additional local community forums in September and October 2014. A total of 1,472 survey responses were collected from September 19, 2014 to November 15, 2014, including 1,078 surveys collected electronically and 394 collected on paper. The surveys were available in five languages.
The table below shows the highest level of need for each of the housing-related improvements and the share of respondents who rated each category as “high level” of need.
Priority Rank Housing: High Level of Need Share of Respondents 1 Increase affordable rental housing inventory 63.1%
2 Rental assistance for the homeless 51.0%
3 Affordable housing located near transit 48.6%
4 Housing for other special needs (such as seniors and persons with disabilities)
48.0%
5 Permanent supportive rental housing for the homeless 46.8% DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
B-213 ver. May 2023
6 Energy efficiency and sustainability improvements 41.6% 7 Healthy homes 37.5%
8 Down-payment assistance to purchase a home 33.8%
9 Code enforcement, in coordination with a neighborhood plan 33.4% 10 Housing accessibility improvements 29.7%
11 Rental housing rehabilitation 27.7%
12 Emergency home improvement/repair 24.9%
13 Owner-occupied housing rehabilitation 18.5%
Source: 2016-2020 San José Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Appendix C. Fifth Cycle Review
The City of San José’s Fifth Cycle Housing Element was adopted by City Council on January 27, 2015 and included a Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 35,080 total units of housing and an Implementation Work Plan that included over 80 planned programs, policies, and activities. As described in further detail below, the City exceeded 5th Cycle goals for market-rate housing and met or exceeded almost all Work Plan items. While the City did not meet RNHA goals for affordable housing, the City has developed new local funding sources for affordable housing development which should aid in meeting future goals. In addition, the City met substantially all of its applicable work plan goals.
RHNA Goals
At the completion of the 5th Cycle, the City had met 115% of its market-rate housing goal but only 26% of its combined affordable housing goals.
Table C-1: Performance towards 5th Cycle RHNA Goals
Category 5th Cycle RHNA Goals Building Permits Issued % of Allocation TOTAL Affordable
Units
20,849 5,519 26%
• VLI & ELI 9,233 2,282 25%
• Low 5,428 620 11%
• Moderate 6,188 2,617 42%
Market Rate 14,231 16,379 115%
TOTAL Units 35,080 21,898 62%
Generally, per Table C-2, below, San José’s progress towards it’s affordable housing RHNA goals is consistent with the reported performance of jurisdictions across the greater Bay Area and the State of California:
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
Table C-2: Overview of Statewide Progress towards 5th Cycle RHNA Goals Jurisdiction
% of Affordable
Housing RHNA
Attained
City of San José 26%
Santa Clara County, all jurisdictions (including San José) 22% Association of Bay Area Governments, all jurisdictions (including San José) 20% State of California 21%
Lack of progress on affordable housing goals generally reflects the time and difficulty in assembling the multiple, competitive layers of affordable housing financing, as well as the scarcity of local, state, and federal subsidies that are needed to produce covenanted affordable housing. As an example, over the 5
th Cycle period, there were only enough Low-Income Housing Tax Credits to meet approximately 14% of California’s aggregate affordable housing needs. The City of San José has attempted to address the scarcity of affordable housing through raising additional local funds. A recent, notable success was 2020’s Measure E, a voter approved real property transfer tax that will provide an additional estimated $40-$50 million annually for affordable housing development, preservation, and related supportive services in San José.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
2014-2023 Implementation Work Plan
Per Table 3-2 below, the City has completed almost all (83 of 85 items, or 98%) planned programs, policies, or activities. These items were accomplished despite a pandemic that required multiple pivots, pulling staff away from regular work and into emergency management (especially in terms of addressing the constantly evolving context around eviction moratoria, rental assistance) and that continues to have ongoing repercussions in terms of staff turnover and the difficulty of filling open positions.
Table C-3: Status of 5
th Cycle Work Plan Items
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appro-
priateness
for 6th
Cycle
1. Continue
Predevelopment
Loan and Project
Development
Loan Programs.
A. Review City's existing
Income Allocation Policy
and update as necessary
to provide a funding
framework for income
categories.
Completed. In fall 2020, the City
Council approved the Housing
Department's FY 20/21 to FY 22/23
Affordable Housing Investment Plan
which defined funding priorities.
Priorities for this plan include creation
of new permanent supportive
apartments for the homeless, non-
homeless units in mixed-population
projects, and traditional tax credit
projects.
Remove.
1. Continue
Predevelopment
Loan and Project
Development
Loan Programs.
B. Continue to provide
predevelopment loans
to assist nonprofit
housing developers with
funds necessary to
explore feasibility of
proposed affordable
multifamily housing.
Completed. The Housing Department
provided about $5 million in
predevelopment funds that supported
the construction of 715 affordable
homes.
Revise.
1. Continue
Predevelopment
Loan and Project
Development
Loan Programs.
C. Continue to provide
land acquisition,
construction, and
permanent financing for
the development of new
affordable homes and
the
acquisition/rehabilitation
of existing rental
housing for affordable
homes pending
availability of funds.
Completed. The City was an active
partner with affordable housing
developers during this RHNA period
and provided over $244 million in
acquisition, construction, and
permanent loans and grants to fund
the new construction of about 2,650
affordable apartments. The City also
issued $648 million in tax exempt
bonds to support rehabilitation and
refinancing of over 2,100 existing
affordable apartments.
Retain.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
2. Maximize
revenues from
the City's loan
portfolio.
Maximize City revenues
and residual receipts
when senior loans
mature or are
refinanced/restructured.
Completed. While residual receipts
have varied year after year,
organizational capacity and analytical
tools to monitor and enhance
portfolio revenues have continued to
grow with the addition of new staff
and systems.
Retain.
3. Facilitate
affordable
housing deals
that require no
City subsidies.
Facilitate mixed income
deals. Facilitate 9% and
4% tax credit/bond
developments.
Completed. The City continued to
engage with affordable housing
developers, financial institutions, and
other stakeholders with the goal of
updating the bonds policy to increase
the supply of affordable housing in
San José. The City filed comments
with ax Credit Allocation Committee
(TCAC) in late 2020 on proposed
revisions to the State scoring
framework that affects allocation of
4% credits and bonds. The City is
working with developers to make sure
current policies support mixed-
income deals. In 2021, City staff
continued to explore an option to use
Joint Powers Authority (JPA)-issued
bonds for low- and moderate-income
housing. Staff is also coordinating
with developers who do not require
City subsidy.
Retain.
4. Implement the
City's Housing
Impact Fee
Program.
A. Develop and
implement the Housing
Impact Fee Program by
the effective date.
Completed. Implementation of the
Affordable Housing Impact Fee (AHIF)
Program was successful. Staff
conducted over 27 stakeholder
meetings to prepare and educate
developers and other stakeholders on
the requirements of the AHIF
Program.
Remove.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
4. Implement the
City's Housing
Impact Fee
Program.
B. Utilize the fees
generated to finance the
development of housing
that is affordable to the
workforce.
Completed. AHIF implementation is
currently underway, per 4.A., above.
In the past five fiscal years, AHIF has
resulted in the collection of $12
million to fund affordable housing.
However, because of San José’s
successful defense of our Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance (IHO, see Item #6.,
below), the IHO has superseded AHIF
for buildings 20 units and above.
Revise.
5. Acquire land
for residential
development,
especially near
transit for the
development of
low- and
moderate-
income housing.
A. Utilize resources to
acquire land
Completed. From 2015 to 2020, the
City Housing Department approved
commitments of over $50 million and
completed acquisition of sites that will
eventually lead to the creation of an
estimated 1,150 affordable
apartments.
Retain or
Revise.
5. Acquire land
for residential
development,
especially near
transit for the
development of
low- and
moderate-
income housing.
B. Partner with transit
agencies such as Valley
Transit Authority (VTA)
and Bay Area Rapid
Transit (BART) to explore
and facilitate transit-
oriented development
(See workplan item #15)
Completed. The City has partnered
with transit agencies and developers
to bring affordable housing in Transit
Oriented Developments (TOD) in
close proximity to major transit stops.
To date, over 300 units of affordable
housing have been completed
through these partnerships, with
another 1,000 plus units approved
(including approximately 600 units of
affordable housing).
Retain.
5. Acquire land
for residential
development,
especially near
transit for the
development of
low- and
moderate-
income housing.
C. Explore the creation
of a land bank to ensure
the creation of
affordable housing
within Urban Villages.
Completed. Land banking as a central,
concerted strategy at scale was
deemed infeasible due to high costs
of land. However, the Housing
Department evaluates specific land
acquisition opportunities individually
as they arise. Staff continues to
explore community land trusts as a
potential vehicle to acquire and hold
sites for affordable housing.
Remove.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
5. Acquire land
for residential
development,
especially near
transit for the
development of
low- and
moderate-
income housing.
D. Explore partnerships
such as Community
Land Trusts to facilitate
acquisition of land.
Completed. The City's Housing
Department has supported the
startup of the South Bay Community
Land Trust (SBCLT) through direct
technical assistance and support in
accessing other training and capacity
building resources. The City continues
to maintain regular contact with the
SBCLT about other capacity-building
opportunities and forthcoming
preservation Notice of Funding
Availability (NOFAs).
Revise.
6. Advance
Inclusionary
Housing
Programs
Continue to defend the
Citywide inclusionary
housing ordinance in
court. Continue to
implement the City's
existing inclusionary
housing policy on for-
sale projects in former
redevelopment areas.
Completed. The City has successfully
defended its Citywide inclusionary
housing ordinance (IHO), including
review by the US Supreme Court. The
IHO is now fully implemented,
applying to both for-sale and rental
developments.
Revise.
7. Increase
supply of
permanent
supportive
housing for
homeless
individuals.
Explore all opportunities
to create homeless
apartments with
supportive services
within the City.
Completed. The City is committed to
exploring all opportunities to create
homeless apartments with supportive
services. The City, County and
Housing Authority meet regularly to
coordinate investments and progress.
Since the start of 2015, the City has
committed funding for 1,320
apartments with supportive services
for homeless individuals.
Revise.
8. Preserve
existing deed-
restricted
multifamily
rental homes.
A. Develop a funding
framework to guide the
allocation of resources
between the production
of new affordable
homes or the
preservation of existing
affordable homes.
Completed. Since 2020, the City has
budgeted over $30 million of Measure
E funds for acquisition and
rehabilitation of existing low-cost
housing.
Revise.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
8. Preserve
existing deed-
restricted
multifamily
rental homes.
B. Fund the extension of
the affordability
restrictions for existing
multifamily affordable
homes pending funding
availability.
Completed. Since 2016, Staff has
extended and strengthened
affordability restrictions of over 2,130
apartments without additional City
funding.
Retain.
8. Preserve
existing deed-
restricted
multifamily
rental homes.
D. Explore and establish
an outreach and tenant
education program.
Completed/Ongoing. For projects in
the portfolio for which an extension of
affordability restrictions cannot be
negotiated, the City works with
borrowers to ensure that a
satisfactory transition plan for existing
residents is implemented. This is
pursued on a case-by-case basis.
Revise.
9. Continue
parkland fee
reduction for
new affordable
housing
development.
Continue to charge
affordable housing
developers a lower rate
under the Parkland
Dedication Ordinance
(PDO) and Park Impact
Fee (PIO) for new
affordable housing
developments.
Completed. The Housing Department
regularly works with affordable
housing developers to ensure that
they receive the PDO-PIO fee
reduction on their developments. The
City Council approved an extension of
the 50% reduction in park fees for
100% Arean Median Income (AMI)
affordable housing units to January 1,
2026. This change is consistent with
proposed changes to the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance.
Retain.
10. Shape
national, state,
regional and
local programs,
policies and
regulations to
facilitate
affordable
housing
development.
A. Help shape the
National Housing Trust
Fund, Government-
Sponsored Enterprise
reform, tax reform and
other Federal policies
that create funding for
affordable housing
development.
Completed. The Housing Department
helps shape Federal policies that
create funding for affordable housing
by maintaining dedicated staff who
monitor the federal legislative session.
The City regularly provides comments
and support letters for federal
housing programs. More recently,
during the pandemic, the City
supported rental housing assistance,
landlord assistance, remote public
meetings, and federal HUD waivers
concerning the use of federal funds to
cope with the COVID crisis.
Retain.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
10. Shape
national, state,
regional and
local programs,
policies and
regulations to
facilitate
affordable
housing
development.
C. Shape permanent
source to replace lost
state bond funding that
was depleted.
Completed. Staff provided input to
industry advocates that informed the
formula for SB 2 (The Building Homes
and Jobs Act) that was successfully
passed as part of the Housing
Legislation package in 2017. The new
law uses a CDBG-based funding
formula for the funding that was
directed to local governments starting
in 2019. This is consistent with the
City's input.
Remove.
10. Shape
national, state,
regional and
local programs,
policies and
regulations to
facilitate
affordable
housing
development.
D. Support new tools
that replace
Redevelopment Agency
Low/Moderate Income
Housing Funds including
Infrastructure Financing
Districts.
Completed. The City regularly
monitors legislative activity, tracks
and takes support positions on State
bills that would increase resources for
affordable housing.
Retain.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
11. Advance
collaborative
solutions to
address housing
needs.
Work collaboratively
with other City
departments, local
jurisdictions and
working groups such as
the Santa Clara CDBG
Grants Management
Group, Regional
Housing Working Group,
ABAG/MTC's One Bay
Area Plan, Regional
Prosperity Plan, Santa
Clara Association of
Planning Officials, and
other initiatives.
Completed. The City recognizes and
prioritizes collaborative efforts with
the County, other local jurisdictions,
non-profits and other organizations.
Most recently, the partnerships built
as a result of these efforts have played
a pivotal role in devising a response
to the COVID crisis. The Countywide
CDBG Grants Management group
became an important forum for
sharing information across
communities during this stressful
time. The City's Housing Director
meets quarterly with Housing
Directors from Oakland and San
Francisco. Staff also continued to
interface with many regionally-
focused housing organizations
including Destination: Home, VTA
Land Use and Transportation
Initiatives Working Group, Non-Profit
Housing Association (NPH) Legislative
Committee, SV@Home, Santa Clara
County Office of Supportive Housing,
Santa Clara County Housing
Authority, the Cities Association of
Santa Clara County, the League of
California Cities, Working
Partnerships, the County Office of
Education, and the Law Foundation of
Silicon Valley. Housing and Planning
staff meet regularly with technical
assistance providers through the
Santa Clara Association of Planning
Officials.
Retain.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
12. Advance
regional
solutions to
address housing
needs.
A. Explore creation of
regional body or formal
collaboration to make
more efficient use of
limited resources,
maximize the delivery of
affordable housing, or
respond to
homelessness.
Completed. The Bay Area Housing
Finance Authority (BAHFA),
established by legislation (AB 1487) in
2020, will offer a powerful new set of
financing and policy tools to promote
housing affordability and address the
region's housing crisis. BAHFA aims to
develop a comprehensive regional
strategy for helping local
governments tackle the housing crisis
on a larger scale by transcending city
and county boundaries. The Housing
Department's Director serves on the
BAHFA technical advisory committee
to advocate for a role in facilitating
housing production and preservation
funding, as well as tenant protection
strategies such as regional
implementation of tenant preferences.
Staff coordinates with BAHFA staff on
preservation strategies as well as a
regional effort to create affordable
housing application portal called
Doorway.
Revise.
12. Advance
regional
solutions to
address housing
needs.
B. Explore strategies to
facilitate a more
balanced regional
distribution of
affordable housing
production.
Completed. The City continues to
advocate for a balanced regional
distribution of affordable housing
through its membership in BAHFA.
The City also supports the concept of
a regional commercial linkage fee and
it will continue to advocate for this at
BAHFA.
Revise.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
13. Coordinate
and implement
housing policies
and goals
contained in the
City's housing
plans.
Develop a Housing
Element, Consolidated
Plan and 5-Year
Investment Plan with
goals and measurable
actions that are
consistent with each
other.
Completed. The State-mandated
Housing Element for 2014-23 was
certified by HCD in April 2015, and
federal Consolidated Plan for 2020-25
was submitted in August 2020. The
most recent Housing Investment Plan
for 20/21 - 22/23 was approved by
City Council in November 2020 and
explains how the City will use its
resources (including new funding
sources from Measure E and
commercial linkage fee for affordable
housing developments) to stretch
toward the City Council's goal of
10,000 affordable units by 2023. The
City is in the process of developing
the next Housing Element for 2023-
31. Both the Consolidated Plan and
the Housing Investment Plan
documents will heavily inform and
influence the creation of goals for this
sixth cycle housing element.
Retain.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
14. Coordinate
with Valley
Transportation
Authority (VTA)
on transit-
oriented
development
activities.
Explore ways to facilitate
transit-oriented
affordable housing
development near BART,
Light Rail, and Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) stations,
including identification
of opportunities to
develop parcels owned
by either agency with
affordable housing.
Completed. Housing staff continue to
monitor VTA's intentions to lease and
sell land near light rail stations. In
2016 VTA adopted their Joint
Development policy, which included a
20% affordable housing inclusionary
development policy. City staff and
VTA continue to work collaboratively
to further the development of
affordable housing. Examples of
collaborative activities include:
• In 2016, VTA has submitted seven
"signature project" concept plans to
the Planning Department for
consideration under the Urban Village
planning framework.
• In 2018, City staff worked actively
with VTA and the identified developer
for the Tamien project, including on a
successful AHSC application.
• The City funded affordable units at
Quetzal, a 100% affordable housing
development adjacent to the 522 Bus
Rapid Transit stop.
Retain.
15. Develop and
Implement
Urban Village
Plans
A. Explore various
funding mechanisms
and programs to help
finance infrastructure
and amenities for Urban
Villages.
Completed. During this fifth cycle
Housing Element, the City prepared
financing plans for West San Carlos,
South Bascom, The Alameda,
Roosevelt Park, Little Portugal, Five
Wounds, and 24th & William Urban
Village Plans. However, state law
changes made implementation
financing plans infeasible.
Revise or
Remove.
DRAFT – Contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 535-1260 or [email protected] for final document.
5th Cycle Work
Plan Item /
Goal
Action/Program 2014-2023 Status/Summary Appropriat
eness for
6th Cycle
15. Develop and
Implement
Urban Village
Plans
B. Complete and/or
implement Urban Village
plans for The Alameda,
West San Carlos, South
Bascom, and Diridon
Station.
Completed. The Diridon Station Urban
Village Plan was completed and
adopted by the City Council in June
2014. The Alameda Urban Village Plan
was completed and adopted by the
City Council in December 2016. The
West San Carlos and the South
Bascom Urban Village plans were
adopted in May 2018. An amended
Diridon Station Area Plan was
adopted in May 2021.