San Leandro City Council
December 5, 2022

CITY OF SAN LEANDRO
2023-2031 Housing Element
Council Public Hearing Draft
December 2022
“To accommodate a growing population
expected to reach 10 million by 2050, more
housing will need to be built throughout
the region. Where that housing is built,
and in what form, can impact the greatest
challenges facing the Bay Area today,
including housing affordability, access to
job opportunities and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.”
Plan Bay Area 2050
Table of Contents
Draft Housing Element i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1-1

1.1 Organization of the Housing Element............................................................................. 1-3

1.2 Housing Element Purpose and Content.......................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Housing Goals ................................................................................................................. 1-4

1.4 Regional Housing Requirements..................................................................................... 1-6

1.5 Demographics................................................................................................................. 1-8

1.6 Constraints.................................................................................................................... 1-10

1.7 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements.............................................................. 1-11

1.8 Public Participation ....................................................................................................... 1-12

1.8.1 Housing Element Update Website ............................................................... 1-13

1.8.2 Housing Needs and Priorities Survey............................................................ 1-13

1.8.3 Community Workshops................................................................................ 1-13

1.8.4 Balancing Act Tool and Housing Opportunity Sites List................................ 1-13

1.8.5 Digital and Non-Digital Outreach ................................................................. 1-14

1.8.6 Stakeholder Interviews................................................................................. 1-14

1.8.7 Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions................................ 1-15

1.8.8 Comments from Individuals and Organizations........................................... 1-15

1.8.9 Public Input and Development of the Housing Element.............................. 1-16

1.9 Sources of Information ................................................................................................. 1-17 2 Housing Needs Assessment........................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Population Characteristics.............................................................................................. 2-1

2.2 Population Growth.......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.3 Age Characteristics.......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.4 Race and Ethnicity........................................................................................................... 2-2

2.5 Economic Characteristics................................................................................................ 2-3

2.5.1 Employment Characteristics........................................................................... 2-3

2.5.2 Income Distribution........................................................................................ 2-6

2.6 Household Characteristics ............................................................................................ 2-11

2.7 Large Households.......................................................................................................... 2-12

2.8 Overcrowding................................................................................................................ 2-13

2.9 Special Needs Groups ................................................................................................... 2-14

2.9.1 Seniors .......................................................................................................... 2-15

2.9.2 Persons with Disabilities (including Developmental Disabilities)................. 2-17

2.9.3 Large Households ......................................................................................... 2-19

2.9.4 Female-Headed Households......................................................................... 2-19

2.9.5 Extremely Low-Income Residents ................................................................ 2-20

2.9.6 Farmworkers................................................................................................. 2-22

2.9.7 Persons Experiencing Homelessness............................................................ 2-24 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii

2.10 Housing Stock Characteristics....................................................................................... 2-27

2.11 Housing Growth ............................................................................................................ 2-27

2.12 Housing Type and Tenure ............................................................................................. 2-29

2.13 Vacancy Rate................................................................................................................. 2-29

2.14 Housing Unit Size .......................................................................................................... 2-30

2.15 Age and Condition of Housing Stock ............................................................................. 2-30

2.16 Housing Costs................................................................................................................ 2-32

2.16.1 Median Home Sale Price............................................................................... 2-32

2.17 Distribution of Owner-Occupied Unit Values ............................................................... 2-33

2.18 Housing Rents ............................................................................................................... 2-35

2.19 Housing Affordability .................................................................................................... 2-37

2.19.1 Workforce Housing....................................................................................... 2-39

2.19.2 Cost Burden .................................................................................................. 2-39

2.20 Assisted Housing Units.................................................................................................. 2-42

2.20.1 Funding Sources for Assisted Housing.......................................................... 2-42

2.20.2 Preservation of At-Risk Units........................................................................ 2-43 3 Housing Constraints.................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Non-governmental Constraints ...................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Housing Market and Affordability .................................................................. 3-1

3.1.2 Land Costs....................................................................................................... 3-3

3.1.3 Availability of Financing.................................................................................. 3-4

3.2 Governmental Constraints.............................................................................................. 3-8

3.2.1 Land Use Controls........................................................................................... 3-8

3.2.2 Residential Development Standards............................................................ 3-14

3.2.3 Housing for Persons with Disabilities........................................................... 3-33

3.2.4 Planning and Development Fees.................................................................. 3-36

3.2.5 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance................................................................... 3-41

3.2.6 Permit Procedures and Processing Times .................................................... 3-41

3.2.7 Short-Term Housing Rentals......................................................................... 3-45

3.2.8 Code Enforcement........................................................................................ 3-46

3.3 Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................... 3-47

3.3.1 Federal and State Environmental Protection Regulations........................... 3-47

3.3.2 Earthquakes and Seismic Activity ................................................................. 3-48

3.3.3 Landslides and Erosion ................................................................................. 3-48

3.3.4 Wildfire ......................................................................................................... 3-49

3.3.5 Flooding and Sea Level Rise.......................................................................... 3-49

3.3.6 Environmental Hazards due to Contamination ............................................ 3-50

3.3.7 Aviation Hazards........................................................................................... 3-51

3.4 Infrastructure Constraints............................................................................................. 3-51

3.5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing........................................................................... 3-55 Table of Contents
Draft Housing Element iii
4 Housing Resources...................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Future Housing Needs..................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1.1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement....................................... 4-1

4.2 Meeting the RHNA .......................................................................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Planned and Approved Projects..................................................................... 4-3

4.2.2 Accessory Dwelling Units................................................................................ 4-7

4.2.3 Planning for Remaining RHNA........................................................................ 4-7

4.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites Inventory in Meeting RHNA.......................................... 4-17

4.3.1 Priority Development Areas......................................................................... 4-22

4.3.2 Additional Sites............................................................................................. 4-32

4.3.3 Recycling Trends........................................................................................... 4-32

4.4 Senate Bill 9................................................................................................................... 4-35

4.5 Availability of Infrastructure and Services.................................................................... 4-35

4.5.1 Wastewater System...................................................................................... 4-36

4.5.2 Potable Water System.................................................................................. 4-37

4.5.3 Stormwater System and Drainage System................................................... 4-38

4.5.4 Circulation System........................................................................................ 4-38

4.5.5 Dry Utilities................................................................................................... 4-39

4.6 Environmental Constraints ........................................................................................... 4-39

4.7 Financial Resources for Affordable Housing ................................................................. 4-40

4.7.1 Existing Financial Resources......................................................................... 4-40

4.7.2 Potential Financial Resources....................................................................... 4-42

4.7.3 Planning Grants to Support Housing ............................................................ 4-42

4.8 Administrative Resources ............................................................................................. 4-42

4.8.1 City of San Leandro Community Development Department........................ 4-43

4.8.2 County of Alameda ....................................................................................... 4-43

4.8.3 Non-Profit Organizations.............................................................................. 4-44

4.9 Opportunities for Energy Conservation........................................................................ 4-44 5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)............................................................................. 5-1

5.1 Introduction and Overview............................................................................................. 5-1

5.1.1 Approach to Analysis...................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.2 Fair Housing Methodology ............................................................................. 5-2

5.1.3 Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Viewer................................. 5-2

5.1.4 Urban Displacement Project (UDP) ................................................................ 5-2

5.1.5 CalEnviroScreen .............................................................................................. 5-3

5.1.6 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) ....................................... 5-3

5.1.7 2020-2024 Five-Year Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan for San Leandro (Consolidated Plan) ...................................................... 5-3

5.1.8 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) ........................................................................................ 5-4

5.1.9 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data ................ 5-4

5.1.10 AllTransit ......................................................................................................... 5-4 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
iv

5.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings................................................................................... 5-4

5.3 Fair Housing Resources................................................................................................... 5-6

5.3.1 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity ............................................................. 5-6

5.4 Ability to Address Complaints......................................................................................... 5-7

5.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends.......................................................... 5-9

5.5.1 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................ 5-10

5.5.2 Persons with Disabilities............................................................................... 5-20

5.5.3 Familial Status............................................................................................... 5-24

5.5.4 Household Income........................................................................................ 5-28

5.5.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty................................ 5-40

5.5.6 Poverty and Segregation .............................................................................. 5-40

5.5.7 Concentrated Areas of Affluence ................................................................. 5-42

5.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities.......................................................................... 5-47

5.6.1 Transit Access and Walkability ..................................................................... 5-47

5.6.2 Access to Quality Education ......................................................................... 5-51

5.6.3 Economic Outcomes..................................................................................... 5-54

5.6.4 Healthy and Safe Housing Environment....................................................... 5-58

5.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs.................................................................................. 5-62

5.7.1 Housing Cost Burden .................................................................................... 5-66

5.7.2 Overcrowding ............................................................................................... 5-72

5.7.3 Housing Problems......................................................................................... 5-75

5.7.4 Persons Experiencing Homelessness............................................................ 5-77

5.7.5 Displacement ................................................................................................ 5-79

5.8 Local Area Knowledge................................................................................................... 5-82

5.8.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation................................................................... 5-82

5.9 Stakeholder and Community Input............................................................................... 5-90

5.9.1 Fair Housing Capacity ................................................................................... 5-90

5.10 Other Relevant Factors................................................................................................. 5-91

5.10.1 Access To Transportation for Persons with Disabilities................................ 5-92

5.10.2 Access to Home Ownership.......................................................................... 5-92

5.11 Subsidized Housing ....................................................................................................... 5-94

5.12 Housing Sites Inventory Analysis .................................................................................. 5-96

5.12.1 Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Area..................................................... 5-96

5.12.2 Sites by Income Population .......................................................................... 5-99

5.12.3 Sites by Overcrowded Households............................................................... 5-99

5.12.4 Sites by Overpayment by Renters .............................................................. 5-100

5.12.5 Sites by Areas of Integration and Segregation ........................................... 5-107

5.13 Sites by Communities Vulnerable to Displacement.................................................... 5-107

5.14 Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score ................................................................................... 5-108

5.15 Sites Analysis Summary Data ...................................................................................... 5-108 Table of Contents
Draft Housing Element v

5.16 Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions............................................................ 5-119

5.16.1 Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and Access to Opportunity ........ 5-119

5.16.2 Replacing Segregated Living Patterns with Truly Integrated and Balanced Living Patterns/Transforming R/ECAP into Areas of Opportunity ................................................................................................ 5-120

5.16.3 Fostering and Maintaining Compliance with Civil Rights and Fair Housing Laws.............................................................................................. 5-121

5.17 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues................................................... 5-121 6 Housing Plan ............................................................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Updates to the Housing Plan .......................................................................................... 6-1

6.2 Goals and Policies ........................................................................................................... 6-3

6.3 Implementation Programs.............................................................................................. 6-8

6.4 Quantified Objectives ................................................................................................... 6-52 Tables
Table 2.1 Population Growth (2000 - 2019).................................................................................. 2-1 Table 2.2 Population Growth by Age Group (2000 - 2019)........................................................... 2-2 Table 2.3 Race and Ethnicity ......................................................................................................... 2-3 Table 2.4 Jobs Held by San Leandro Residents............................................................................. 2-4 Table 2.5 Income Distribution by Tenure ..................................................................................... 2-7 Table 2.6 Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity .............................................................. 2-8 Table 2.7 Occupation (types of jobs located in San Leandro) by Median Salary.......................... 2-9 Table 2.8 Income by Cost Burden ............................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2.9 Household Characteristics........................................................................................... 2-12 Table 2.10 Average Household Size .............................................................................................. 2-12 Table 2.11 Large Households by Tenure....................................................................................... 2-13 Table 2.12 Overcrowding Severity by Tenure............................................................................... 2-13 Table 2.13 Overcrowding Severity ................................................................................................ 2-14 Table 2.14 Special Needs Groups in San Leandro......................................................................... 2-14 Table 2.15 Persons Age 65 and Over ............................................................................................ 2-15 Table 2.16 Senior-Headed Households by Income and Tenure.................................................... 2-15 Table 2.17 Persons with Disabilities by Age Group in San Leandro.............................................. 2-17 Table 2.18 Persons with Developmental Disabilities by Age Group in San Leandro .................... 2-18 Table 2.19 Female-Headed Families by Poverty Status in San Leandro ....................................... 2-20 Table 2.20 Migrant Worker Student Population........................................................................... 2-24 Table 2.21 Sheltered Individuals by Race/Ethnicity Relative to City Population.......................... 2-25 Table 2.22 Homeless Assistance Programs................................................................................... 2-27 Table 2.23 Housing Unit Growth (2000-2019).............................................................................. 2-28 Table 2.24 Housing Type Trends................................................................................................... 2-29 Table 2.25 Vacancy Status by Type ............................................................................................... 2-30 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
vi
Table 2.26 Housing Unit Size......................................................................................................... 2-30 Table 2.27 Substandard Housing Units......................................................................................... 2-31 Table 2.28 Changes in Median Home Sale Prices and Values (2015-2022).................................. 2-32 Table 2.29 Values of Owner-Occupied Units ................................................................................ 2-33 Table 2.30 Homeownership Distribution by Race/Ethnicity Relative to Household Population ................................................................................................................... 2-35 Table 2.31 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units.................................................................. 2-35 Table 2.32 Median Rent by Number of Bedrooms June 2022...................................................... 2-36 Table 2.33 Housing Affordability Matrix – Alameda County (2021)............................................. 2-37 Table 2.34 Cost Burden by Tenure................................................................................................ 2-40 Table 2.35 Cost Burden Severity ................................................................................................... 2-40 Table 2.36 Cost Burden by Income Level...................................................................................... 2-41 Table 2.37 Cost Burden by Income Level (Renters Only).............................................................. 2-41 Table 2.38 Cost Burden by Income Level (Owners Only).............................................................. 2-41 Table 2.39 City Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Developments in San Leandro................... 2-45 Table 3.1 Disposition of Loan Applications in 2017 ...................................................................... 3-7 Table 3.2 General Plan Land Use Category and Zoning Districts................................................ 3-10 Table 3.3 Residential Development Standards........................................................................... 3-15 Table 3.4 Planned Commercial and Professional Development Standards................................ 3-19 Table 3.5 Density for Multi-Family Residential and Mixed Use Residential Development ........ 3-23 Table 3.6 Residential Parking Requirements .............................................................................. 3-24 Table 3.7 Allowable Housing Types by Zone (prior to concurrent Zoning amendments) .......... 3-27 Table 3.8 Development Review Associated Fees........................................................................ 3-37 Table 3.9 Development Fees for a Typical Unit .......................................................................... 3-40 Table 3.10 Site Plan Review Process ............................................................................................. 3-42 Table 4.1 San Leandro Regional Housing Needs Requirement Allocation.................................... 4-2 Table 4.2 Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects.................................................................... 4-4 Table 4.3 Remaining RHNA ........................................................................................................... 4-8 Table 4.4 Addressing Remaining RHNA......................................................................................... 4-9 Table 4.5 Proposed FAR – San Leandro General Plan Land Use Designations............................ 4-10 Table 4.6 Proposed Allowable Density by General Plan Land Use Designation in San Leandro........................................................................................................................ 4-11 Table 4.7 Proposed Allowable Density by Zoning District in San Leandro.................................. 4-11 Table 4.8 Proposed Allowable Height Amendments.................................................................. 4-12 Table 4.9 Sites Inventory............................................................................................................. 4-19 Table 4.10 Site Inventory Parcels in the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area .................................... 4-27 Table 4.11 Site Inventory Parcels in the East 14th Street South Area Corridor............................ 4-30 Table 4.12 Site Inventory Parcels in the Downtown Area ............................................................ 4-31 Table 4.13 Site Inventory Parcels in the East 14th Street South Area Corridor............................ 4-32 Table of Contents
Draft Housing Element vii
Table 4.14 Planned and Approved Recycled Projects Compared to Sites Inventory.................... 4-35 Table 5.1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps.................................................. 5-3 Table 5.2 Fair Housing Service Providers Active in the San Francisco Bay Area Region............... 5-7 Table 5.3 Population by Racial Group, San Leandro and the Bay Area ...................................... 5-12 Table 5.4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation (San Leandro) ................................ 5-16 Table 5.5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation (San Leandro)...................................... 5-16 Table 5.6 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (San Leandro)............................................ 5-18 Table 5.7 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Alameda County HOME Consortium Cities) ........................................................................................................................... 5-19 Table 5.8 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Alameda County) .................. 5-24 Table 5.9 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (San Leandro)......................... 5-25 Table 5.10 Household Size by Household Income (San Leandro)................................................. 5-40 Table 5.11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Alameda County)........................................ 5-54 Table 5.12 Employment Status by Disability Status (San Leandro) .............................................. 5-57 Table 5.13 Population Living in Low, Moderate, or High Resource Area by Race (San Leandro) ...................................................................................................................... 5-60 Table 5.14 Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2018 and 2019 .............................. 5-93 Table 5.15 Sites Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics........................................................ 5-117 Table 5.16 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues.................................................. 5-122 Table 6.1 Summary of Programs to Further Fair Housing Goals................................................. 6-40 Table 6.2 San Leandro Quantified Housing Objectives 2023-2031............................................. 6-53 Figures
Figure 2.1 Distribution and Number of Jobs .................................................................................. 2-5 Figure 2.2 Inflow-Outflow Jobs Counts.......................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 2.3 Median Household Income ........................................................................................... 2-7 Figure 2.4 Household Income ........................................................................................................ 2-8 Figure 2.5 Cost Burden By Tenure................................................................................................ 2-11 Figure 2.6 Families Living Below Poverty Over Time in San Leandro........................................... 2-21 Figure 2.7 Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Alameda County................................................ 2-23 Figure 2.8 Housing Permits Issued Between 2015 and 2019....................................................... 2-28 Figure 2.9 Housing Units by Year Structure Built......................................................................... 2-31 Figure 2.10 Median Home Sale Price ............................................................................................. 2-33 Figure 2.11 Homeownership Distribution by Race/Ethnicity in San Leandro ................................ 2-34 Figure 2.12 Median Contract Rent................................................................................................. 2-36 Figure 3.1 Mixed Use Trends........................................................................................................ 3-22 Figure 4.1 Planned or Approved Projects....................................................................................... 4-6 Figure 4.2 Sites Inventory............................................................................................................. 4-21 Figure 4.3 San Leandro Priority Development Areas................................................................... 4-23 Figure 4.4 Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area Sites Inventory ......................................................... 4-26 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
viii
Figure 4.5 San Leandro Sites Inventory East 14th South Area Corridor....................................... 4-28 Figure 4.6 Sites Inventory, RD Zone ............................................................................................. 4-29 Figure 4.7 Sites Inventory Downtown Area ................................................................................. 4-33 Figure 4.8 SItes Inventory – Northeastern San Leandro .............................................................. 4-34 Figure 5.1 Outcome of Complaints Received, 2015-2019.............................................................. 5-8 Figure 5.2 Location of Alleged Discrimination, 2015-2019 ............................................................ 5-9 Figure 5.3 Population by Race, 2020 Census Data ....................................................................... 5-11 Figure 5.4 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Alameda County)........................................ 5-13 Figure 5.5 Predominant Populations (San Leandro) .................................................................... 5-14 Figure 5.6 Percent of Total Non-White Population (San Leandro) .............................................. 5-15 Figure 5.7 Disability by Type (San Leandro) ................................................................................. 5-21 Figure 5.8 Percent of Population with a Disability (Alameda County)......................................... 5-22 Figure 5.9 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (San Leandro) .................... 5-23 Figure 5.10 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Alameda County) .......................................................................................... 5-26 Figure 5.11 Children in Married-Couple Households (Alameda County)....................................... 5-27 Figure 5.12 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (San Leandro) ................................................................................................. 5-29 Figure 5.13 Children in Single-Parent Female-Headed Households and Predominant Hispanic Population (San Leandro) ............................................................................. 5-30 Figure 5.14 Children in Married-Couple Households (San Leandro).............................................. 5-31 Figure 5.15 Children in Married-Couple Households and Predominant Hispanic/Latino Population (San Leandro)............................................................................................ 5-32 Figure 5.16 Median Household Income (Alameda County)........................................................... 5-34 Figure 5.17 Low and Moderate Income Population (Alameda County)......................................... 5-35 Figure 5.18 Median Household Income (San Leandro).................................................................. 5-36 Figure 5.19 Median Household Income and predominant Racial/Ethnic Population (San Leandro) ...................................................................................................................... 5-37 Figure 5.20 Low to Moderate Income Population (San Leandro).................................................. 5-38 Figure 5.21 Low to Moderate Income Populations and Predominant Race/Ethnicity Populations (San Leandro) .......................................................................................... 5-39 Figure 5.22 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Alameda County)......................................... 5-41 Figure 5.23 Poverty Status (San Leandro)...................................................................................... 5-43 Figure 5.24 Neighborhood Segregation (San Leandro).................................................................. 5-44 Figure 5.25 Predominant White Population (Alameda County) .................................................... 5-45 Figure 5.26 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (San Leandro)................. 5-46 Figure 5.27 Access to Transit Within a Quarter-Mile (San Leandro).............................................. 5-49 Figure 5.28 Walkability Index (San Leandro).................................................................................. 5-50 Figure 5.29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Alameda County).......................... 5-52 Figure 5.30 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Outcomes (San Leandro).................................. 5-53 Table of Contents
Draft Housing Element ix
Figure 5.31 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (Alameda County)............................................. 5-55 Figure 5.32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (San Leandro)................................................... 5-56 Figure 5.33 Equity Priority Communities (San Leandro) ................................................................ 5-59 Figure 5.34 Job Proximity Index ..................................................................................................... 5-61 Figure 5.35 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Alameda County).......................................... 5-63 Figure 5.36 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (San Leandro) .......................................................................................... 5-64 Figure 5.37 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (San Leandro) ............................................. 5-65 Figure 5.38 Overpayment by Renters (Alameda County) .............................................................. 5-67 Figure 5.39 Overpayment by Homeowners (Alameda County) ..................................................... 5-68 Figure 5.40 Overpayment by Renters (San Leandro) ..................................................................... 5-69 Figure 5.41 Overpayment by Homeowners (San Leandro)............................................................ 5-70 Figure 5.42 Overpayment by Renters and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (San Leandro) ...................................................................................................................... 5-71 Figure 5.43 Overcrowded Households (Alameda County)............................................................. 5-73 Figure 5.44 Overcrowded Households (San Leandro).................................................................... 5-74 Figure 5.45 Overcrowding by Race in San Leandro........................................................................ 5-75 Figure 5.46 Sensitive Communities (Alameda County).................................................................. 5-80 Figure 5.47 Sensitive Communities (San Leandro)......................................................................... 5-81 Figure 5.48 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure (San Leandro).................................... 5-82 Figure 5.49 Historic Redlining Map (San Leandro)......................................................................... 5-86 Figure 5.50 Mortgage Rates and Acceptance by Race (San Leandro)............................................ 5-94 Figure 5.51 Housing Choice Vouchers............................................................................................ 5-95 Figure 5.52 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area, North ........................................ 5-97 Figure 5.53 Housing Opportunity Sites by TCAC Resource Area, South ........................................ 5-98 Figure 5.54 Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population, North......................................... 5-101 Figure 5.55 Opportunity Sites by Income Population, South....................................................... 5-102 Figure 5.56 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households, North ............................. 5-103 Figure 5.57 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowded Households, South ............................. 5-104 Figure 5.58 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters, North............................... 5-105 Figure 5.59 Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters, South............................... 5-106 Figure 5.60 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racial/Ethnic Segregation, North.............................. 5-109 Figure 5.61 Housing Opportunity Sites by Racial/Ethnic Segregation, South .............................. 5-110 Figure 5.62 Housing Opportunity Sites by Percent of Population with a Disability, North ......... 5-111 Figure 5.63 Housing Opportunity Sites by Percent of Population with a Disability, South ......... 5-112 Figure 5.64 Housing Opportunity Sites by Sensitive Communities, North................................... 5-113 Figure 5.65 Housing Opportunity Sites by Sensitive Communities, South................................... 5-114 Figure 5.66 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Scores, North.................................. 5-115 Figure 5.67 Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen, South ............................................. 5-116 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
x
Appendices
Appendix A Public Outreach
Appendix B Sites Inventory
Appendix C Review of Past Accomplishments
Appendix D Development Analysis
Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-1
1 Introduction
This Housing Element is the City’s eight-year blueprint for meeting the housing needs of the community from 2023 to 2031. The Housing Element provides a coordinated strategy for preserving the city’s existing housing stock and
advancing opportunities for new housing in a smart and
sustainable way that enhances quality of life and equitable access to resources. It also serves as a strategy to address housing needs across the economic and social spectrum,
reflecting the needs of a diverse community.

Meeting current and projected housing needs includes San Leandro accommodating its share of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). San Leandro’s population grew six times faster than housing unit production between 2010
and 2021. The Housing Element identifies constraints to housing production as well as policies and actions to help overcome these constraints.

Moving forward, San Leandro will continue to grow
differently than it has in the past with a majority of new housing expected in transit-oriented development (TOD)
areas, including around the city’s two BART stations, in and around the Downtown area, and along major commercial
corridors such as East 14th Street. The City has made great strides in planning for new development that will make
walking, bicycling, and public transit the most convenient means of travel for most new residents in line with the City’s Climate Action goals.

Economic disparities have worsened in recent years in the Bay Area, displacing residents of low and moderate-income.

Housing affordability and risk of displacement remain major concerns, with nearly one out of five households in San Leandro spending more than 50 percent of income on
housing costs. San Leandro households earned a median
annual income above $75,000; however, the median home
price in San Leandro increased by 62 percent from 2015 to 2021. The Housing Element details how the City will assess and strengthen anti-displacement measures and tenant
protections.

San Leandro continues to attract a growing number of
residents and businesses and housing needs have evolved.

In the 1940s and ‘50s, auto-centric and mostly white singlefamily neighborhoods were standard during a time when federally sanctioned discriminatory mortgage lending
practices, such as redlining, limited minority
homeownership opportunities. In the decades following the 1963 California Fair Housing Act, San Leandro experienced a transformation into one of the most ethnically diverse cities in Alameda County. While there is no one ethnic group that constitutes a majority in the city’s population, long-standing historic discrimination in mortgage lending and a
predominance of single-family housing development have
resulted in disparities in housing resources. The City will prevent or counter geographic discrimination by
implementing equitable investment in neighborhoods and
housing resources, promoting mixed-income
neighborhoods, and supporting housing education and
opportunities for low-income, minority, and special needs residents.

The City will continue to take actions to overcome patterns of segregation, address disparities in housing needs and access to opportunity, and foster inclusive communities.

The Housing Element was prepared through a major
community outreach effort across an economically and
racially diverse spectrum of people who live and work in San Leandro, housing developers and affordable housing
providers, and with people who represent special needs
populations such as seniors, people with disabilities, and people experiencing homelessness.

San Leandro is poised for opportunity, with convenient
transit access and proximity to employment centers such as Silicon Valley, Oakland, and San Francisco. San Leandro must grow sustainably and equitably to provide a complete community that serves all San Leandrans.

The Housing Element is mandated by State Law
and is part of the City’s General Plan. California
Government Code requires the City to update its
Housing Element every eight years. This Housing
Element is the City’s 6th planning period (“cycle”).

This document provides a roadmap for the City of
San Leandro (City) to meet current and future
housing needs during the 2023-2031 Housing
Element planning period.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-2
How to Use this Document
If you are a Community
Member
For community members who are interested in learning about the City’s blueprint for addressing housing issues, Chapter 6, Housing Plan, will help you understand the goals and key strategies the City will undertake from 2023 to 2031. Chapters 2, 3, and 4 have detailed information about housing demographics, constraints, and resources. Chapter 5 contains an analysis of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH).

If you are a Property
Owner or Developer
Property owners and developers who are interested in developing housing in San Leandro should become familiar with the Plan’s overall policy framework, as described in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, as well as the Housing Sites Inventory in Appendix B.

If you Work for the City
If you are an elected City official or City staff, you are responsible for guiding property owners and developers in their development decisions and applications and implementing the Goals, Policies, Programs, and Actions in this Housing Element. The City will use this plan to guide its work over the planning period
Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-3

1.1 Organization of the Housing Element
The Housing Element is comprised of the following components:
 Chapter 1: Introduction provides a brief overview of the purpose and background for the Housing Element and a brief summary of the document.
 Chapter 2: Housing Needs Assessment analyzes demographic and socio-economic conditions, housing conditions, and other factors to evaluate current and future housing needs in San Leandro.  Chapter 3: Housing Constraints analyzes regulations and conditions that constitute constraints to housing production and preservation, including governmental regulations, infrastructure requirements and nongovernmental market conditions such as costs for land, construction, and labor.  Chapter 4: Housing Resources documents San Leandro’s ability to satisfy its share of the RHNA and suitable land for residential development during the planning period.  Chapter 5: Affirmatively Affirming Fair Housing provides an assessment of fair housing.  Chapter 6: Housing Plan outlines the City’s housing goals, policies, and implementation programs for 2023-2031 to address the housing needs of the community and comply with State law. The Housing Element includes the following appendices:
 Appendix A: Community Engagement includes all engagement materials utilized to encourage public participation in the Housing Element update process.
 Appendix B: Housing Sites Inventory identifies properties that are suitable to meet the RHNA.  Appendix C: Review of Past Accomplishments evaluates progress and the effectiveness of the programs included in the previous 5th Cycle Housing Element.
 Appendix D: Development Analysis provides information to support the City’s plan to satisfy the RHNA.

1.2 Housing Element Purpose and Content
According to California Government Code Section 65302, the General Plan is required to consist of eight State-mandated elements, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, environmental justice, and safety. The Housing Element is the only element required to be updated every 8 years as mandated by California Government Code Section 65581. The Housing Element is a comprehensive strategy for providing safe, decent, and affordable housing for all residents. The Housing Element must include:
 Identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs, resources, and constraints.  A statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for preservation, improvement, and development of housing.
 Identification of adequate sites for housing.
 Adequate provision for existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community.

Many new State housing laws relevant to this Housing Element update cycle have been enacted since the City’s last Housing Element update was adopted and certified in 2015. The Housing Element Update incorporates and addresses pertinent housing law changes through analysis, new policies, or new programs. The Housing Element helps the City determine how to address existing and future housing needs and plan for future growth. While housing policies cannot commit the City to construct new housing units, the Housing Element identifies ways in which San Leandro will provide for the housing needs of current and future residents during the Housing Element update cycle, including establishing priorities for housing programs.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-4

1.3 Housing Goals
The following Goals and Policies highlight the City of San Leandro’s plan to address current and future housing needs from 2023 to 2031. See Chapter 6, Housing Plan, for a complete list of Goals, Policies, Actions, and Objectives.

Goal 1: Increase Housing Production by Providing Adequate Sites for a Variety of Housing Types and Removing Constraints to Residential Development.

Policy 1.1 Reduce Barriers to Housing Development.

Policy 1.2 Provide and Maintain Adequate Sites to Accommodate the RHNA.

Policy 1.3 Streamline Housing Entitlement and Permitting Process.

Policy 1.4 Facilitate Infill Development.

Goal 2: Assist the Development of Housing Affordable to Extremely Low-, Very Low-, Low-, and Moderate-Income Levels and populations with Special Needs.

Policy 2.1 Promote Housing Development Affordable to Residents at All Economic Levels.

Policy 2.2 Support and Increase Funding for Deed-Restricted Affordable Housing.

Policy 2.3 Update Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Policy 2.4 Promote Moderate-Income Housing Development.

Policy 2.5 Support Housing Production for All Needs.

Policy 2.6 Prioritize Housing Location Near Public Transit.

Policy 2.7 Promote Universal Design.

Goal 3: Promote Conservation and Preservation of Existing Housing Stock
Policy 3.1 Rehabilitation and Preservation.

Policy 3.2 Safe and Livable Housing.

Policy 3.3 Maximize Existing Housing Stock for Area Residents.

Policy 3.4 Preserve Existing Affordable Housing.

Policy 3.5 Mobile Home Park Preservation.

Policy 3.6 Support Alternative Housing Solutions and Efficient Use of Housing Stock.

Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-5
Goal 4: Protect Residents from Displacement
Policy 4.1 Minimize Displacement of Vulnerable Residents.

Policy 4.2 Strengthen Tenant Protections.

Policy 4.3 Support Households Impacted by Foreclosure.

Policy 4.4 Support Alternative Ownership Models.

Policy 4.5 Support Affordable Home Ownership Opportunities.

Policy 4.6 Support Regional Partnerships.

Goal 5: Advance Fair Housing, Equity, and Inclusion
Policy 5.1 Fair Housing Services and Education.

Policy 5.2 Affirmatively Further Fair Housing.

Policy 5.3 Commit Resources to Ensure Equitable Neighborhoods.

Policy 5.4 Promote Mixed-Income Neighborhoods.

Policy 5.6 Support Wealth-Building Activities for Low-Income Residents.

Policy 5.7 Leverage Resources for Housing Assistance and Education.

Policy 5.8 Focus Housing Opportunity Programs for Vulnerable and Underrepresented Residents.

Policy 5.9 Engage Underrepresented Residents.

Policy 5.10 Reduce Barriers.

Goal 6: Housing for Individuals and Families Experiencing Homelessness
Policy 6.1 Support Residents at Risk of Homelessness.

Policy 6.2 Support Existing and New Transitional and Emergency Shelters.

Policy 6.3 Fund Construction of New Permanent Supportive Housing.

Policy 6.4 Actively Engage in the Regional Response to End Homelessness.

WHAT IS A GOAL, POLICY, PROGRAM, ACTION, AND OBJECTIVE? Goal Desired results
Policy Guidance for future programs, activities, and decisions Program Ongoing efforts to achieve our goals and implement policies Action Specific steps that the City can take in the future Objective Timeframe and outcome for specific actions
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-6

1.4 Regional Housing Requirements
State law requires that every housing element include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Chapter 4, Housing Resources, documents the methodology and results of the housing Sites Inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of San Leandro’s ability to satisfy its share of the regional housing need. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is responsible for developing a methodology for allocating the regional determination to each city and county in its region. The 6th Cycle RHNA is based on population projections, income distribution, and access to jobs.

The RHNA is broken down into affordability categories based on Area Median Income (AMI). For planning and funding purposes, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed the following income categories based on the AMI of a metropolitan area:
 Extremely Low-income: households earning up to 30 percent of the AMI  Very Low-income: households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI  Low-income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the AMI  Moderate-income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI  Above Moderate-income: households earning over 120 percent of the AMI San Leandro’s 2023-2031 Housing Target (RHNA)
Income Category (Percent of Alameda County Area Median Income [AMI]) Number of Units Percent of Total Units Extremely Low Income (15-30% AMI) 431 11.2%
Very Low-Income (30-50% AMI) 431 11.2%
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 495 12.8%
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 696 18.1%
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 1,802 46.7%
Total 3,855 100.0%
The RHNA will be met through a combination of Planned, Approved, and Pending projects, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), and a list of housing opportunity locations, called the Sites Inventory. The Sites Inventory contains sites that could have the potential for new residential development within the housing element planning period (2023 to 2031). To facilitate housing development and achieve a greater buffer for the RHNA, the City is proposing to increase the allowable densities in the San Leandro General Plan in the Downtown Mixed Use District and Transit Oriented Mixed Use land use designations. The City is proposing to increase the allowable FAR in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation.

The goals, policies, and programs listed throughout the Housing Element are also intended to help reduce barriers to and create opportunities for housing production, including affordable housing.

Sites Inventory
The following map shows San Leandro’s Sites Inventory. While multi-family housing is allowed in many parts of San Leandro, most new housing is expected to be built within “Priority Development Areas,” a term used by regional agencies to identify locations approved for future higher density growth that are typically accessible to transit in close proximity to services, and targeted for more focused public funding (e.g., infrastructure, affordable housing, economic development).

These areas are locations for transit-oriented development, generally within walking distance of high-quality public transit and commercial centers.

Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-7
Sites Inventory Buffer
To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the RHNA, the Sites Inventory has a buffer of 27 percent for low-income units and 33 percent for moderate units. Including a buffer is particularly important due to the possibility that development or redevelopment in commercial and mixed-use zones could potentially be developed with 100 percent commercial uses.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
State law requires all Housing Elements to address Fair Housing issues. Fair housing occurs when individuals of similar income levels in the same housing market have the same range of housing choice available to them regardless of their characteristics as protected under State, and Federal laws. It is a commitment of the City that the community have housing choices free from discrimination on the basis of race / ethnicity, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code Section 65008, and other State and Federal fair housing and planning laws.

As described in Chapter 5, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, the Sites Inventory would accommodate opportunities for distribution of households of low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels across the city, and provide opportunities for mixed-income developments on several large sites.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-8

1.5 Demographics
Ensuring adequate housing for all of San Leandro’s present and future residents is a primary housing goal for the City.

Chapter 2 examines demographic trends, special housing needs, and housing affordability to provide a comprehensive view of the San Leandro’s housing needs.

Many residents in San Leandro are struggling to keep up with increased cost of living. For example:
 Approximately 40 percent of households are cost-burdened, meaning they spend more than 30% of income on housing costs
 A four-person household with an annual income of $125,600 (AMI for Alameda County in 2021) could not afford the median rent on a 3-bedroom unit or the median home purchase price The following pages visualize select demographic and socioeconomic data representative of the broader topics the Housing Element seeks to address through goals, policies, and programs. 40%
of households spend
more than 30% of their
income on housing
62%
increase in median
home sale price
between 2015 and 2021
44%
of housing in the City is
renter-occupied
56%
of housing in the City is
owner-occupied
32%
of existing homes are
multi-family
66%
of existing homes are
single-family detached
Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-9
56%
of households comprised
of families or people
related to one another
44%
of households comprised
of non-related
roommates or
individuals living alone
2,575
households were
overcrowded or severely
overcrowded in 2019
56%
of senior-headed
households were
extremely-, very-, or
low-income
95%
of the city’s housing stock
was built prior to 2000.

2.85 was the average
household size in 2019
8,880 residents over the age of five had one or more disabilities.

The City of San Leandro is a diverse community with many residents who have special housing needs. The Housing Element addresses the needs of specific “special needs” groups, including extremely low-income residents, seniors, persons with disabilities, large families, female-headed households with children, and persons experiencing homelessness.

More than 400 people were experiencing homelessness in
San Leandro in 2022.
56%

2.85 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-10
Chapter 6, Housing Plan, describes policies, programs, and proposed activities the City and its partners can use to help increase services and support to people experiencing homelessness. Additional policies are included to help reduce displacement, which can be connected to homelessness as a contributing factor. Much of the city is considered sensitive to displacement, and low-income residents are most vulnerable.

1.6 Constraints
Chapter 3, Housing Constraints, provides an overview of constraints to providing adequate housing for all income levels, which can be caused by many factors, including the housing market and cost of construction, governmental controls, availability of infrastructure, and environmental considerations. These constraints may increase the cost of housing or render residential construction physically or economically infeasible for developers.

State law requires local governments to analyze governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and those with special needs and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as part of housing elements updates. Where constraints to housing production due to the City’s regulations are identified, appropriate policies and actions to mitigate these constraints are included in the Housing Element. The Housing Element analyzes the types of constraints listed below.

Governmental
Non-Governmental
Land Use and
Zoning
Development
Standards
Including
Parking
Minimums
Planning and
Development
Fees
Processing &
Permitting
Procedures
Housing Market Construction
Costs Land Costs Availability of
Financing
Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-11
Environmental

1.7 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements
2035 General Plan
The City of San Leandro embarked on an extensive public planning process beginning in early 2014 to update its General Plan (2035 General Plan), which was adopted in 2016. The 2035 General Plan envisions San Leandro to be a vibrant city for people to live, work, and enjoy. The 2035 General Plan determined that to realize this vision, San Leandro must address the challenges that come with growth, including the preservation and development of housing that meet the needs of current and future residents. The vision of the 2035 General Plan referenced the previous Housing Element, which sought to conserve San Leandro’s neighborhoods and industrial areas while focusing new development around the city’s two BART stations, in and around the Downtown area, and along major commercial corridors such as East 14th Street.

Subsequent City plans, such as the 2018 Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development (B-TOD) Specific Plan, were developed in accordance with residents’ desire for walkable, transit-oriented communities for better quality of life and environmental sustainability.

The City of San Leandro’s 2035 General Plan is comprised of the following elements:
 Land Use
 Transportation
 Economic Development
 Open Space, Conservation, and Parks
 Environmental Hazards
 Historic Preservation and Community Design
 Community Services and Facilities
 Housing
 Implementation
California Government Code Section 65583(c) requires the Housing Element to maintain internal consistency with other General Plan Elements. The Housing Element builds upon policies set forth in the other General Plan elements. The Land Use and Historic Preservation and Community Design Elements establish policies regarding the amount, intensity, and distribution of residential uses. Environmental constraints identified in the Environmental Hazards Element, such as areas of the City in which potential residential development could be impacted by flood zones, are recognized in the Housing Element as limitations for additional housing. The Housing Element is also consistent with the (draft) Environmental Justice Element by avoiding concentration of lower-income housing in a disadvantaged community as defined by Government Earthquakes,
Landslides, and
Wildfire
Sea Level Rise Environmental
Hazards
Infrastructure
Constraints
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-12
Code Section 65302(h)(4)(A) and Health and Safety Code Section 39711. An update to the Environmental Hazards Element (Safety Element) is being prepared consistent with state law. When any element of the General Plan is amended in the future, the City will review the Housing Element and, if necessary, amend it to ensure consistency across City programs is maintained.

1.8 Public Participation
The Housing Element reflects the values and preferences of the community. The City values community input and offers various opportunities for residents and community stakeholders to provide input on housing and community development issues. Accordingly, community participation is an important component of the development of this Housing Element update. This process includes participation from community members, local agencies and housing groups, community organizations, for-profit and non-profit housing developers, and labor groups. The City endeavored to achieve a transparent and participatory process throughout the development of the Housing Element, and the result is a plan that is informed and reflects input received at each major phase of the process.

The City provided opportunities to solicit input from stakeholders and community members through interviews, community workshops, a project-specific website, a participatory mapping activity, and public meetings. To reach residents across the economic and social spectrum, advertising for community events included both digital and non-digital methods in three languages. The following summarizes the City’s community outreach efforts during the Housing Element development process and how the feedback was incorporated into the development of the Housing Element. A record of the community outreach materials is included in Appendix A.

Cherry Parade, 2022
Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-13

1.8.1 Housing Element Update Website
A website devoted to the Housing Element update (www.SLHousingElement.com) provided detailed background information on the Housing Element, frequently asked questions, and related housing resources. Project materials associated with the Housing Element update were regularly posted on the project website, including flyers for upcoming workshops, virtual workshop PowerPoint presentations, and video recordings. A link on the website enabled people to sign up for project email updates and provide comment at any time throughout the project process. Website content was available in Chinese, English, and Spanish.

1.8.2 Housing Needs and Priorities Survey
The City released an online public survey, available in English, Spanish, and Chinese, from October 25, 2021 to December 15, 2021 to receive input on the housing needs of the community and input on housing priorities, including where new housing development should be located. The survey was completed by 109 participants: 4 in Spanish, 11 in Chinese, and 94 in English. A summary of the survey responses is provided in Appendix A.

1.8.3 Community Workshops
The City held a series of community workshops prior to the draft Housing Element. Workshops were held virtually via Zoom due to safety requirements for COVID-19 and well-attended with approximately 25participants at each workshop.

Participants reflected the diversity of San Leandro residents with a broad range of characteristics including race and ethnicity, age, length of residency in the city, neighborhood, and income level. Translation services for Spanish, Chinese, and American Sign Language were made available for each workshop upon request. Each workshop consisted of a presentation and opportunities for discussion and input in the form of a question-and-answer period. The Introduction to the Housing Element workshop featured live polling and the Housing Policies workshop featured a breakout room discussion.

A summary of the public input from each workshop is provided in Appendix A. Recordings of all workshops, a copy of the PowerPoint presentation, and public input summaries were made available on the project website. The following workshops were held:
 Introduction to the Housing Element (October 27, 2021 and November 6, 2021)  Housing Policies (December 9, 2021)
 Housing Opportunity Sites (January 19, 2022)
The City also held a virtual workshop with the Kiwanis of San Leandro on January 11, 2022 with 12 members in attendance.

A summary of input is provided in Appendix A.

1.8.4 Balancing Act Tool and Housing Opportunity Sites List The City encouraged public input via an online tool called Balancing Act, where community members could formulate their own plan for housing opportunity sites based on geography and provide comments. The Balancing Act was linked from the project website and made available from January 7 to February 10, 2022. The Housing Opportunity Sites Workshop on January 19, 2022 presented a tutorial on the Balancing Act. A total of 26 participants submitted housing plans and comments via the Balancing Act. A summary of the responses and the comments is provided in Appendix A.

The Housing Opportunity Sites List, which contained a full list of potential housing opportunity sites, was available on the project website for public review and comment from January 19 to February 10, 2022.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-14

1.8.5 Digital and Non-Digital Outreach
To reach the largest and broadest spectrum of community members and stakeholders, advertising and outreach for project updates, workshops, the Balancing Act, and other information was conducted via digital and non-digital methods to reach diverse members of the community. Digital and printed flyers were distributed in English, Spanish, and Chinese.

Digital advertising was distributed via email list to over 500 organizations and on social media via Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Nextdoor. Workshops were also promoted via advertising in the San Leandro Times. Printed flyers were distributed to 6 community institutions and organizations:
 San Leandro Main Library
 Manor Branch Library
 San Leandro Adult School
 San Leandro Boys and Girls Club
 Child Abuse, Listening, Interviewing, and Coordination Center (CALICO)  Davis Street Community Center
Flyers announcing public workshops were also handed out at the San Leandro BART station, Bay Fair BART station, and Davis Street Food Pantry. City staff also attended the June 28, 2022, opening event for the Redlining & Housing Discrimination Exhibit at the San Leandro Public Library to announce the availability of the Public Draft Housing Element.

1.8.6 Stakeholder Interviews
The City held three virtual stakeholder meetings on January 12 and 14, 2022, to receive feedback from representatives of affordable and market-rate housing organizations, labor unions, housing service providers, public housing authorities, fair housing agencies, organizations serving special needs populations and persons experiencing homelessness, and members of the community who identified as low-income. Participants represented 15 community-based organizations/affordable housing development agencies, three housing development businesses, and three labor organizations. Each stakeholder meeting consisted of a short presentation about the Housing Element update and a roundtable discussion. The meeting with representatives of affordable and market-rate housing organizations and labor unions focused on opportunities and constraints to housing development, specifically:
 Barriers to affordable housing development
 Existing City tools and policies that have been useful in addressing housing-related barriers  Actions the City can take to reduce barriers to housing development  Tools or strategies that would help to address housing-related barriers The two meetings with housing service providers, public housing authorities, fair housing agencies, organizations serving special needs populations and persons experiencing homelessness, and members of the community who identified as lowincome focused on fair housing issues, including:
 Housing needs and issues within the community
 Homelessness and special needs
 Existing City tools and policies that have been useful in addressing housing-related barriers  Strategies for addressing housing needs
The following organizations, agencies, and businesses were invited to attend the stakeholder interviews:

Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-15
Non-Profit Housing Developers
 Eden Housing  BRIDGE Housing Corporation
 Housing Consortium of the East Bay  McCormack Baron Salazar  Holliday Development  Abode Services
For-Profit Housing Developers
 John Benjamin Company  David Langon Construction
 The Martin Group  DR Horton
Housing Services Providers
 Centro Legal de la Raza  Davis Street Family Service Center  ECHO Housing  Bay Area Affordable Homeownership Alliance  Rebuilding Together Oakland/East Bay  Bay East Realtors Association  Community Resources for Independent Living
Community-Based Organizations
 San Leandro Chamber of Commerce  African American Business Council  Asian Business Council  East Bay HomebridgeConnect
Housing Agencies
 Alameda County Housing Authority
Homeless and Social Services Organizations
 Building Futures with Women & Children  EveryOne Home Alameda County  Bethel Church  April Showers
 Davis Street Family Resource Center
Labor Unions
 Building and Construction Trades Council of Alameda County  Sheetmetal Workers Union  IW Local  Nor Cal Carpenters Union
A summary of the input from the stakeholder interviews is provided in Appendix A.

1.8.7 Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions City staff held a study session with the City Council on September 13, 2021, to introduce the Housing Element update. City staff presented an update on progress to date with the Planning Commission and City Council on and February 3 and February 15, 2022, respectively, to share information on community outreach methods and the proposed housing plan and to receive feedback. City staff presented an update to the City Council in person on July 18, 2022, to present the Public Draft Housing Element and obtain Council authorization to submit the draft Housing Element to HCD. These study sessions and updates were otherwise held virtually in accordance with the City’s COVID-19 safety policy and open to public view and comment.

1.8.8 Comments from Individuals and Organizations
The City received eight comment letters via email and mail from seven individuals and organizations prior to the publication of the Draft Housing Element and are provided in Appendix A. The Public Draft Housing Element was made available for public review and comment from June 27, 2022, to July 27, 2022. The City received comment letters via email and the project website from 13 individuals and organizations. A comment matrix with the commenter, comment, and City response is provided in Appendix A. The City posted a revised Draft Housing Element on the project website and City website from November 2 to November 9, 2022. Revisions were made based on preliminary feedback from HCD. The City City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-16
received comment letters from five individuals and organizations. The Draft Housing Element was revised to incorporate public comment prior to resubmittal to HCD.

1.8.9 Public Input and Development of the Housing Element Public input influenced the development of the housing opportunity sites, housing plan, and the policies and programs of the Housing Element in the following ways:

Housing Opportunity Sites and Housing Plan to Meet the RHNA:
 Community members, representatives of special needs populations, and housing service providers indicated a desire for vertical efficiency and walkability, as well as increased affordable housing, particularly near BART stations and along major streets such as East 14th Street. Community members and organizations expressed concern that the City’s existing development standards posed a constraint to housing development. The City also received input that housing for seniors should include elevators rather than stairs; therefore, housing developments should be higher than two- to three-story townhomes. The City’s housing plan to increase allowable FAR and densities in areas around transit, as described in Chapter 4, Housing Resources, and included in Program 5, is designed to achieve multiple-story multi-family development, and would accommodate the desired type and intensity of development near transit.
 Through the Balancing Act tool, most participants expressed a desire to concentrate new residential development in Downtown San Leandro and the Bay Fair TOD area. The City’s housing opportunity sites distribution focuses was developed to align with this opinion. Many community members also wanted greater diversification of housing opportunities in predominantly single-family residential neighborhoods to increase moderate-income housing opportunities and a greater distribution of housing development. Program 7 directs the City to identify opportunities to increase a greater mix of housing types, such as triplexes and fourplexes, in lower density neighborhoods.
 Community members desired a relatively large buffer of low and moderate-income housing sites over the RHNA.

The City’s housing plan achieves a 28 percent buffer over the RHNA for low-income units and 25 percent buffer over the RHNA for moderate-income units. Maps have been created to illustrate for the community the areas that allow for multi-family and mixed-use development.
 Stakeholders, developers, and community members stated that development of nonvacant sites, such as infill sites with outdated commercial uses, would be favored over vacant sites to maximize use of space and reduce costs associated with utility connections. The nonvacant housing opportunity sites for this housing element update were mainly infill sites selected via certain characteristics, including age of existing structure, improvement to land ratio (how much the building is worth over the land it is on), and likelihood of redevelopment.

Housing Policies and Programs:
 Community members indicated a desire for the City to create an incentive program for homeowners to lease accessory dwelling units (ADUs) to low-income renters. This incentive program is included as an objective in Program 13.
 Community members and stakeholders desired changes to the inclusionary housing requirements, in-lieu fee structure, development impact fee structure, and development standards to increase affordable housing development. The City will examine its current requirements and standards as part of Program 12.  Community members desired prioritization of affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) in housing policies and programs. Many of the policies and programs in this housing element update were developed with an AFFH component, and Programs 17 and 18 address fair housing services and actions to actively counter and remedy historic segregation patterns, including improving neighborhood conditions through focused investment of City Introduction
Draft Housing Element 1-17
programs and funding resources and supports for first time homebuyer programs and economic development programs in areas with sizeable low-income and minority populations, increasing housing options for special needs populations, and focusing on mixed-income neighborhood development.  During stakeholder interviews and community workshops, community members expressed concern for vulnerable residents, particularly regarding high housing costs and displacement, lack of rental housing, availability of transitional housing, and housing suitable for residents with disabilities. The City included Programs 9, 10, and 15 to provide assistance to vulnerable residents, provide tenant assistance, counter displacement, develop more affordable housing, and increase universal design and access for residents with disabilities.  Community members expressed concern for maintaining the affordability and protections for mobile home parks and an interest in enacting a right of first refusal mechanism for mobile homeowners to buy a park upon notice of sale of mobile home park by owner. Program 4 directs the City to explore opportunities to assist rehabilitation of mobile homes and mobile home parks, examine and strengthen the existing Mobile Home Rent Stabilization Program, and explore the feasibility of a right of first refusal mechanism.  Community members and stakeholders were concerned about residents experiencing homelessness, and desired an increase in emergency, transitional, and permanent housing options. Program 16 directs the City to continue and expand efforts to partner with local agencies and non-profits to purchase property for a housing navigation center; fund and develop emergency, transitional, and permanent housing; and explore new opportunities to identify new housing resources and expand services.
 Stakeholders and community members supported the production of non-traditional residential development such as alternative housing types such as housing co-operatives, tiny homes, and collective home ownership models.

Program 14 instructs the City to examine the zoning code and remove obstacles to accommodating this type of development.
 Community members expressed a desire to reduce or eliminate parking minimums to reduce constraints to development and to implement the 2021 Climate Action Plan. Program 14 directs the City to retain services of a third-party parking consultant to analyze the City’s minimum parking standards and conduct stakeholder outreach to identify feasible recommended reductions or eliminations to of residential parking minimums, with a focus on projects with transit access, to implement the 2021 Climate Action Plan, reduce identified constraints to housing production and make housing developments more financially feasible. The City will consider establishing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Ordinance to encourage reduction in vehicle trips and reliance on automobile parking.

1.9 Sources of Information
Data from a variety of sources was used to complete the Housing Element, including the following:
 U.S. Census and the American Community Survey (ACS)
 California Department of Finance (DOF)
 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)/Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)  Alameda County Collaborative
 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) lending data
 Regional Homeless Point-in-Time (PIT) Count
 State Employment Development Department (EDD)
 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
 Regional Analysis of Impediments to Housing (AI)
 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
1-18
 California Housing Finance Agency
 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
Loro Landing Affordable Apartments Ribbon Cutting, 2022 Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-1
2 Housing Needs Assessment
Ensuring adequate housing for all of San Leandro’s present and future residents is a primary housing goal for the City. This chapter examines demographic trends, special housing needs, and housing affordability to provide a comprehensive view of San Leandro’s housing needs.

2.1 Population Characteristics
Population characteristics, such as growth rate, age, and income levels, affect the type and amount of housing needed in a community. Residents’ age and income, employment trends, and other factors influence the type of housing needed and the community’s ability to afford housing. The following section analyzes San Leandro’s population characteristics and trends. At the time of the preparation of this document, limited data from the 2020 Census was available and is used where applicable; therefore, this information presented on population characteristics mainly relies on the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) estimates.

2.2 Population Growth
Population growth in San Leandro outpaced that of surrounding cities and Alameda County as a whole between 2000 and 2010 and grew at a higher rate between 2010 and 2019. As presented in Table 2.1, San Leandro had an estimated population of 82,830 in 2010, a population increase of approximately 4.5 percent since 2000. In 2019, San Leandro’s population was 90,025, an increase of approximately 8.7 percent since 2010.

Table 2.1 Population Growth (2000 - 2019)
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2019
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2019
City of Alameda 72,259 72,512 78,522 0.4% 8.3%
Oakland 399,477 386,909 425,097 -3.1% 9.9%
Hayward 139,859 141,498 159,293 1.2% 12.6%
San Leandro 79,286 82,830 90,025 4.5% 8.7%
Union City 66,863 68,081 73,248 1.8% 7.6%
Alameda County 1,443,741 1,477,980 1,656,754 2.4% 12.1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2006-2010), (2015-2019), Table DP02 U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census (2000), Table P007

2.3 Age Characteristics
The city’s current and future housing needs are determined in part by the age of residents. Each age group has distinct housing needs and preferences based on lifestyle, family types and sizes, and income levels. Traditionally, the young adult population (20-34 years of age) and the senior population (65 years and over) tend to favor apartments, low to moderately priced condominiums, and smaller single-family units. Adults between 35-64 years old and households with school-age City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-2
children tend to seek out moderate to high-cost apartments, condominiums, and larger singlefamily units, as they tend to have higher and/or dual incomes and larger household sizes.

Population estimates by age group for San Leandro are presented in Table 2.2 below. During the past two decades, the city’s population of adults aged 55-64 grew at a relatively higher rate than school-age children and young adults, reflecting national trends.1 Despite the population increase that has occurred in San Leandro, the population of preschool-aged children and adults between age 35-44 has decreased in the last two decades. Fluctuations in the median age are consistent with the finding that the rate of growth of the older adult population outpaced school-age children and young adults in the last decade.1 In years 2000 and 2010, the median age for San Leandro residents was 37, compared to a median age of 40 in 2019.

Table 2.2 Population Growth by Age Group (2000 - 2019)
Age Group
San Leandro
Residents
(2000)
San Leandro
Residents
(2010)
San Leandro
Residents
(2019)
Percent
Change
(2000–2010)
Percent
Change
(2010-2019)
Percent
Change
(2000-2019)
Preschool
(under 5 years)
5,032 4,978 4,791 -1.1% -3.8% -4.8%
School Age (5-9 years) 5,274 5,890 4,763 11.7% -19.1% -9.7% School Age
(10-14 years)
4,661 5,058 4,825 8.5% -4.6% 3.5%
School Age
(15-19 years)
4,397 4,785 4,331 8.8% -9.5% -1.5%
College Age
(20-24 years)
4,504 4,855 5,233 7.8% 7.8% 16.2%
Young Adults
(25-34 years)
12,076 12,600 14,299 4.3% 13.5% 18.4%
Adults (35-44 years) 13,334 12,705 11,625 -4.7% -8.5% -12.8% Adults (45-54 years) 10,857 11,572 13,040 6.6% 12.7% 20.1% Adults (55-59 years) 3,627 5,425 7,066 49.6% 30.2% 94.8% Adults (60-64 years) 3,002 4,191 6,494 39.6% 55.0% 116.3% Seniors (65+ years) 12,688 10,771 13,558 -15.1% 25.9% 6.9% Total Population 79,286 82,830 90,025 4.3% 8.7% 13.3%
Median Age 37.7 37.5 40.7 – – –
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2006-2010), (2015-2019), Table DP02 U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census (2000), Table P007

2.4 Race and Ethnicity
A community’s racial and ethnic composition may have implications for housing needs based on household characteristics and cultural norms that may affect housing needs and preferences – for instance, some racial and ethnic groups may have multiple family generations residing together in one household more than other groups.
1 . “Population Under Age 18 Declined Last Decade” by S.U. Ogunwole (2021).

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-3
Table 2.3 provides a comparison of the racial and ethnic composition of San Leandro for years 2010 and 2019. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, the largest racial/ethnic population in the city is Asian American, followed by Hispanic/Latino. In the past decade, Non-Hispanic white, Non-Hispanic Black, and other race alone populations declined, while Native American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander populations increased. The largest percent decrease from 2010 to 2019 of any racial or ethnic group is “Other Race Alone” followed by Non-Hispanic Black/African-American.

Table 2.3 Race and Ethnicity
Race/Ethnic Group
San Leandro Residents
(2010)
San Leandro Residents
(2019)
Percent Change
(2010-2019)
Non-Hispanic White 23,291 20,855 -10%
Non-Hispanic Black/African-American 10,432 8,926 -14%
Native American 310 397 28%
Asian American 23,844 31,077 30%
Two or More Races 2,547 3,259 28%
Hispanic/Latino 21,414 24,379 14%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 646 906 40%
Other Race Alone 447 226 -49%
Total 82,830 90,025 9%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2006-2010), (2015-2019), Table DP02 U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census (2000), Table P007

2.5 Economic Characteristics
Employment availability and income levels impact housing affordability and a community’s needs.

The availability of higher-paying jobs provides broader housing opportunities for residents, while lower-paying jobs limit housing options. In addition, employment growth affects the demand for housing. In some cases, the prevalence of one category of jobs can affect the surrounding community’s housing needs and demand (such as military installations, college campuses, large warehouse operations, and seasonal agriculture). Employment characteristics and income distribution are discussed in the following sections.

2.5.1 Employment Characteristics
In 2019, San Leandro had 47,377 employed residents, representing a labor force participation rate of nearly 67 percent of persons 16 years and over. Table 2.4 summarizes the employment characteristics of San Leandro’s civilian population. The largest industry for San Leandro residents was educational/health care/social services followed by professional/scientific/management/administration/waste management, retail trade, and arts/entertainment/recreation/accommodation/food services.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-4
Table 2.4 Jobs Held by San Leandro Residents
Occupation Sector Number of Jobs Percent of Total
Educational, health care, and social assistance 10,020 21.1% Professional, scientific, management, admin., and waste management 5,248 11.1% Retail trade 5,209 11.0%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation, accommodation, and food services 5,149 10.9% Manufacturing 4,466 9.4%
Construction 3,665 7.7%
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities 3,549 7.5% Finance, insurance, real estate, and rental and leasing 2,616 5.5% Other services, except public administration 2,957 6.2% Public administration 1,957 4.1%
Wholesale Trade 1,692 3.6%
Information 1,035 2.2%
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 174 0.4% Total Employed Population 47,377 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table DP03 The highest concentration of employment is located near the central region of the city near Interstate 880 (I-880) along Marina Boulevard according to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies (CES) estimates shown in Figure 2.1.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-5
Figure 2.1 Distribution and Number of Jobs
Source: U.S. Census 2019: San Leandro Work Area Profile Analysis2 Figure 2.2 shows the average daily inflow/outflow of employment in the city according to the U.S.

Census (2019, latest available data). The dark green arrow on the left shows that approximately 46,000 people reside outside of the city but hold employment in the city, 5,600 people who reside in the city also work in the city, and 42,400 people reside in the city but hold employment in other jurisdictions. Approximately 89 percent of jobs in San Leandro are held by residents of other jurisdictions, while 11 percent of jobs are held by San Leandro residents. 2 U.S. Census 2019. San Leandro Work Area Profile Analysis. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-6
Figure 2.2 Inflow-Outflow Jobs Counts
Source: U.S. Census 2019. San Leandro Inflow/Outflow Analysis3

2.5.2 Income Distribution
Household income affects access to housing opportunities, including the ability to locate housing in a desired location and afford a desired unit. Additionally, household income relates to the ability to pursue ownership opportunities, which can be a method for building long-term and intergenerational wealth. As discussed in Section 2.27 and Chapter 5, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, historical practices of segregation, redlining, displacement, and other discriminatory practices restricted opportunities for non-white households to accumulate wealth through homeownership.

For planning and funding purposes, the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has developed the following income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI) of a metropolitan area:
▪ Extremely Low-income: households earning up to 30 percent of the AMI ▪ Very Low-income: households earning between 31 and 50 percent of the AMI ▪ Low-income: households earning between 51 percent and 80 percent of the AMI ▪ Moderate-income: households earning between 81 percent and 120 percent of the AMI ▪ Above Moderate-income: households earning over 120 percent of the AMI 3 U.S. Census 2019. San Leandro Inflow/Outflow Analysis. https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-7
AMI refers to the midpoint of a region’s income distribution such that half of families earn more than the median income and half earn less than the median income. HCD and HUD determined that the 2021 AMI for Alameda County was $125,600 for a family of four. HUD’s 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) estimates that 52 percent of total households in San Leandro earned a moderate or above moderate income, compared to 48 percent of households that earned an income below 80 percent of the AMI, as shown in Table 2.5. Of the households with incomes below 80 percent of the AMI, 17 percent were classified as extremely low income, 17 percent as very low income, and 14 percent as low income. Approximately half of households in San Leandro owned their home, and moderate and above moderate-income households were more likely to be homeowners.

Table 2.5 Income Distribution by Tenure
Household Type
Extremely Low
(0-30% of AMI)
Very Low
(31-50% of AMI)
Low
(51-80% of AMI)
Moderate/
Above Moderate
(>80% of AMI)
Owners 6% 7% 6% 36%
Renters 11% 10% 8% 17%
Total 17% 17% 14% 52%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017.

Figure 2.3 compares the median household income in San Leandro to nearby cities and Alameda County using the 2015-2019 ACS survey data. The estimated median household income for San Leandro ($78,003) was lower than the cities of Alameda ($104,756), Hayward ($86,744), and Union City ($114,681), but higher than the City of Oakland ($73,692).

Figure 2.3 Median Household Income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table DP03 The distribution of household income for San Leandro and Alameda County is shown in Figure 2.4.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS data, San Leandro households earned a median annual income above $75,000. However, the city had a lower share of households with annual incomes of $100,000 or more compared to the county as a whole and had a higher proportion of households with annual incomes between $25,000 and $75,000.
$78,003
$104,756
$86,744
$73,692
$114,681
$99,406
$0
$25,000
$50,000
$75,000
$100,000
$125,000
San Leandro Alameda Hayward Oakland Union City County of Alameda Median Househld Income
(in 2019 inflation-adjusted Dollas)
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-8
Figure 2.4 Household Income
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table DP03 Median household income by race and ethnicity is provided in Table 2.6. Accounting for inflation, the median household income in San Leandro rose by 6.3 percent from 2010 to 2019, but Black/African American and Asian American households experienced a decrease in median household income while non-Hispanic white, Hispanic/Latino, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander households experienced an increase in median household income. Non-Hispanic white households experienced the greatest increase in median income.

Hispanic/Latino and Black/African-American households were the only racial/ethnic groups with median household income below the citywide median income in 2019.

Table 2.6 Median Household Income by Race/Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Median
Household
Income1
(2010)
Median Household
Income1 (2019)
(adjusted to
2010 dollars)
Percent of
Citywide Median
Household Income2
(2010)
Percent of
Citywide Median
Household Income2
(2019)
Non-Hispanic White $57,531 $83,291 ($71,041) 92% 106%
Hispanic/Latino $60,966 $75,293 ($64,219) 97% 97%
Black/African-American $51,149 $58,729 ($50,091) 82% 75% American Indian and
Alaska Native
$62,963 $87,292 ($74,453) 101% 112%
Asian American $74,213 $80,481 ($69,644) 119% 103%
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
$77,689 $100,144 ($85,415) 124% 128%
Citywide Median Income $62,609 $78,003 ($66,531)
1 Median household income in the past 12 months in 2010 and 2019. Information on methodology of income calculations is located at https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/acs/acs_general_handbook_2018_ch10.pdf. The dollar had an average inflation rate of 1.78 percent per year between 2010 and 2019. 2 Percent of median income is the comparison of the median income for that racial/ethnic category to the citywide median income for 2010 and 2019, respectively.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B19013A-I Less than
$14,999
$15,000 to
$24,999
$25,000 to
$34,999
$35,000 to
$49,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$199,999
$200,000
or more
San Leandro 7.4% 5.5% 8.6% 11.7% 15.5% 11.9% 28.8% 10.7% Almeda County 7.6% 5.5% 5.5% 7.7% 12.5% 11.5% 30.4% 19.4%

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%
Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-9
Table 2.7 displays 2015-2019 ACS occupation by median salary data for San Leandro. According to the 2015-2019 ACS estimates, occupations in San Leandro had a median annual salary of $43,512.

Architecture and engineering, legal and healthcare practitioners and technical occupational sectors had the highest median salaries, while personal care and service, farming, fishing and forestry and food preparation and service related had the lowest median salaries.

Table 2.7 Occupation (types of jobs located in San Leandro) by Median Salary Occupation Sector Median Salary
Number of
Persons Employed
Architecture and Engineering $93,333 1,114
Legal $87,868 375
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical $85,847 1,934
Life, Physical and Social Science $82,043 579
Computer and Mathematical $81,250 1,748
Business and Financial Operations $73,373 2,394
Management $71,868 4,693
Protective Service $59,657 738
Installation, Maintenance and Repair $54,151 1,015
Community and Social Service $51,627 950
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media $51,053 1,144 Education Instruction and Library $45,143 1,792
Office and Administrative Support $41,311 6,642
Construction and Extraction $40,840 2,629
Transportation and Material Moving $38,884 2,104
Production $37,607 2,714
Healthcare Support $30,101 2,212
Building, Grounds Cleaning, and Maintenance $28,806 1,296 Sales and Related $27,479 4,294
Farming, Fishing and Forestry $25,735 72
Food Preparation and Serving Related $25,703 3,081
Personal Care and Service $21,667 1,756
All Occupations $43,512 47,377
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B24011, Table C24010 Housing cost burden, defined as monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 30 percent of monthly income, varies by income level. Table 2.8 provides an overview of housing cost burden by income group for San Leandro. The table includes comparisons between income groups and change from the 2009-2013 CHAS estimates to the 2013-2017 CHAS estimates. In total, 57 percent of households reported a housing cost burden in the 2013-2017 CHAS, about the same as the 2009- 2013 CHAS. However, the share of very low-income residents (those in households that earn 50 percent or less of the AMI) experiencing housing cost burden increased during that time, while the share of those in households earning 50 percent or more of the AMI that reported a housing cost burden stayed the same or decreased. A larger share of residents in households earning below 50 percent or less of the AMI reported a housing cost burden than those in households earning higher City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-10
incomes. According to the 2013-2017 CHAS, 4,125 extremely low-income households in the city reported being cost burdened. Additional cost burden analysis is included in Section 2.29, Housing Affordability.

Table 2.8 Income by Cost Burden
2013-2017 2009-2013
Income Group
Households Paying
Over 30% of Income
on Housing
(percent of total)
Households Paying
Over 50% of Income
on Housing
(percent of total)
Total Households
Experiencing
Cost Burden
(percent of total)
Total Households
Experiencing Cost
Burden
(percent of total)
0%-30% of AMI 4,125
(13%)
3,335
(10%)
6,275
(20%)
7,460
(23%)
31%-50% of AMI 3,800
(12%)
1,660
(5%)
4,375
(15%)
5,460
(17%)
51%-80% of AMI 2,375
(7%)
685
(2%)
4,840
(9%)
3,060
(9%)
81%-100% of AMI 1,105
(3%)
130
(0.4%)
3,575
(5%)
1,235
(4%)
Greater than 100% of AMI 1,220
(4%)
75 (0.2%)
13,430
(9%)
1,295
(4%)
Total 12,625
(39%)
5,885
(18%)
17,885
(58%)
18,510
(57%)
Note: CHAS estimates a total household count of 30,760 between 2009-2013 and 32,290 households between 2013-2017 Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2006-2010, 2013-2017 release
Renter-occupied households in San Leandro were disproportionately affected by housing cost burden, compared to owner-occupied households. According to the ACS estimates provided in Figure 2.5, over 50 percent of renter-occupied households were burdened by housing costs, compared to 31 percent of owner-occupied households. A significant share (68 percent) of owneroccupied households did not experience housing cost burden, compared to 43 percent of renteroccupied households.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-11
Figure 2.5 Cost Burden By Tenure
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, Table B25091

2.6 Household Characteristics
The U.S. Census Bureau defines a household as all persons who occupy a housing unit, which may include single persons living alone, families related through marriage or blood and unrelated individuals living together. Persons living in retirement or convalescent homes, dormitories or other group living situations are not considered households. Household type and size, income levels, the presence of special needs populations, and other household characteristics determine the type of housing needed by residents, their preferences, and their ability to obtain housing that meets their needs. For example, single-person households tend to reside in apartment units or smaller singlefamily homes. Households with multiple people, such as families with children, typically need residences with several bedrooms. This section details the various household characteristics in San Leandro.

San Leandro had 31,434 households in 2019, a 7 percent increase over 2010. Table 2.9 shows household characteristics data for San Leandro compared to Alameda County. Overall, the composition of San Leandro’s household types was similar to the county as a whole. However, the city had a slightly higher share of single-person and senior households in 2010 and 2019. The most common household type in the city was married-couple households with no children present, followed by single-person households, which represent more than half of the city’s households. 68% (11,905)
43% (6,039)
16% (2,956)
28% (3,850)
15% (2,638)
24% (3,283)
1% (171) 5% (700)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Share of Households
0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing 50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-12
Table 2.9 Household Characteristics
Household Type
San
Leandro
2010
Alameda
County
2010
San
Leandro
2019
Alameda
County
2019
Percent Change
San Leandro
2010-2019
Percent Change
Alameda
County
2010-2019
Married with
Children
6,273
(21%)
120,100
(23%)
5,948
(19%)
134,935
(23%)
-5% 12%
Married No
Children
7,141
(24%)
127,110
(24%)
8,739
(28%)
157,144
(27%)
22% 23%
Householder
Living Alone
5,772
(19%)
92,980
(17%)
8,308
(26%)
141,077
(24%)
44% 51%
Non-Family
Households
(2+ people)
1,800
(6%)
41,964
(8%)
2,185
(7%)
(51,424)
(9%)
21% 22%
Seniors Living
Alone
2,971
(10%)
43,007
(8%)
3,396
(11%)
53,340
(9%)
14% 24%
Total SingleParent
Households
2,849
(10%)
47,147
(9%)
1,752
(6%)
29,653
(5%)
-47% -37%
Single-Parent,
Male Householder
687
(2%)
11,157
(2%)
329
(1%)
6,081
(1%)
-52% -45%
Single-Parent,
Female
Householder
2,162
(7%)
35,990
(7%)
1,423
(5%)
23,572
(4%)
34% 34%
Average
Household Size

2.81 2.72 2.85 2.82 1% 4%
Total Households 29,282 532,026 31,434 577,177 7% 8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2006-2010), (2015-2019), Table DP02, Table B11001 The 2015-2019 ACS estimates show that the average household size for all occupied units increased to 2.85 from 2.81 in 2010 and 2.60 in 2000, as shown in Table 2.10. The average household size fell slightly for owner-occupied units from 2010-2019, while it increased for renter-occupied units.

Table 2.10 Average Household Size
Tenure 2000 2010 2019
Owner-Occupied Units – 3.02 2.98
Renter-Occupied Units – 2.53 2.69
Total Occupied Units 2.60 2.81 2.85
U.S. Census Bureau, Decennial Census (2000), Table PCT008 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25010

2.7 Large Households
Household size is a significant factor in housing demand. Often, household size can be used to predict the unit size that a household will select. For example, small households (one and two persons per household) commonly seek housing units with up to two bedrooms while large Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-13
households (defined as those consisting of five or more members under one household) commonly seek housing units with three to four bedrooms.

Table 2.11 presents household size by tenure for San Leandro and Alameda County. Approximately 13 percent of total households in San Leandro are categorized as large households, compared to approximately 11 percent in Alameda County as a whole. Owner-occupied households comprised a greater share of the total number of large households in San Leandro and Alameda County.

Table 2.11 Large Households by Tenure
Jurisdiction
Owner-Occupied
Large Households
Renter-Occupied
Large Households
Percent OwnerOccupied Large
Households of
Total households
Percent Renter-Occupied
Households of
Total Households
San Leandro 2,368 1,634 7.5% 5.2%
Alameda County 34,619 27,968 5.9% 4.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25009

2.8 Overcrowding
HCD defines an overcrowded household as one with more than one person per room, excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches. Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding in households results from a lack of affordable housing (which forces an increased number of persons to live together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size. A high rate of overcrowding can indicate that a community does not have an adequate supply of affordable housing, especially for large households. Overcrowding tends to accelerate the deterioration of housing and disproportionately affects renter-households.

Therefore, maintaining a reasonable level of occupancy and alleviating overcrowding are important for addressing housing needs.

Table 2.12 provides an overview of overcrowding by tenure in San Leandro. Approximately 5 percent of San Leandro households are considered overcrowded, with another 3 percent categorized as severely overcrowded. The data indicates that renter-occupied households comprised a greater share of overcrowded and severely overcrowded households in 2019.

Table 2.12 Overcrowding Severity by Tenure
Tenure

1.0 to 1.5
Occupants per Room
More than 1.5
Occupants per Room Total Households
Owner Occupied 443
(1.4%)
313
(1.0%)
756
(2.4%)
Renter Occupied 1,191
(3.8%)
628
(2.0%)
1,819
(5.8%)
Total Households 1,634
(5.2%)
941
(3.0%)
2,575
(8.2%)
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-14
A comparison of overcrowding severity for San Leandro and Alameda County is provided in Table 2.13. Overcrowding severity trends in San Leandro are similar to Alameda County as a whole.

Hispanic/Latino, Asian-American, and Other Race/Multiple Race households (households that identify as a race/ethnicity that is not Hispanic/Latino, Asian-American, Black/African-American, or white, or identify as one or more race/ethnicity) reported higher rates of overcrowding in San Leandro compared to non-Hispanic white and Black/African-American households.4 Table 2.13 Overcrowding Severity
Jurisdiction

1.00 Occupants
per Room or Less

1.01 to 1.50 Occupants
per Room

1.50 Occupants
per Room or More
San Leandro 28,859 (91.8%) 1,634 (5.2%) 941 (3.0%)
Alameda County 531,752 (92.1%) 29,007 (5.0%) 16,418 (2.8%) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014

2.9 Special Needs Groups
Certain residents may have more difficulty finding suitable, affordable housing due to special needs and circumstances related to employment and income, family characteristics, disability, or household characteristics. The special needs groups described in this section include seniors, persons with disabilities, large households, single parents, people living in poverty, farm workers, homeless individuals and families, and college students. Many of these groups overlap. For example, some farm workers experience homelessness and many seniors have a disability. Most special needs groups benefit from affordable housing options, particularly housing located near public transportation, employment and schools, and medical and community services. An overview of special needs groups in San Leandro is provided in Table 2.14.

Table 2.14 Special Needs Groups in San Leandro
Special Needs Group Number of Persons or Households
Percent of
Total Persons1
Percent of
Total Households2
Persons with Disabilities (including
Developmental Disabilities)
8,880 persons 9.9% –
Senior Households3 7,591 households – 24.1%
Female-Headed Households4 9,251 households – 13.6%
Large Households5 4,002 households – 12.7%
Households in Poverty 1,385 households – 4.4%
Single-Parent Households 1,752 households – 5.6%
Farmworkers 361 persons 0.4% –
Unsheltered Persons6 418 persons 0.5% –
1 Population estimate of 89,708.
2 31,434 total households.
3 Federal housing data define a household type as 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. 4 Households with female-householder with no spouse/partner present. Includes female-headed households with children present. 5 Defined as five or more members under one household.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B18101, Table B25007, Table DP02, B17012 Table B11016, Table B17019, Table S1101, Table C24010, Alameda County Homeless Point in Time (PIT) Count, 2019 4 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25014A-F (2021).

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-15
The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the housing needs of each particular group and the existing programs and services available to address these needs.

2.9.1 Seniors
As a result of both income and rent changes in older age, severe housing cost burdens are more common among seniors, which can make it difficult for them to find affordable housing. Senior residents often have restricted incomes, which can result in severe housing cost burdens, particularly during periods of rental price increases. Federal housing data define a household type as an 'elderly family' if it consists of two persons with either or both age 62 or over. An estimated 13,558 residents (15 percent of the City’s population) are age 65 or older, slightly higher than the County as a whole (13 percent). As shown in Table 2.15, the proportion of senior residents in San Leandro is similar to the nearby cities of Alameda and Union City, and slightly greater than the cities of Oakland and Hayward.

Table 2.15 Persons Age 65 and Over
Jurisdiction Total Population Persons Age 65+ Percent of Population Age 65+ San Leandro 90,025 13,558 15.1%
Oakland 425,097 55,715 13.1%
Hayward 159,293 19,212 12.0%
City of Alameda 78,522 12,359 15.7%
Union City 74,722 11,921 15.9%
Alameda County 1,656,754 224,026 13.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table DP05 Table 2.16 shows income and tenure data for all senior-headed households in San Leandro. The total number of senior-headed households included in the 2013-2017 CHAS data differs from the 2019 ACS data. The CHAS tabulation found that 56 percent of senior-headed households in San Leandro were considered extremely low, very low, or low-income (at or below 80 percent of the AMI). In contrast, 43 percent of senior-headed households were considered to have moderate and above-moderate incomes (greater than 80 percent of the AMI).

Table 2.16 Senior-Headed Households by Income and Tenure Tenure
Extremely Low
Income
0%-30% of AMI
Very Low
Income
31%-50% of AMI
Low Income
51%-80% of AMI
Moderate
and Above
Moderate
81%+ of AMI
Total
Households
Owner Occupied 10% 12% 10% 33% 5,525
Renter Occupied 15% 6% 3% 10% 2,879
Total Households 25% 18% 13% 43% 8,404
Note: Total households may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-16
According to the 2015-2019 ACS data, approximately 10 percent of all seniors residing in San Leandro were living below the poverty level, which is comparable to estimates for Alameda County as a whole. San Leandro had a larger share of seniors living below the poverty level than the nearby cities of Alameda, Hayward, and Union City, yet a smaller percentage when compared to the City of Oakland.5
Resources for Senior-Headed Households
The special needs of seniors can be met through a range of services, including congregate care, rent subsides, shared housing, and housing rehabilitation assistance. For seniors with physical limitations or disabilities, housing can be modified with features that help ensure continued independent living arrangements. Several licensed care facilities that provide assisted living, nursing care, and general services to seniors are located in San Leandro. The following residential facilities provide a total of 423 units for seniors6
:
▪ Eden Lodge (156 units)
▪ Fargo Senior Center (73 units)
▪ Broadmoor Plaza (60 units)
▪ Estabrook Senior Housing (50 units)
▪ La Vereda (84 units)
Privately owned residential care facilities may also serve seniors. The City permits by right residential care homes for six or fewer persons in all residential zones as regular residential uses.

Residential care homes for more than six persons are permitted in residential zones and other zoning districts where residential uses are permitted, conditionally permitted, or subject to administrative review and additional requirements. The following privately owned, assisted living facilities provide housing for seniors, with a total capacity of 60 beds:
▪ Acapulco Senior Care Home (6 beds)
▪ Andre Alexis Guest Home (6 beds)
▪ Andrew Elijah’s Guest Home (6 beds)
▪ Andrew Elijah’s Guest Home II (6 beds)
▪ California Mentor-Marineview Home (6 beds)
▪ Carlton Plaza of San Leandro (6 beds)
▪ Heart and Soul Communities II (6 beds)
▪ Heritage Haven (6 beds)
▪ Holistic Care Home (6 beds)
▪ Jones Rest Home (6 beds)
5 People 65+ Living Below Poverty Level by HealthyAlamedaCounty.Org (2019). 6 Each residential facility contains an on-site manager’s unit.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-17

2.9.2 Persons with Disabilities (including Developmental Disabilities)
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may provide challenges to gaining employment, mobility, or independent living. Persons with disabilities may experience housing burdens and other challenges due to restricted income and/or accessibility needs. Persons with extreme disabilities may require housing in a supportive or institutional setting.

Housing needs for persons with disabilities depends on the severity of the disability(ies). For persons with disabilities who live independently or with other family members, independent living can be supported with special housing features, financial support, and in-home supportive services.

Housing for persons with disabilities must be adapted according to individual needs. Various types of housing may be inaccessible to persons with mobility and sensory limitations. Housing may need to be adapted to accommodate widened doorways and hallways, access ramps, larger bathrooms, lowered countertops, and other features necessary for accessibility, and many housing types may not have suitable space for such adaptations. Location of housing is also an important factor for persons with mobility restrictions who rely on public transportation for travel.

Table 2.17 displays persons with disabilities in San Leandro by age group. According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, a total of 8,880 residents over the age of five had one or more disabilities, representing approximately 10.4 percent of the city’s population over the age of five. Adults aged 18 to 64 were estimated to have the largest share of persons with disabilities.

Table 2.17 Persons with Disabilities by Age Group in San Leandro Age 5 to 17 Age 18 to 64 Age 65+ Total
Persons with Disabilities 411 4,389 4,080 8,880
Note: Includes persons with one or more disabilities
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table C18108, Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities
As defined by federal law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual that:
▪ Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
▪ Is manifested before the individual attains 18 years of age; ▪ Is likely to continue indefinitely;
▪ Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning; d) mobility; e) selfdirection; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and ▪ Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.

Many persons with developmental disabilities can live and work independently in a conventional housing environment. More severely disabled individuals require a group living environment with City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-18
supervision. The most severely affected individuals may require an institutional environment with medical services and physical therapy. Many persons with developmental disabilities require supportive services during the transition from childhood to a more independent living situation as an adult.

The State of California Department of Developmental Services Regional Center and Early Start Consumers lists the number of persons with developmental disabilities by zip code. As of December 2020, the number of youth (0-17 years of age) and adult (18 years or older) persons with developmental disabilities were reported for the following zip codes that overlap with the City’s boundaries:
▪ 94577: youth – 199; adults – 285
▪ 94578: youth – 224; adults – 180
▪ 94579: youth – 84; adults – 78
In total, there are 507 youth and 543 adults with disabilities in these three zip codes; however, the 94577 ZIP Code encompasses most of the city area while the other two represent a small portion.

The State of California Department of Developmental Services coordinates with regional non-profit organizations including the Regional Center of the East Bay (RCEB) to provide support services to persons with disabilities and their families. RCEB records provided in Table 2.18 show a count of 967 persons with developmental disabilities in San Leandro. According to RCEB data, the highest share of persons with disabilities was recorded among schools aged children (age 0-14) and young to middle-aged adults (23-54) at 36 percent and 34 percent, respectively. In comparison, residents aged 15-22 comprised 18 percent of the total, adults between age 55-65 comprised 8 percent, and seniors 65+ comprised about 3 percent of the total recorded by the RCEB.

Table 2.18 Persons with Developmental Disabilities by Age Group in San Leandro Age Group 0-14 15-22 23-54 55-65 65+ Total
Persons with Disabilities 352
(36%)
171
(18%)
331
(34%)
80 (8%)
33 (3%)
967
(100%)
Note: Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to rounding. Data recorded by the RCEB is not a total count of persons with disabilities in San Leandro.

Source: Regional Center of the East Bay, 2022.

Resources for Persons with Disabilities
State and federal legislation mandates that a percentage of units in new or substantially rehabilitated multi-family apartment complexes must be made accessible to individuals with limited physical mobility. For example, accessibility requirements for federally assisted housing with five or more units requires at least five percent of the dwelling units to be accessible for persons with mobility disabilities. The City does not regulate residential care homes for six or fewer persons; such homes are permitted in all residential zones as regular residential uses. Residential care homes for more than six persons are permitted in Residential Duplex (RD), Residential Multi-Family (RM), Residential Outer (RO) and Residential Single-Family (RS) Zoning Districts and other zoning districts where residential uses are permitted, subject to a conditional use permit with additional requirements that provide clear guidance for the development of such facilities. The City also offers flexibility with development standards and reasonable accommodations for housing development projects that propose housing affordable to seniors and persons with disabilities.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-19
In Fiscal Year 2020-2021, the City’s Housing Rehabilitation Program issued 20 housing rehabilitation grants for extremely low- and low-income households, including 19 households with senior citizens and/or persons with disabilities. Grant funding was used to assist residents with the costs associated with repairing and/or retrofitting their homes. Throughout fiscal year 2020-2021, grant funds helped residents install ramps, grab bars and other accessibility improvements, and conduct roof repair and replacement, energy efficient upgrades, yard-cleanup, and earthquake retrofits.

2.9.3 Large Households
Large households (defined as five or more persons per household) are a special needs group due to the typically limited supply of adequately sized and affordable housing units appropriate for large households. As referenced in Section 2.9, Large Households, San Leandro had a total of 4,002 large households according to the 2015-2019 ACS. As estimated in Section 2.23, Housing Unit Size, San Leandro had a total of 4,348 housing units with 4 or more bedrooms, indicating that San Leandro has sufficient housing units to accommodate large households residing in the city.

Resources for Large Households
Lower and moderate-income large households can benefit from affordable housing programs, including the City’s first-time homebuyer assistance program, fair housing and tenant/landlord counseling, and affordable housing development.

2.9.4 Female-Headed Households
Single-parent families, particularly female-headed7, single-parent families with children, often require special consideration and assistance because they have a higher housing cost burden relative to the general population and may require accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services. Female-headed families with children are a particularly vulnerable group.

Studies have shown that female-headed households are more likely to be affected by poverty and housing discrimination than male-headed households.8
Table 2.19 shows female-headed families by poverty status. The 2015-2019 ACS data defines “family” as a group of people related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together.

According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, nearly 13 percent of single-parent, female-headed families earned an income below the poverty level within 12 months prior to the ACS survey, compared to approximately 6 percent of female-headed families without children present. More than 11 percent of all families in San Leandro are single-parent, female-headed families, and approximately 1.3 percent of all families (272) in San Leandro are single-parent, female-headed families with incomes below the poverty level.
7 Household in which an adult female is the sole or main income producer and decision-maker. 8 Quets, Q. A Gender Lens on Affordable Housing (2016) City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-20
Table 2.19 Female-Headed Families by Poverty Status in San Leandro Family Type
Above
Poverty Level
Below Poverty Level
(Percent Below Poverty)
Total
Families
Percent of Total
Families in San Leandro1
Female-Headed Families
With Children
2,079 269 (12.9%) 2,348 11.2%
Female-Headed Families
Without Children
1,819 109 (6.0%) 1,928 9.2%
1 The total number of families in San Leandro in the 2015-2019 ACS is 20,941. The Census defines “family” as a group of two people or more (one of whom is the householder) related by birth, marriage, or adoption and residing together; all such people (including related subfamily members) are considered as members of one family. A “female-headed family” is one in which an adult female is the sole or main income producer and decision-maker.

See https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/technical-documentation/subject-definitions.html Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B17012 Resources for Single-Parent and Female-Headed Households Lower-income single-parent households can benefit from City programs that provide housing and support services (i.e., Rent Review Program, tenant-landlord counseling, legal aid, and domestic violence counseling and emergency/transitional shelter) or that facilitate the development of affordable housing. Affordable housing opportunities can also be expanded for low- and moderateincome single-parent households through the City’s First Time Home Buyer Program and Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

2.9.5 Extremely Low-Income Residents
Extremely low-income households are defined by HCD as households with income less than 30 percent of AMI. The 2021AMI in Alameda County for a family of four is $125,600. For extremely lowincome households, this translates to an annual income of $54,300 or less. Households with extremely low-income have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving public assistance, such as social security insurance (SSI) or disability insurance are considered extremely low-income households.

As referenced in Section 2.7, Income Distribution, approximately 5,485 extremely low-income households reside in the city, representing approximately 17 percent of the total households. The proportion of extremely low-income households in San Leandro is slightly higher than in Alameda County, where 16 percent of households are extremely low-income. Over half (65 percent) of extremely low-income households in the city are renters (3,656 households), compared to 35 percent of owner-occupied households (1,829 households). According to the 2015-2019 ACS, approximately 45.4 percent all San Leandro households are renters. Therefore, extremely lowincome households are more likely than other households in the city to rent their homes.

Some extremely low-income households could have physical or mental disabilities and/or other special needs. There is overlap between extremely low-income households and particular housing needs. Approximately 10.3 percent of extremely low-income households (470 households) are large families (five or more people per household), and 269 female-headed households with children live in poverty. Among senior households that earned 100 percent or less of the AMI, the greatest number were extremely low-income households: 2,049 senior households earned 30 percent or below of the AMI. In comparison, 1,565 senior households earned 31-50 percent of the AMI, 1,150 that earned 51-80 percent AMI, and 760 earned 81-100 percent AMI. Additionally, the 2013-2017 CHAS estimates indicate that 76 percent of extremely low-income households faced housing problems (defined as cost burden greater than 30 percent of income and/or overcrowding and/or Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-21
without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities). As discussed in Section 2.19.2, extremely lowincome households that rent were more than twice as likely to experience housing cost burden than those that owned their homes (spending more than 30 percent of monthly income on housing costs). The 2015-2019 ACS data reported that 2,680 extremely low-income households that rent reported experiencing housing cost burden and 2,170 experience severe housing cost burden (spending more than 50 percent of monthly income on housing costs).

Race and ethnicity differences are also apparent with extremely low-income household characteristics. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, residents who identify as American Indian/Alaskan Native, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and Other Race or Multiple Races had a higher poverty rate than Asian American/Pacific Islander and white (Hispanic and non-Hispanic) residents.

It can be difficult to project the number of extremely low-income households for future years.

However, in a review of trends for families earning an income below the poverty level, the percent of families in poverty has decreased since the ACS 2013-2017 dataset was compiled and has generally decreased since the 2010-2015 time period.

Figure 2.6 Families Living Below Poverty Over Time in San Leandro Resources for Extremely Low-Income Households
The City regulates supportive housing as a residential use, provided supportive services are subordinate to the residential use. As shown in Table 2.39, the city has 1,052 subsidized affordable housing units. Affordable housing opportunities for extremely low-income households can be expanded for households through the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA)'s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program that overwhelmingly service extremely low-income households. HUD estimates that 798 households receive HCVs in San Leandro. There are 1,850 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-22
households served by affordable housing units and housing vouchers, which has met the housing needs of about half of the city’s 3,656 households that are extremely low-income renters.

To address the range of needs, the City will employ programs to support affordable housing development and remove constraints for, and support development of housing types that may fit the needs of extremely low-income residents, such as supportive housing. During the planning period, the City will continue to encourage affordable housing developers to apply to HACA for PBS8 vouchers to more deeply subsidize affordable housing units constructed in the city. The City continues to fund or partner with local and regional organizations to provide HCVs, housing rehabilitation grants, fair housing education and counseling, legal aid, and expand affordable housing opportunities for extremely low-income households.

2.9.6 Farmworkers
Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm laborers work in the fields, processing plants, or related activities on a generally year-round basis. When workload increases during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal labor, often supplied by a labor contractor. For some crops, farms may employ migrant workers, defined as those whose travel distance to work prevents them from returning to their primary residence after their work ends for the day.

Due to the high cost of housing and low wages, a substantial number of migrant farm workers have difficulty finding affordable, safe, and sanitary housing. According to the State Employment Development Department, the average farm worker earned a mean annual income of $32,000 in 2020. This limited income is exacerbated by tenuous and/or seasonal employment status. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), there are three types of farmworkers (permanent residents, migrant farmworkers and H2A visa workers) residing in the San Francisco Bay Area, each with distinct housing needs. Permanent resident farmworkers are permanent residents and most likely require housing that can accommodate families. Migrant farmworkers are seasonal or temporary employees that require housing in the form of single occupancy rooms. H2A visa workers are temporary farmworkers employed under a federal guest work program for no more than 10 months. H2A visa workers can share homes, apartments, or be housed in bunkhouses, dormitories, or single occupancy rooms; however, since very few bunkhouses exist, H2A visa workers compete with permanent farmworkers for scarce affordable homes and apartments.

Determining the true size of the agricultural labor force is difficult. For instance, the government agencies that track farm labor do not consistently define farmworkers (e.g. field laborers versus workers in processing plants), length of employment (e.g. permanent or seasonal), or place of work (e.g. the location of the business or field).

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, San Leandro had a total of 72 workers classified under farming, fishing, and forestry occupations in 2019. ACS 2015-2019 data includes estimates for residents age 16 and over in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations by zip code. The following zip codes overlap with the City’s boundaries, with the number of residents employed in these occupations as follows:
▪ 94577: 29
▪ 94578: 75
▪ 94579: 20
Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-23
Zip code 94578, with the highest number of residents employed in farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, spans across the southeastern area of San Leandro and includes unincorporated communities of Alameda County. Although San Leandro does not have a large farmworker population, San Leandro is located within 75 miles of land zoned for agriculture, which is within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) measurement for farmworker commute-shed.

According to 2019 USDA estimates shown in Figure 2.7, a total of 593 persons were hired as farm workers in Alameda County. Of this total, 305 persons were classified as full-time employees (working 150 days or more), and 288 persons were hired as seasonal employees (hired for less than 150 days).

Figure 2.7 Farm Operations and Farm Labor in Alameda County Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Census of Farmworkers (2002, 2007, 2012, 2017), Table 7: Hired Farm Labor Migrant worker student population counts are reported by the California Department of Education.

A migrant worker student is defined as a school-age resident with at least one parent or guardian employed in the agricultural, dairy, lumber, or fishing industries and whose household has relocated in the last three years.9 Maintaining a migrant worker student population count can assist local and regional agencies in addressing the needs of such households.

Table 2.20 compares the migrant worker student population for San Leandro and the Alameda County. Estimates show that migrant worker student populations were present in Alameda County between 2016-2020; however, none were reported in San Leandro during that time. 9 California Department of Education., Overview of Migrant Education in California (2020) 577
369
465
737
355
449
305 288
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Permanent Seasonal
Farm Workers
2002 2007 2012 2017
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-24
Table 2.20 Migrant Worker Student Population
Jurisdiction 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020
San Leandro 0 0 0 0
Alameda County 874 1,037 785 790
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) Resources for Farmworkers
Because farmworkers make up a small percentage of the city’s population, the City does not have a farmworker housing program. The housing needs of farmworkers in San Leandro will be addressed through the City’s general affordable housing programs for lower-income households.

2.9.7 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
The 2022 Alameda County EveryOne Counts! Point-in-Time (PIT) Count was the most recent evaluation of people experiencing homelessness in the county.10 According to the 2022 PIT count, there were 409 people experiencing homelessness in San Leandro (sheltered/unsheltered), a decrease of 9 people (2.2 percent) from 2019 (latest available comparable year). There were 312 individuals who were observed as being unsheltered in the city, a decrease of 32 people from 2019.

There were 97 individuals enrolled in sheltered services in the city. In Alameda County, there were 9,747 individuals experiencing homeless in 2022, an increase of 1,725 people (21.5 percent) from 2019. The decrease in the city, compared to the increase in the county, could signify that the city’s efforts to prevent homelessness are performing at a higher rate than other jurisdictions in the county, and/or that people experiencing homelessness in San Leandro are relocating to other jurisdictions.

Approximately 4 percent of all unsheltered individuals in the county live in San Leandro. All sheltered individuals were in an emergency shelter, as opposed to transitional housing or safe haven.11 Unsheltered individuals in San Leandro were most likely to be residing in a tent (38 percent), car or van (28 percent), or recreational vehicle (RV) (25 percent). Fewer unsheltered individuals were residing on the street or outside (9 percent) and none were residing in abandoned buildings.

Factors contributing to homelessness include a lack of available housing affordable for low- and moderate-income households, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level, and reductions in public subsidies. Homelessness is often compounded by a lack of job training and supportive services to treat mental illness, substance abuse, or domestic violence.

The 2022 PIT count reported that 55 percent of sheltered individuals in San Leandro (54 people) were chronically homeless (individual has a disabling condition and has had four episodes of homelessness in the past three years or has been continuously homeless for one year or longer).

More than one-third of sheltered individuals (36 percent) reported suffering from a mental health issue, 26 percent reported a substance abuse issue, and 12 percent were fleeing domestic and dating violence. Six percent were veterans and one percent had HIV/AIDS.12 Sheltered individuals were more likely to be male (56.7 percent) and most likely to be older than the age of 25 (74.2 10Everyone Home San Leandro PIT Count. https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/San-Leandro-PIT-2022-InfographicReport.pdf 11 A Safe Haven is a 24-hour/7-days-a-week community-based early recovery model of supportive housing that serves hard-to-reach, hard-to-engage homeless individuals with severe mental illness and substance use disorders. 12 Individuals can be in more than one category.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-25
percent). Approximately one in five sheltered individuals (22.7 percent) were young adults between the ages of 18 and 24, and 3.1 percent were younger than 18 years of age.

EveryOne Home survey responses for Alameda County indicated that eviction/foreclosure/rent increase, job loss, and other money challenges were listed as three of the top five reasons individuals became homeless. Rent assistance was reported by nearly half of survey respondents when asked what might have prevented homelessness. Economic factors are also highlighted in employment status: 18 percent reported being employed and 36 percent reported they were looking for work.13
Table 2.21 data from the 2022 PIT count of percent sheltered individuals by race and ethnicity for San Leandro relative to the city’s population. Black/African American residents had the largest overrepresentation in percent of sheltered individuals respective of city population share (37 percent of sheltered individuals versus 10 percent share of population). Asian Americans were the most underrepresented for sheltered individuals respective of city population share (3 percent of sheltered individuals versus 35 percent of population share). Other racial/ethnicity groups of sheltered individuals were closer to their respective city population shares.

Table 2.21 Sheltered Individuals by Race/Ethnicity Relative to City Population Race/Ethnicity
Percent of Sheltered
Persons in San Leandro
Percent of San Leandro
Population Difference
Black/African American 37 10 +27
White 39 34 -5
Multiple Races 13 9 +4
American Indian/Alaska Native 3 1 +2
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 4 2 +2
Asian American 3 35 -33
Hispanic/Latino 23 27 -4
Source: Alameda County Homeless Point in Time (PIT) Count, 2022 State law (Section 65583(1) (6)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their jurisdictional boundaries. “Homelessness” as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), describes an individual (not imprisoned or otherwise detained) who:
▪ Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and ▪ Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
 A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill);
 An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
 A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
13 EveryOne Home. https://everyonehome.org/main/continuum-of-care/everyone-counts/ City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-26
This definition does not include persons living in substandard housing (unless such housing has been officially condemned), persons living in overcrowded housing, persons discharged from mental health facilities (unless the person was homeless when entering and is considered to be homeless at discharge), or persons who may be at risk of homelessness (for example, living temporarily with family or friends.) The City’s Zoning Ordinance permits supportive, transitional, and group housing, which includes homeless shelters, in the Residential Multi-Family (RM District), Downtown Area-2 (DA-2 District), Downtown Area-3 (DA-3 District), Downtown Area-4 (DA-4 District), Professional Office (P District), South Area-1 (SA-1 District), South Area-2 (SA-2 District), and South Area-3 (SA-3 District) zone. Group housing excludes use classifications such as residential hotels, motels, convalescent facilities, and residential congregate care facilities.

Resources for Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Persons experiencing homelessness in San Leandro can access housing assistance through various shelters and programs:
▪ San Leandro Shelter. Since 1986, the San Leandro Shelter has offered shelter and supportive services designed to assist residents access health and housing resources. There are 30 beds at this shelter for women and children.
▪ Sister Me Home. Sister Me Home is a safe house that provides shelter and support services for persons experiencing homeless and/or fleeing domestic violence. ▪ San Leandro Seasonal Shelter Program. The San Leandro Warming Shelter is a collaborative effort between Building Futures, Alameda County, the City of San Leandro and April Showers volunteers. The Program provides temporary shelter for persons experiencing homelessness.

Outreach staff assist guests of the program access medical, housing, financial and food aid resources.
▪ San Leandro Homeless Compact. Formed in 2016, the San Leandro Homeless Compact is comprised of the City of San Leandro partnered with Building Futures and the Rental Housing Association of Southern Alameda County. Through collaboration with local government, nonprofit organizations and landlords, the San Leandro Homeless Compact aims to assist persons experiencing chronic homelessness access long-term housing and support services. The compact provides housing units for chronically homeless individuals in San Leandro. Case workers are assigned to compact participants to assist in coordinating health and social services and prepare participants for success and independence. The Compact is funded by a combination of City and County funding and HUD vouchers.

Additionally, the City’s Recreation and Human Services and Community Development Departments presented a short-term and long-term homeless navigation center/housing plan to the City Council in February 2021. The City is currently pursuing the purchase of a motel to provide interim services/shelter and longer term permanent supportive housing for people experiencing homelessness.

Table 2.22 provides an overview of homeless assistance providers located in San Leandro and Alameda County.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-27
Table 2.22 Homeless Assistance Programs
Subpopulation Service Providers
Seniors and Persons with Disabilities Paratransit Services Seniors Alameda County Area Agency on Aging
Seniors Adult Day Care.org
Seniors Spectrum Community Service, Inc.

Persons with Disabilities Community Resources for Independent Living (CRIL) Employment Services Eastbay Works One-Stop Career Center Food Distribution Alameda County Food Bank
Food Distribution Interfaith Homelessness Network - April Showers Food Distribution SOS/Meals on Wheels
Housing Services ECHO Housing - Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity, Inc.

Housing Services City of San Leandro - Housing Programs Housing Services Eden I & R - 2-1-1
Shelters Midway Shelter (regional shelter located in Alameda) General Sister Me Home
General April Showers
General Davis Street Family Resource Center
General Building Futures with Women and Children
General Alameda County Social Services Agency
General United Way Help Line (San Francisco, Napa, Solano, Marin & San Mateo Counties) Literacy Services San Leandro Public Library Foundation - Project Literacy Mental Health Services Davis Street Family Resource Center - Community Counseling Mental Health Services Family Service of San Leandro
Mental Health Services Seneca Family of Agencies - Pathways Counseling Center Source: City of San Leandro – Community Assistance Resources

2.10 Housing Stock Characteristics
A community’s housing stock is defined as the collection of all housing units located within the jurisdiction. The characteristics of the housing stock, including growth, type, age, condition, tenure, vacancy rates, housing costs, and affordability are important in determining the housing needs for the community. The following sections detail the housing stock characteristics of San Leandro to identify how well the current housing stock meets the needs of current and future residents.

2.11 Housing Growth
In the last two decades, San Leandro experienced low housing growth compared to surrounding cities and Alameda County as a whole. According to the California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates shown in Table 2.23, San Leandro had a housing stock of 31,334 units in 2000, 32,419 units in 2010, and 32,621 housing units in 2020. The city experienced a much slower rate of housing growth from 2010 to 2020 than neighboring cities and the county.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-28
Table 2.23 Housing Unit Growth (2000-2019)
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2020
San Leandro 31,334 32,419 32,621 3.4% 0.6%
Oakland 157,508 169,710 175,457 7.4% 3.3%
Hayward 45,922 48,296 50,396 4.8% 4.3%
Alameda 31,644 32,419 33,147 8.2% 2.2%
Union City 18,877 21,258 21,839 11.8% 2.7%
Alameda County 540,183 581,372 611,752 7.3% 5.1%
Source: CA DOF, E-8 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, (2000-2010), E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, (2010-2021)
Figure 2.8 shows the number of building permits issued for the construction of housing units between 2015 and 2019. During this five-year period, 109 permits were issued to construct units affordable to very low-income residents (those earning less than 50 percent AMI), 88 permits affordable to low-income residents (those earning between 50 and 80 percent of AMI), and 56 permits affordable to above moderate-income residents (those earning above 120 percent of the AMI), for a total of 253 permits. No permits were issued for moderate-income housing units. This is primarily attributable to the requirement that all units with targeted affordability be affirmed by either deed restrictions or a market study. City-controlled affordable housing funding can only be leveraged for more deeply affordable deed restricted housing construction.

Figure 2.8 Housing Permits Issued Between 2015 and 2019 Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), 5th Cycle Annual Progress Report Permit Summary for San Leandro (2020)
109
88 0
56 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
Very Low-Income Low-Income Moderate-Income Above Moderate-Income Permits
Permits by Household Income Level
Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-29

2.12 Housing Type and Tenure
Single-family homes comprise approximately 65 percent of San Leandro’s occupied units, multifamily units comprise approximately 32 percent of occupied units, and mobile homes comprise approximately three percent of occupied units. As shown in Table 2.24, multi-family units (two to four units and five-plus units) have increased at a slightly higher rate than single-family attached and detached units in the last decade, while no growth occurred for mobile homes.

According to the 2015-2019 ACS, San Leandro had 17,562 owner-occupied housing units (56 percent) and 13,872 renter housing units (44 percent). This ratio of owner-occupied to renteroccupied housing units was the same as the Bay Area region.

Table 2.24 Housing Type Trends
Building Type 2010 2020
Percent Change
(2010-2020)
Single-Family Home: Attached 1,948 1,988 2.1%
Single-Family Home: Detached 19,459 19,469 0.1%
Multi-family Housing: Two to Four Units 1,893 1,909 0.8% Multi-family Housing: Five-plus Units 8,229 8,365 1.7%
Mobile Homes 890 890 0.0%
Total 32,419 32,621 0.6%
Source: E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State (2010-2021)

2.13 Vacancy Rate
Vacancy rates are an important housing indicator because they indicate the degree of choice available. Too high a vacancy rate can make it difficult for owners trying to sell or rent. Low vacancy rates usually indicate high demand and/or low supply conditions in the housing market. A vacancy rate that is too low can force prices up, making it more difficult for lower and moderate-income households to find housing. Vacancy rates between 2 and 3 percent for single-family housing and between 5 and 6 percent for multifamily housing are usually considered optimal for a healthy housing market. However, vacancy rates are not the sole indicator of market conditions. They must be viewed in the context of all the characteristics of the local and regional market.

Vacant units by type are shown in Table 2.25. In 2010, an estimated total of 1,329 units remained vacant, compared to 1,410 in 2019. A large percentage of vacant units are categorized as “other vacant,” which are units that are vacant for reasons that do not fit into any of the above categories.14 Approximately 10 percent of vacant units are categorized as for sale only, representing a decrease of approximately 6 percent since 2010.
14 If the vacant unit is not for-rent or for-sale-only but is held for weekends or occasional use throughout the year, the unit is included in this category. Time-shared units are classified in this category if the vacant unit is not for-rent or for-sale-only but held for use for an individual during the time of interview. U.S. Census. Definitions and Explanations. https://www.census.gov/housing/hvs/definitions.pdf City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-30
Table 2.25 Vacancy Status by Type
Vacancy Status 2010
Percent of
Total (2010) 2019
Percent of
Total (2019)
For rent 394 29.6% 403 28.6%
Rented, not occupied 110 8.3% 50 3.5%
For sale only 217 16.3% 137 9.7%
Sold, not occupied 10 0.8% 53 3.8%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 54 4.1% 127 9.0% For migrant workers 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Other vacant 544 40.9% 640 45.4%
Total 1,329 100.0% 1,410 100.0%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2006-2010) (2015-2019), Table B25004

2.14 Housing Unit Size
Table 2.26 presents data on housing unit size for San Leandro. According to 2015-2019 ACS data, approximately half of the city’s housing units contain two or fewer bedrooms, and the other half contain three or more bedrooms.

Table 2.26 Housing Unit Size
Type of Unit Number of Units Percent of Total
Studio 1,264 3.8%
1 Bedroom 4,989 15.2%
2 Bedrooms 10,093 30.7%
3 Bedrooms 12,150 37.0%
4 Bedrooms 3,537 10.8%
5 or more bedrooms 811 2.5%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25041

2.15 Age and Condition of Housing Stock
The three factors used to determine housing conditions are the structure’s age, overcrowding, and lack of plumbing/kitchen facilities. Housing age is an important indicator of a community’s housing condition. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Many federal and State programs use the age of housing as one factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs. Typically, housing over 30 years of age is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs.

As shown in Figure 2.9, housing construction in San Leandro boomed during the post-war period of the 1940s and 1950s then gradually waned. More than 77 percent of the city’s current housing stock is greater than 40 years old, although much of San Leandro’s oldest housing stock is well maintained and located in neighborhoods with higher home sale prices.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-31
Figure 2.9 Housing Units by Year Structure Built
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25034 Improving housing is an important goal of the City. HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes. Housing units are considered substandard if they lack complete plumbing or kitchen facilities.

Table 2.27 below shows the number of estimated substandard units in the city. According to 2015- 2019 American Community Survey estimates, approximately 1.7 percent of all occupied units in the city are considered substandard units out of 31,434 occupied units.

Table 2.27 Substandard Housing Units
Condition
Number of Occupied
Units
Percentage of Total Occupied
Units
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 128 0.4%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 404 1.2%
Total occupied substandard units 532 1.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25048, Table B25052 San Leandro’s Building and Safety Services Division and Code Enforcement Division estimates that while approximately 120 units of the city’s occupied units are currently undergoing code enforcement for unpermitted construction work, approximately 50 units require major rehabilitation and fewer than 15 units citywide are beyond the point of repair. There are no observed concentrated areas of substandard housing in San Leandro. Enforcement staff regularly distribute information about the City’s home rehabilitation program to property owners undergoing enforcement.
4,098
12,959
8,355
5,645
1,403
384

12.5%

39.5%

25.4%

17.2%

4.3%

1.2%
0 5,000
10,000
15,000
Built 1939 Or
Earlier
Built 1940 To
1959
Built 1960 To
1979
Built 1980 To
1999
Built 2000 To
2009
Built 2010 Or
Later
Housing Units
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-32

2.16 Housing Costs
Housing costs are indicative of housing accessibility for all economic segments of the community.

Typically, if housing supply exceeds housing demand, housing costs will fall. If housing demand exceeds housing supply, housing costs will rise.

2.16.1 Median Home Sale Price
The median home sale price of a single-family home in San Leandro as of June 2022 is $1,075,000.

The median home sale price for all housing types is $1,00,000. The average median home sale price of a condominium is $602,500. Redfin.com lists San Leandro as a “hot market,” where the average homes sell for about 16 percent above list price and go pending in around nine days. The median home sale price (for all housing types) is comparatively lower than for Alameda County and the cities of Alameda and Union City.

In June 2015, the median home sale price in San Leandro was $505,000 (in 2015 dollars, equal to $615,989 in 2022). As shown in Table 2.28, only the City of Hayward had a lower median home sale price than the other comparison jurisdictions near San Leandro. Redfin data shows that the median home sale price in San Leandro was $1,000,000 in 2022, an increase of 62 percent since 2015 (adjusted for inflation). This percent increase was more than the county as a whole, and the secondhighest increase among surrounding cities.

Table 2.28 Changes in Median Home Sale Prices and Values (2015-2022) Jurisdiction
Median Home Sale Price 2015
(in 2022 dollars)
Median Home Sale Price
2022
Change
(2015-2021)
San Leandro $615,989 $1,00,000 62%
Oakland $690,396 $958,500 39%
Hayward $597,693 $946,250 58%
City of Alameda $922,154 $1,275,500 38%
Union City $817,253 $1,365,000 67%
Alameda County $823,352 $1,250,000 52%
Source: Redfin.com 2022
Figure 2.10 provides a comparison of the median home sale price for San Leandro, nearby cities, and Alameda County.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-33
Figure 2.10 Median Home Sale Price
Source: Redfin.com 2022

2.17 Distribution of Owner-Occupied Unit Values
Table 2.29 shows the distribution of home values for owner-occupied housing units in San Leandro, surrounding cities, and Alameda County. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, San Leandro’s owneroccupied units are less varied in value than surrounding jurisdictions and the county as a whole.

Nearly half of owner-occupied units in the city are valued between $500,000 and $750,000. While San Leandro had 73 percent of owner-occupied units valued between $250,000 and $750,000, Alameda County had a wider distribution across all value categories. However, the city did have a slightly higher percentage of units at the lower end of the spectrum (those valued under $250,000) than the county as a whole, but a much lower share of units at the higher end of the spectrum (those valued over $1,000,000). This data implies that San Leandro generally remains a more affordable city for homebuyers looking to purchase lower or median-priced units than neighboring cities.

Table 2.29 Values of Owner-Occupied Units
Jurisdiction
Units Valued
Less than
$250k
Units Valued
$250k-$500k
Units Valued
$500k-$750k
Units Valued
$750k-$1M
Units Valued
$1M-$1.5M
Units Valued
$1.5M-$2M
Units Valued
$2M+
San Leandro 6.4% 26.4% 47.4% 16.4% 2.6% 0.3% 0.6%
Oakland 6.7% 23.6% 26.2% 20.2% 14.9% 4.8% 3.4%
Hayward 10.6% 25.5% 42.8% 14.4% 4.8% 0.9% 1.0%
Alameda 3.3% 6.5% 26.2% 32.0% 24.3% 4.7% 3.0%
Union City 7.8% 11.7% 28.2% 36.8% 14.3% 0.6% 0.6%
Alameda County 5.2% 14.5% 28.4% 25.5% 17.7% 5.0% 3.8%
K = thousand, M = million
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25075 $946,250 $958,500 $1,000,000
$1,250,000 $1,257,250
$1,365,000
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
Hayward Oakland San Leandro Alameda
County
City of Alameda Union City
Median Home Sale Price
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-34
Due to historical practices of segregation, redlining, displacement, and other discriminatory practices, accumulating wealth through homeownership has been difficult for non-white households. Data presented in Figure 2.11 shows that non-Hispanic white households in San Leandro comprised approximately 39 percent of the city’s households but comprised 45 percent of the primary-residence wealth (percent of homeownership market for primary residences). Similarly, Asian-American households comprised approximately 29 percent of households but comprised 34 percent of primary-residence wealth. In contrast, Black/African-American Households comprised 10 percent of households but were only 3 percent of primary-residence wealth, and Hispanic/Latino households comprised 16 percent of total households compared to 10 percent of the share of primary-residence wealth.15
Figure 2.11 Homeownership Distribution by Race/Ethnicity in San Leandro Source: Urban Institute, Tracking Homeownership Wealth Gaps, 2021.

A comparison of homeownership-wealth gap for San Leandro and neighboring cities is presented in Table 2.30. The value in parenthesis is the difference between the share of primary-residence wealth and the share of household population for each race/ethnicity. A negative value depicts a smaller percentage of primary-residence wealth relative to the share of the household population, while a positive value represents a larger share of primary-residence wealth relative to the share of household population. Black/African-American, Hispanic/Latino, and “other non-white” households hold less primary-residence wealth relative to their share of households in each jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, Asian-American and non-Hispanic white households hold more primary-residence wealth relative to their share of households. San Leandro’s share of primary residence wealth relative to share of household population for race/ethnicity did not vary widely in comparison jurisdictions. However, San Leandro had a lower primary residence wealth for Black/African American households relative to household population than the cities of Hayward and Union City, and a lower primary residence wealth for Hispanic/Latino households relative to household population than Union City.
15 Urban Institute, 2021. Available: https://apps.urban.org/features/tracking-housing-wealth-equity/

28.9%

10.3%

16.3%

39.4%

5.1%

36.4%

3.4%

10.4%

45.8%

4.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Asian-American African-American Hispanic/Latino non-Hispanic White Other Distribution of Household Population Distribution of Primary-Residence Wealth Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-35
Table 2.30 Homeownership Distribution by Race/Ethnicity Relative to Household Population
Primary Residence Share of Wealth by Race/Ethnicity1
Jurisdiction
Asian-American
Homeowners
Black/African
American
Homeowners
Hispanic/
Latino Homeowners
Non-Hispanic White
Homeowners
Other Non-White
Homeowners
San Leandro 36.4% (+7.5) 3.4% (-6.9) 10.4% (-5.9) 45.8% (+6.4) 4.0% (-1.1) Oakland 18.9% (+2.7) 13.7 (-11.1) 9.0% (-9.4) 55.0% (+19.4) 3.5% (-1.2) Hayward 40.7% (+13.2) 6.1% (-4.8) 21.0% (-11.8) 27.8% (+4.2) 4.4% (-0.7) City of Alameda 36.4% (+7.5) 3.4% (-6.9) 10.5% (-5.8) 45.7% (+6.3) 4.0% (-1.1) Union City 63.8% (+9.2) 1.6% (-2.4) 16.0% (-2.1) 17.1 (-1.5) 1.5% (-3.6) 1 Primary residence wealth is the percent of San Leandro Homeowners by Race/Ethnicity. The percentage difference relative to household population is in parenthesis.

Source: Urban Institute, Tracking Homeownership Wealth Gaps, 2021

2.18 Housing Rents
Table 2.31 shows the distribution of contract rents for renter-occupied units in San Leandro and Alameda County. The U.S. Census Bureau defines contract rent as the monthly rent agreed upon regardless of any furnishings, utilities, or services that may be included.16 According to the 2015- 2019 ACS, most (65 percent) San Leandro renters were paying a monthly rent between $1,000 and $2,000, while 21 percent paid more than $2,000 per month and 13 percent paid less than $1,000 per month. In contrast, 36 percent of renters in Alameda County paid $2,000 per month or more; therefore, San Leandro renters generally pay less in rent than other areas of the county (except for the City of Oakland).

Table 2.31 Contract Rents for Renter-Occupied Units
Jurisdiction
Rent Less
than $500
Rent
$500-$1000
Rent
$1000-$1500
Rent
$1500-$2000
Rent
$2000-$2500
Rent
$2500-$3000
Rent
$3000 or More
San Leandro 4.5% 8.8% 35.2% 30.1% 14.5% 4.6% 2.3%
Oakland 11.0% 19.3% 28.2% 20.2% 10.2% 5.8% 5.2%
Hayward 3.3% 7.4% 22.3% 36.5% 18.8% 8.8% 2.8%
Alameda 6.0% 5.7% 23.7% 28.5% 19.7% 9.5% 6.8%
Union City 2.9% 4.2% 8.2% 32.0% 27.4% 16.0% 9.3%
Alameda County 6.4% 11.8% 22.0% 24.9% 17.1% 10.6% 7.2%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25056 According to 2015-2019 ACS, San Leandro renters paid a median contract rent of $1,525 per month.

Compared to surrounding cities, the median contract rent in San Leandro was slightly lower than Alameda County as a whole ($1,697) and the City of Hayward ($1,733), but higher than contract rent costs in the City of Oakland ($1,345). Figure 2.12 shows trends in median contract rent trends for San Leandro, Oakland, Hayward, and Alameda County from 2009 to 2019. Median rental cost began to sharply increase around 2016 for all cities.
16 U.S. Census Bureau, Definitions and Explanations, 2021.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-36
Figure 2.12 Median Contract Rent
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.

Table 2.32 below provides an overview of median rent costs for rental housing by number of bedrooms. The median rent data provided by Zumper shows the estimated rent costs for June 2022 in San Leandro. Zumper is an online tool that compiles rent price data to identify average rent prices at the local, regional, and national levels.

Table 2.32 Median Rent by Number of Bedrooms June 2022
Number of Bedrooms Median Rent
Studio $1,500
1 Bedroom $2,120
2 Bedroom $2,600
3 Bedroom $3,194
4 Bedroom $3,950
Source: Zumper, 2022.
$1,033 $1,060
$1,121 $1,140 $1,133 $1,165 $1,189
$1,221
$1,292
$1,396
$1,525
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Dollars
San Leandro Oakland Hayward Alameda County
Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-37

2.19 Housing Affordability
Housing affordability can be inferred by comparing the cost of renting or owning a home in the city with housing affordability for different income levels. This information indicates the number of households likely to experience displacement, overcrowding, and overpayment.

Housing affordability levels are determined by HUD, which conducts annual nationwide household income surveys to determine household eligibility for federal housing assistance. Based on survey results, State HCD determined annual income limits for monthly housing costs, including housing payments (rent or mortgage), utilities, and taxes (if housing owner). These income limits are further broken down by household size. Table 2.33 shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment).

Table 2.33 Housing Affordability Matrix – Alameda County (2021) Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Costs
Rental
Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Ownership
Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes,
Insurance,
Homeowners
Association
Fees
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
1-Person
(studio)
$28,800 $720 $186 $203 $252 $535 $69,971
2-Person
(1 BR)
$32,900 $823 $222 $243 $288 $601 $76,988
3-Person
(2 BR)
$37,000 $925 $274 $306 $324 $652 $77,811
4-Person
(3 BR)
$41,100 $1,028 $349 $392 $360 $679 $72,705
5-Person
(4 BR)
$44,400 $1,110 $392 $463 $389 $719 $68,126
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1-Person $47,950 $1,199 $186 $203 $420 $1,013 $151,982
2-Person $54,800 $1,370 $222 $243 $480 $1,148 $170,776
3-Person $61,650 $1,541 $274 $306 $539 $1,268 $183,377
4-Person $68,500 $1,713 $349 $392 $599 $1,364 $190,048
5-Person $74,000 $1,850 $392 $463 $648 $1,459 $194,891
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1-Person $76,750 $1,919 $186 $203 $672 $1,733 $275,321
2-Person $87,700 $2,193 $222 $243 $767 $1,971 $311,673
3-Person $98,650 $2,466 $274 $306 $863 $2,193 $341,833
4-Person $109,600 $2,740 $349 $392 $959 $2,392 $366,062 5-Person $118,400 $2,960 $392 $463 $1,036 $2,569 $385,037 Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1-Person $87,900 $2,198 $186 $203 $769 $2,012 $323,072
2-Person $100,500 $2,513 $222 $243 $879 $2,291 $366,491 3-Person $113,050 $2,826 $274 $306 $989 $2,553 $403,502 4-Person $125,600 $3,140 $349 $392 $1,099 $2,792 $434,584 5-Person $135,650 $3,391 $392 $463 $1,187 $3,000 $458,912 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-38
Annual
Income
Limits
Affordable
Monthly
Housing
Costs
Rental
Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Ownership
Utility
Allowance
(2020)
Taxes,
Insurance,
Homeowners
Association
Fees
Affordable
Rent
Affordable
Home Price
Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)
1-Person $105,500 $2,638 $186 $203 $923 $2,452 $398,445 2-Person $120,550 $3,014 $222 $243 $1,055 $2,792 $452,356 3-Person $135,650 $3,391 $274 $306 $1,187 $3,118 $500,288 4-Person $150,700 $3,768 $349 $392 $1,319 $3,419 $542,077 5-Person $162,750 $4,069 $392 $463 $1,424 $3,677 $574,970 Assumptions:

1. Income limits are the 2021 HCD limits for Alameda County.

2. Affordable housing costs are 30 percent of gross household income.

3. Utility costs are based on Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule for 2021.

4. Taxes, insurance, private mortgage insurance, and homeowners association dues are calculated at 35 percent of monthly affordable cost.

5. Affordable home price assumes a 30-year fixed mortgage with a 3 percent interest rate and 10 percent down payment.

6. Taxes and insurance costs apply to owners only.

Sources: 2021 HCD Income Limits; Alameda County Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2021; Veronica Tam & Associates, 2021.

Extremely Low-income Households
Extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of the County AMI. According to HCD estimates, extremely low-income households have an annual income of $28,800 or below for a oneperson household and $44,400 or below for a five-person household.

Extremely low-income households cannot afford market-rate rental or ownership housing in San Leandro.

Very- Low-income Households
Very low-income households earn between 31 and 50 percent of the County AMI – up to $47,950 for a one-person household and up to $74,000 for a five-person household in 2021. A very lowincome household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $151,982 and $194,891, adjusting for household size. After deductions for utilities, a very low-income household can afford to pay approximately $1,013 to $1,459 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Given the cost of housing in San Leandro, very low-income households could not afford to purchase a home or rent an adequately sized unit in the city.

Low-income Households
Low-income households earn between 51 and 80 percent of the County AMI – up to $76,750 for a one-person household and up to $118,400 for a five-person household in 2021. A low-income household can generally afford homes offered at prices between $275,321 and $385,037, adjusting for household size. After deductions for utilities, a low-income household can afford to pay approximately $1,733 to $2,569 in monthly rent, depending on household size. Finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing can be challenging to households in this income group.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-39
Median-Income Households
Median-income households earn between 80 and 100 percent of the County’s AMI – up to $87,900 for a one-person household and up to $135,650 for a five-person household in 2020. The affordable home price for a moderate-income household ranges from $323,072 to $458,912. After deductions for utilities, a one-person median-income household could afford to pay up to $2,012 in rent per month and a five-person low-income household could afford to pay as much as $3,000. Finding appropriately sized market-rate rental housing can be challenging to households in this income group.

Moderate-Income Households
Moderate-income households earn between 100 and 120 percent of the County’s AMI – up to $162,750 depending on household size in 2020. The maximum affordable home price for a moderate-income household is $398,445 for a one-person household and $574,970 for a fiveperson family. Moderate-income households in San Leandro could afford to purchase the median priced home in the city; however, finding an affordable adequately sized home could present a challenge for households earning incomes at the lower end of the middle/upper category. The maximum affordable rent payment for moderate-income households is between $2,452 and $3,677 per month. Appropriately sized market-rate rental housing is generally affordable to households in this income group.

2.19.1 Workforce Housing
Federal guidelines define workforce housing as housing that is affordable to households earning incomes within the range of 60 to 120 percent of the AMI (in San Leandro, that range is $75,460 to $150,720 for a household of four). A broader definition of workforce housing is housing that is affordable to people who work in the city.

A four-person household with an annual income of $125,600 could afford monthly rent of $2,792 for a three-bedroom housing unit and a home purchase price of $434,584 without being burdened by housing costs. As noted in Table 2.32, the average monthly rental price for a three-bedroom unit is $3,194, exceeding the affordable amount of a household with the median AMI by approximately

14.4 percent.

As noted in Table 2.7, the salary for the largest number of workers located in San Leandro (Office and Admin Support) receives a median income of approximately $41,300. At this median income level, a household of one would be considered very low-income; if there were two similar wage earners in one household with two children, then that household would be considered a lowincome household. According to Table 2.4, of jobs held by San Leandrans, the number one occupational category is Education, Healthcare and Social Services with median incomes ranging from $30,000 to almost $86,000. Housing costs for median income earners exceed the ability of many workers to afford housing in the city.

2.19.2 Cost Burden
As noted in Section 2.7, Income Distribution, a housing cost burden means households spend 30 percent of more of their monthly income on housing-related costs. A comparison of housing cost burden by tenure by tenure is shown in Table 2.34. According to the 2015-2019 ACS estimates, 40 percent of San Leandro households have a housing cost burden. Renter-occupied households are more likely to have a housing cost burden. Housing cost burden data trends in San Leandro have not City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-40
shown significant change when comparing 2009-2013 and 2015-2019 estimates, as overall housing cost burden has slightly decreased by 2 percent. As a share of total households, the owner-occupied households with a housing cost burden decreased while renter-occupied households with a housing cost burden increased when comparing the 2009-2013 and 2015-2019 time periods.

Table 2.34 Cost Burden by Tenure
2009-2013 2015-2019
Tenure
Households
Not Housing
Burdened
(percent of
total)
Households
Paying 30%-50%
of Income on
Housing
(percent of total)
Households
Paying 50%+ of
Income on
Housing
(percent of total)
Households Not
Housing Cost
Burdened
(percent of total)
Households
Paying 30%-50%
of Income on
Housing
(percent of total)
Households
Paying 50%+ of
Income on
Housing
(percent of total)
Owner
Occupied1
10,617
(35%)
3,869
(13%)
2,584
(8%)
11,905
(38%)
2,856
(9%)
2,630
(8%)
Renter
Occupied1
6,487
(21%)
3,136
(10%)
3,321
(11%)
6,039
(19%)
3,850
(12%)
3,283
(10%)
Total
Households2
17,104
(56%)
7,005
(23%)
5,905
(19%)
17,944
(57%)
6,706
(21%)
5,913
(19%)
Notes: 1Percentages for owner- and renter-occupied categories may not add up exactly to totals due to rounding. 2 Estimated total households was 30,759 between 2009-2013 and 31,434 between 2015-2019. A total of 745 (2%) households were not computed in 2009-2013 estimates and 871 (3%) households in 2015-2019 estimates.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2009-2013), (2015-2019), Table B25070, Table B25091 According to the ACS estimates shown in Table 2.35, a greater share of households in San Leandro were estimated to be experiencing housing cost burden, compared to households in Alameda County.

Table 2.35 Cost Burden Severity
Jurisdiction
Households Spending
0%-30% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
(percent of total)
Households Spending
30%-50% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
(percent of total)
Households Spending
50%+ of Income
Toward Housing Cost
(percent of total)
Not
Computed
San Leandro 17,944 (57%) 6,706 (21%) 5,913 (19%) 871 (3%) Alameda County 350,326 (61%) 117,618 (20%) 96,579 (17%) 12,654 (2%) Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25070, Table B25091 As shown in Table 2.36, extremely low-income households were more likely than other income groups to experience severe cost burden. A total of 4,119 extremely low-income households were considered cost burdened (83 percent). Furthermore, 3,335 (67 percent of all extremely low-income households) reported a severe cost burden.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-41
Table 2.36 Cost Burden by Income Level
Income Group
Households Spending
0%-30% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
(percent of
total income group)
Households Spending
30%-50% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
(percent of
total income group)
Households Spending
50%+ of Income
Toward Housing Cost
(percent of
total income group)
0-30% AMI 895 (18%) 784 (16%) 3,335 (67%)
31-50% AMI 1,604 (30%) 2,140 (40%) 1,660 (31%)
51-80% AMI 2,135 (47%) 1,695 (38%) 685 (15%)
81-100% AMI 2,410 (68%) 975 (28%) 135 (3%)
Greater than 100% AMI 12,165 (91%) 1,139 (9%) 75 (less than 1%) Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2022 (based on 2015-2019 ACS 5-year estimates) Extremely low-income households were more likely to rent than to own their homes: 3,535 extremely low-income households rent homes (65 percent), compared to 1,948 that own (35 percent). As shown in Table 2.37, 2,680 extremely low-income households that rent reported being cost burdened, and 2,170 reported being severely cost burdened. Comparatively, as shown in Table 2.38, 1,365 extremely low-income households that owned their home reported being cost burdened, and 1,145 reported being severely cost-burdened. Therefore, extremely low-income households that rent were nearly twice as likely to experience housing cost burden than those who owned their homes.

Table 2.37 Cost Burden by Income Level (Renters Only)
Income Group
Households Spending
Greater than 30% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
Households Spending
Greater than 50% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
0-30% AMI 2,680 2,170
31-50% AMI 2,840 975
51-80% AMI 1,045 55
81-100% AMI 105 0
Greater than 100% AMI 145 0
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2022 (based on 2015-2019 ACS 5-year estimates) Table 2.38 Cost Burden by Income Level (Owners Only)
Income Group
Households Spending
Greater than 30% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
Households Spending
Greater than 50% of Income
Toward Housing Cost
0-30% AMI 1,365 1,145
31-50% AMI 1,260 830
51-80% AMI 1,205 495
81-100% AMI 625 35
Greater than 100% AMI 845 45
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 2022 (based on 2015-2019 ACS 5-year estimates) City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-42

2.20 Assisted Housing Units
Assisted housing units are those that are restricted for use by occupants with limited household incomes. These units are assisted under federal, State, and/or local programs, including HUD programs, state and local bond programs, former redevelopment agency (RDA) programs, density bonus, or direct assistance programs.

At-Risk Housing Units
The California Housing Partnership maintains an affordable housing database to monitor changes in affordable housing and to identify units or housing developments that are at risk of converting to market-rate uses. Assisted units in the preservation data base are classified by the following risk categories:
▪ Low Risk: affordable housing units 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. ▪ Moderate Risk: affordable housing units 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. ▪ High Risk: affordable housing units 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.

2.20.1 Funding Sources for Assisted Housing
Table 2.39 identifies the funding source for the 872 assisted housing units in the city. The following local, State, and Federal programs provide financing for assisted housing units:

HUD Section 8 Program
Under the HUD Section 8 program, which is administered by HACA, participating building owners are entitled to receive HUD Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for units with Section 8 contracts. For Section 8 units, HUD makes up the difference between 30 percent of a household’s monthly income and the FMRs. Additionally, if HACA chooses to do so, they may convert unused Section 8 vouchers into PBS8 vouchers. HACA periodically releases a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) that historically has awarded PBS8 vouchers to 100 percent deed restricted affordable housing by non-profit residential developers.

Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC)
Created in 1986 by the federal government, the LIHTC program offers tax incentives to encourage the development of affordable housing. The LIHTC is jointly administered by the IRS and State Housing Credit Agencies (HCA) and have funded over eight billion annually tax credit units nationwide. California’s HCA is the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). In San Leandro, the LIHTC program has funded a significant share of affordable units for seniors and very low-, low-, and moderate-income households.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-43
California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA)
CalHFA uses approved private lenders and purchases loans that meet CalHFA standards to support very low, low, and moderate income assisted units. CalHFA partners with jurisdictions, developers, and other organizations to provide a variety of resources including loan assistance programs for homebuyers and renters aimed at increasing housing opportunities for low- and moderate-income residents.

Alameda County Measure A-1 Housing Bond
The Alameda County Measure A-1 Housing Bond (A-1) approved by voters in 2016 to protect affordable housing options and increase access to housing for persons with disabilities, low-income families and others in need throughout the County. The A-1 Housing Bond funds are allocated to participating jurisdictions to create homeowner and rental housing programs aimed at preserving and expanding the supply affordable rental housing throughout Alameda County. In San Leandro, 140 units were constructed with A-1 funds in addition to leveraging funding to construct 76 units in those same housing developments but with other subsidies.

San Leandro Affordable Housing Trust Fund
The City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund was created under the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance to receive fees and or monies (such as in lieu housing fees and condominium conversion fees) from sources in connection with the approval of new residential development projects. Funds in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund must be utilized to improve the supply of affordable housing and increase access to housing for moderate-, low-, and very low-income households in San Leandro.

Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund
The Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset fund receives reimbursements from loan payoffs on projects supported by the former San Leandro Redevelopment Agency (RDA). When a sufficient balance is available, funds are distributed by an RFP or NOFA process to leverage other financing to construct deed restricted affordable housing. The former RDA outstanding loan portfolio that the City expects eventually to be reimbursed primarily consists of first time homebuyer down payment assistance loans and housing rehabilitation loans. The RDA was terminated in 2012 when the State eliminated the ability for cities to collect the scheduled tax-increment payments, but a city’s “housing successor agency” is allowed to continue collecting repayments from its former low- and moderate-income housing portfolio supported by RDA tax-increment set-aside for affordable housing activities.

2.20.2 Preservation of At-Risk Units
California housing element law requires all jurisdictions to include a study of all low-income housing units which may at some future time be lost to the affordable inventory by the expiration of some type of affordability restrictions. The planning period for this at-risk housing analysis extends from 2023 through 2033. The underlying income use restrictions of the assisted housing developments listed in Table 2.39 were reviewed for potential conversion to market rate during this planning period.

During the 2023-2033 period, 35 units (out of a total unit count of 236) residential units at Gateway Apartments are deemed “high risk” of being lost to the supply of the affordable housing in the City City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-44
of San Leandro. The deed restrictions recorded on title of this property will expire in 2025. Gateway Apartments is a private development that set aside affordable units as dictated by the inclusionary requirements under the City’s Redevelopment Agency that was operating at the time the housing was constructed. It is highly likely that these units will be converted to market-rate housing at the expiration of affordability controls in 2025. Prior to the expiration date of these deed restricted units, the City will work with the property owner to confirm that the tenants are properly notified of their rights under AB 1521 (2017, Bloom).

Different options may be used to preserve or replace the units though they may be infeasible given that the units are located in a larger non-regulated property. The following analysis demonstrates the cost to the City to preserve these at-risk units.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-45
Table 2.39 City Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Developments in San Leandro Housing Complex Location Total Units Very Low Low Senior Moderate Total Assisted Expiration Date Funding Casa Verde 2398 East 14th Street 67 67 67 2062 LIHTC; HUD Eden Lodge 400 Springlake Drive 156 156 156 2065 LIHTC; HUD; CalHFA Fargo Senior Center 868 Fargo Avenue 73 73 73 2069 LIHTC; HUD; HCD Fuller Lodge 2141 Bancroft Avenue 26 25 1 25 2068 LIHTC; HUD Luella Fuller Group Home 342 West Joaquin Avenue 6 5 1 5 2034 HUD Broadmoor Plaza 232 East 14th Street 60 60 60 2044 HUD
Fuller Gardens 2390 East 14th Street 16 16 16 2044 HCD; HUD Estabrook Senior Housing 2103 East 14th Street 51 50 1 50 2064 LIHTC; HUD The Surf Apartments 15320 Tropic Court 46 11 25 10 36 2057 LIHTC; CalHFA Mission Bell 112 Garcia Avenue 25 23 2 25 2061 Low Mod Housing Fund; HUD
Gateway Apartments1 902 Davis Street 236 35 201 35 2025 RDA Marea Alta 1400 San Leandro Boulevard 113 55 58 113 2068 LIHTC La Palmas Apartments 15370 Tropic Court 92 16 54 22 70 2069 LIHTC La Vereda 525 West Juana Avenue 85 84 1 84 2070 LIHTC; HCD Loro Landing 1604 San Leandro Boulevard 62 43 14 5 57 2075 LIHTC; HUD Total 1,114 872 – –
1 Gateway Apartments affordability restrictions will expire during the next 10 years.

Notes: Casa Verde received LIHTC and Redevelopment Low Mod Housing Fund (RDA Housing Set-Aside Funding) in 2009 prior to the dissolution of RDA in 2012.

Source: City of San Leandro, 2021.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-46
Acquisition/Rehabilitation
If this property was 100 percent deed restricted affordable housing with an expiring regulatory agreement, transferring ownership of an at-risk project to a non-profit housing provider is one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. By transferring property ownership to a non-profit organization, low-income restrictions can be secured, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental subsidies.

Under AB 1521 noted above, there are now proscribed steps for owners of deed restricted properties to take prior to the expiration of those affordability requirements. This law requires that the owner consider an offer to purchase the deed-restricted units. Since only a portion of the property has deed-restricted units, it is unclear how a transaction like this could occur. Also, the feasibility of this option depends on funding sources to buy and potentially rehabilitate the property which might be challenging since it is not a 100 percent deed restricted property.

Another option to preserve the affordability of this at-risk project is to support a Joint Power Authorities purchase of the property. If this option is exercised, it would require deed restrictions for 100 percent of the residential units but also allows for bond financing that would allow the owner to maintain the project as affordable housing. City staff are currently participating in an Alameda County-wide working group to identify joint powers agreement terms and conditions that would ensure meaningful long-term affordability if this path was pursued.

Construction of Replacement Units
To understand the significance if these at-risk units are lost from the supply of city affordable housing, the City has prepared a hypothetical analysis that identifies the cost of construction of new regulated housing to replace these at-risk units if they are converted to market-rate units. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e., square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction, as discussed in the Non-governmental Constraints section of Chapter 3, Housing Constraints. According to the 2019 TCAC staff reports, the typical cost of construction for below market rate housing in Alameda County in 2019 was $726,469 per unit. The total cost to replace the 35 at-risk affordable units with new construction would be approximately $25.4 million.

Rental Subsidies
The City does not have a rental subsidy program and the property at risk is not currently a property with a contract for tenant subsidies with HUD or the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda.

Therefore, rental subsidy is not an option for these units at risk of expiration.

Cost Comparison
The above analysis attempts to estimate the cost of preserving the at-risk units under various options. However, because different projects have different circumstances and therefore different options available, a direct comparison would not be appropriate. In general, providing additional incentives/subsidies to extend the affordability covenant would require the least funding over the long run, whereas the construction of new units would be the costliest option. Unfortunately, providing rent subsidies would be less costly, but this option is not available as the City does not operate such a program.

Housing Needs Assessment
Draft Housing Element 2-47
The City will support the preservation of affordable housing units that could potentially convert to market-rate during the planning period. The City will monitor all regulated affordable units and assist property owners in maintaining the affordability of these units and assist tenants if preservation is unsuccessful, as described in Program 3 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2-48
This page intentionally left blank.

Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-1
3 Housing Constraints
Constraints to providing adequate housing for all income levels are caused by many factors, including the housing market and cost of construction, governmental controls, availability of infrastructure, and environmental considerations. These constraints may increase the cost of housing or render residential construction physically or economically infeasible for developers.

According to Government Code 65583, local governments are required to analyze governmental and non-governmental constraints to the production, maintenance, and improvement of housing for persons of all income levels and those with special needs and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as part of housing elements updates.1 Where constraints to housing production due to the City’s regulations are identified, appropriate policies and actions to mitigate these constraints are included in the Housing Element.

Local governments must also demonstrate in their constraints analysis local efforts to remove barriers to achieving regional goals for housing production and housing for persons with special needs.

3.1 Non-governmental Constraints
The regional housing market affects several aspects of housing costs. For example, land value, cost of construction materials, and labor costs contribute to the cost of housing and can hinder the production of affordable housing. Additionally, the availability of financing can limit development or access to homeownership for some households. The following section is an in-depth analysis of market constraints.

3.1.1 Housing Market and Affordability
Market forces on the economy and the subsequent effects on the construction industry may act as a barrier to housing production, supply, and affordability.2 As described in the Housing Needs Assessment, the median home value in 2022 in San Leandro was $1,000,000, which reflects a 62 percent increase over the City’s 2015 median home value (adjusted for inflation). San Leandro’s median home values rose at a faster rate than for Alameda County as a whole, which rose 52 percent from 2015, and was the second-highest increase among surrounding East Bay cities.3

San Leandro renters generally pay less in rent than other areas of the county (except for the City of Oakland). For developers, when considering a new construction project, this translates into less rental proceeds once a building is leased-up. This further translates into the inability of the rented property to support the debt that was needed to construct it. This reduces the potential profit margin of rental developments compared to neighboring cities when hard costs, such as construction and materials, are not dependent on project location. Recent market rate projects that are pending or approved in San Leandro, as noted in Table 4.2 in Chapter 4, Housing Resources, are 1 State of California. 2021. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=65583. Accessed October 29, 2021 2 National Association of Home Builders.2021. Material Cost Affect Housing Affordability. https://www.nahb.org/advocacy/toppriorities/material-costs. Accessed October 27, 2021. 3 Redfin.2022. https://www.redfin.com/city/17447/CA/San-Leandro. Accessed June, 2022 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-2
being developed at full density potential. On average, market rate developments are being developed at 102 percent of allowable densities due to density bonus provisions. Only two market rate projects out of 11 in that table realize a density potential (number of anticipated units as a percent of allowable units) below 70 percent. This is important to note because the housing opportunity sites list discussed in Chapter 4, Housing Resources, assumes a density potential of 70 percent. The housing market in San Leandro is not considered a constraint to the ability of developers to develop at higher densities.

Housing affordability is also measured by the California Association of Realtors, which tracks housing affordability for first-time homebuyers. According to second-quarter results for 2020 (the latest available data), Alameda County’s median home price of $1,105,000 (which suggests a monthly payment of $5,310 including taxes and insurance) would require a qualifying household income of $159,300.4 According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, the household median income in San Leandro is $78,003; therefore, housing affordability is a significant constraint for San Leandro residents who would like to become homeowners if they are not already. The City will implement programs to support housing production affordable to households of all economic levels and support homeownership opportunities, as outlined in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Construction Costs
Construction costs depend on several factors, including the type of construction, custom versus tract development, cost of materials, site conditions, finishing details, amenities, size, and structural configuration. The International Code Council estimates the average price of labor and materials for typical Type V-A protected wood-frame housing, which is commonly used to construct newer apartment buildings where no visible wood is exposed. Estimates are based on “good-quality” construction, providing for materials and fixtures above the minimum required by state and local building codes. Since the 2008 recession, national construction costs for multi-family projects have risen by 25 percent, which can reduce the feasibility of housing projects.5 The International Code Council estimated in 2021 that the national average cost per square foot for good-quality housing was approximately $125 for multi-family housing, $139 for single-family homes, and $157 for residential care/assisted living facilities.6 The per-square-foot hard costs for constructing multifamily housing in California climbed 25 percent over the course of a decade, after adjusting for inflation.7 Cost increases have been most pronounced in the line-item categories for finishes and for wood, plastics, and composites. In a roundtable discussion hosted by the Alameda County Housing Collaborative on November 29, 2021, housing developers noted that uncertainty in construction costs are a challenge to develop housing. Wood is still the most cost-effective building material but cannot be used for construction beyond 85 feet pursuant to State law, which may pose challenges for development above six or seven stories.8 4 California Association of Realtors. 2021. Available: https://www.car.org/marketdata/data/countysalesactivity. Accessed October 25, 2021
5 Terner Center for Housing Innovation, The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California. 2020. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2020/08/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf 6 International Code Council Building Valuation Data. 2021. Available: https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/uploads/BVD-BSJ-FEB21.pdf.

Accessed October 26, 2021
7 Terner Center for Housing Innovation. 2020. The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California. https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf 8 Alameda County Housing Collaborative, 2021. Available at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XYrwZxd3Re0VFWGz119bj8uqS9VdUN4H/view Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-3
The Bay Area has consistently been an expensive area to construct housing, in part due to comparatively higher construction wages than elsewhere in California. In 2018, the average cost to construct multi-family housing in California and the Bay Area was $222 per square foot and $303, respectively. Materials and labor make up the hard costs of this construction. Several factors likely contribute to the rapid escalation of construction costs in the Bay Area. One contributing factor is that wages are higher in the region, reflecting higher costs of living. However, when adjusted for inflation using the local consumer price index (which considers the cost of living in the Bay Area by accounting for changes in gas, shelter, food, energy, and other consumer goods), wages in the region have fallen in real terms. The failure of wages to keep pace with local price increases may contribute to the challenges and delays in attracting labor reported by developers and builders.9 Housing construction costs can affect affordability as increases in costs are borne by buyers and renters. Rising construction prices may also impact the ability or desire of single-family homeowners to construct ADUs. Therefore, higher construction costs can be a constraint to the development of all housing types. The City will implement programs to reduce barriers to housing development, including ADU development, as described in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, to help offset impacts of high construction costs. The City will also meet with labor groups at least once annually to discuss the ways in which the City can support an adequate supply of labor to build housing.

3.1.2 Land Costs
Land costs affect the feasibility of residential development. The land prices depend on location, zoning (allowable density), availability of improvements, current use of the site, and whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that will need to be removed or converted to accommodate future residential development. Available improvements can consist of improvements to streets, sidewalks, water and sewer, drainage, curbs and gutters, street signs, park dedications, utility easements, and landscaping. Improvement standards establish infrastructure or site requirements to support new residential development. While these improvements are necessary to ensure that new housing meets the local jurisdiction’s development goals, the cost of these requirements can represent a significant share of the cost of producing new housing.10 Additionally, land costs depend on whether the site is vacant or has an existing use that will need to be removed or converted. Most available sites for residential uses in San Leandro are developed with improvements that will need to be demolished or converted for residential development to take place. Land costs and value are difficult to average on a citywide basis as land value is assessed based on the characteristics unique to each property. In addition, environmental constraints can also impact the cost of land. Measure D, administered by the Alameda County Planning Department in 2000, established a countywide urban growth boundary and discouraged the annexation of rural open space for future residential development by Alameda County’s 14 cities.11 Measure D limits San Leandro’s ability to grow outwardly and to expand housing to the vacant land lying northeast of San Leandro.12 Because fewer vacant land options exist, San Leandro’s growth focuses on redevelopment of existing sites, which are developed with existing infrastructure that would need to be demolished or converted before new development can occur. Demolition costs can add to the 9 The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley. 2020. Available: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wpcontent/uploads/pdfs/Hard_Construction_Costs_March_2020.pdf. Accessed December 1, 2021 10 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021. Available: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/constraints/codes-and-enforcement-on-offsite-improvement-standards.shtml.Accessed October 27, 2021 11 Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2019. Available:
http://www.acgov.org/board/bos_calendar/documents/DocsAgendaPlan_10_29_19/5MeasureD.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2021. 12 Alameda County Community Development Agency. 2010. Available: https://acgov.org/cda/planning/documents/12_APPJReferenceMaps.pdf. Accessed November 10, 2021.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-4
overall project cost. However, nonvacant land may offer cost-saving benefits such as existing utility connections.

3.1.3 Availability of Financing
Financing in the housing market includes federal, State, and local funding for affordable housing, capital used by developers for initial site preparation and construction; and capital used by homeowners and investors to finance the purchase of housing units. The City will explore ways to increase and leverage finance resources for affordable housing development, as described in Program 10 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Financial Resources
There are a variety of funding sources for affordable housing, preservation, and rehabilitation from federal, State, and local sources. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) administers grants which can assist developers, local governments, and non-profits in constructing housing units.

The most significant barrier for the City of San Leandro in recent years is the dissolution of the Redevelopment Agency and its related loss of affordable housing financing support. From 2006 to 2011 the City, on average, had just under $3 million annually for its affordable housing program that included first time homebuyer loans and new affordable housing production. However, there are significant efforts both regionally and at the State level to address decreased funding for affordable housing development.

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (State)
The 2017-18 Regular Session of the California State Legislature passed one bill (of many other housing-related legislation) sought to generate, and distribute directly to cities, funds for new affordable housing production. The Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, Atkins 2017) established a permanent source of funding for affordable housing through a $75 fee on real estate document filings. In fiscal year 2020-2021, the City received its first entitlement from the resulting program “Permanent Local Housing Allocation” in the amount of just under $350,000 from filing fees during calendar year 2019.

Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program (State) The statewide Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities program is a competitive funding program that encourages collaboration between affordable housing developers, jurisdictions, and transit agencies to fund affordable housing development and transportation infrastructure and amenities. City staff will continue work with their colleagues in various departments to best position affordable housing and sustainable infrastructure planning to align with this program. Additionally, staff will continue seeking partnerships with area technical assistance programs, affordable housing developers, and area transit agencies to collaborate in an application for funding when a viable and competitive housing and transportation development is ready to move forward.

Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-5
State Low Income Housing Tax Credits (State)
The federal government through the Internal Revenue Service enacted the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program in 1986. This program has been the largest producer of affordable multifamily rental housing since its inception. Each state has a financing agency that administers the LIHTC Program, and in California that is the Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC). Institutional investors or syndicates are incentivized to invest in long term affordable rental housing projects to receive tax credits. Nonprofit and private developers are eligible to apply for State LIHTC for acquisition, new construction and/or rehabilitation of affordable rental housing.

HOME Funding (Local)
The Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) assists cities, counties, and non-profit community housing development organizations to create and retain affordable housing for lowerincome renters or owners. HOME funds are available as loans for housing rehabilitation, new construction, and acquisition and rehabilitation of single- and multifamily projects and as grants for tenant-based rental assistance. San Leandro is one of eight jurisdictional members of the Alameda County HOME Consortium. In fiscal year 2020-2021, the City was allocated $238,792 through the Alameda County HOME Consortium of which $13,684 was used to cover the City’s staff administrative overhead. Of the remaining balance of $225,128, a final reimbursement to the HOME construction pool in the amount of $57,710 was subtracted from this remaining balance. Given this, there was $167,418 in HOME funds available for use by the City. When available, HOME funds will be used for affordable rental or ownership housing projects, including new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation.

HUD requires that Cities that receive HOME funds provide matching funds for all HOME fund expenditures awarded since 1993. HUD requires that the HOME funds must be matched with an equivalent to twenty-five percent of the total amount of funds expended in the fiscal year.

Historically, the City has exceeded the required HOME match.

Local and Regional Affordable Housing Financing (Regional) An example of regional affordable housing financing is the 2016 Alameda County Measure A-1. This voter-approved initiative authorized a $580 million general obligation bond to invest in efforts across Alameda County to address the lack of affordable housing. A portion of A-1 funds were specifically designated for affordable rental housing development. The City of San Leandro received a base allocation of these funds in the amount of over $10 million. City staff have used these funds for three affordable housing projects:
 La Vereda (84 apartments with 12 financed with A-1 funds)  Loro Landing (61 apartments with 57 financed with A-1 funds and 25 for those at or below 20% AMI)
 15101 Washington Avenue (71 apartments financed with A-1 funds and 15 for those at or below 20% AMI)
City staff continue to monitor developments in the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency that will provide regional leadership to establish financing for affordable housing infrastructure using tools such as Measure A-1. Staff will seek City Council support of these efforts and will work to position local affordable housing and community development projects to be competitive in applying for these funding resources if and when they become available.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-6
CDBG Funding (Locally controlled federal funds)
As the lead agency of the Consortium, Alameda County coordinates long-range planning and annual applications to HUD for both HOME and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding.

CDBG funds are directly awarded to San Leandro as an entitlement jurisdiction. HUD’s CDBG annual allocation to the City has been approximately $750,000 and funds are typically allocated to general administration of the City’s CDBG program, fair housing services, an owner-occupied minor home repair grant program, public services (including operating funds for mental health, services for those experiencing homelessness, and food programs for residents in need. Additionally, CDBG funds support public facilities and infrastructure including the purchase and rehabilitation of a motel to be used for a shelter and navigation center as well as upgrades to the existing San Leandro Shelter.

Affordable Housing Trust Fund (Local)
The City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) was established to receive fees and/or monies in connection with approval of development projects. The AHTF is financed by deposits from in-lieu fees from market-rate housing developments or residential condominium conversions. Monies deposited in the AHTF must be used to increase and improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, and very low-income households in the city or support affordable housing programs. Fund monies are used to construct or convert a development to affordable housing or assist other governmental entities, private organizations, or individuals to do so. All AHTF monies are currently committed to affordable housing projects.

California Housing and Community Development Department Programs (State)  The State Multifamily Housing Program makes low-interest, long-term deferred-payment permanent loans for new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional rental housing for lower-income households.  The State Predevelopment Loan Program makes short-term loans for activities and expenses necessary for the continued preservation, construction, rehabilitation, or conversion of assisted housing primarily for low-income households.
 The State Project Homekey is an opportunity for regional, and local public entities to develop a broad range of housing types for people at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness, including but not limited to hotels, motels, hostels, single- family homes and multifamily apartments, adult residential facilities, and manufactured housing, and to convert commercial properties and other existing buildings to permanent or interim housing.

Affordable Low/Mod Asset Fund (Local)
This funding source is primarily from loan repayments from affordable housing development projects, first time homebuyer loans and housing rehabilitation loans made by the former Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Leandro. This fund may be used for a variety of affordable housing activities including new loans to affordable rental housing development projects. The fund currently has a balance of approximately $1.2 million that has been fully committed and will leverage other affordable housing financing.

Mortgage and Rehabilitation Financing
The availability of financing affects the ability of residents to purchase or improve a home. Under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA), lending institutions are required to disclose Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-7
information on the disposition of loan applications and the income, gender, and race of loan applicants. The primary purpose of reviewing the lending activity is to determine whether home financing is available to city residents. The data presented in this section includes the disposition of loan applications submitted to financial institutions for home mortgages, home improvement, and refinance loans in San Leandro.

In 2017, the most recently available dataset, a total of 3,087 households applied for conventional mortgage loans in San Leandro. Table 3.1 shows that 77 percent of conventional mortgage applications were approved, 10 percent were denied, and 13 percent were withdrawn or closed for incompleteness. A substantially lower number of households (486) applied to use governmentbacked loans to purchase homes in San Leandro. The approval rate of these loans was 70 percent, 7 percent lower than the approval rate of conventional loans, with approximately the same percentage being denied. Additionally, 220 San Leandro households applied for home improvement loans in 2017. Approximately 73 percent of these applications were approved, and 14 percent were denied. Applications to refinance existing mortgages totaled 2,161 applications.

Table 3.1 Disposition of Loan Applications in 2017
Applications Total Approved Denied Other
By Loan Type
Conventional 3,087 77% 10% 13%
Government Backed 486 70% 11% 19%
Home Improvement 220 73% 14% 14%
Refinancing 2,161 71% 12% 17%
Notes:
“Approved” includes loans approved by the lenders regardless of acceptance by the applicants. “Other” includes loan applications that were either withdrawn or closed for incomplete information.

Source: LendingPatternsTM, HMDA data, 2017.

Alameda County averages for loan approval and denial were similar to averages for San Leandro.

Conventional approval of loans for the county was at 76 percent, while 10 percent were denied.

Alameda County had a slightly higher denial of government backed, home improvement, and refinancing of loans at 14 percent, 15 percent, and 12 percent. The average rate of approval was 88 percent in California and 86 percent nationwide.13
Given the high approval rates, refinancing and home purchase loans are generally available and overall, not considered to be a major constraint in San Leandro. However, as discussed in the AFFH analysis provided in Chapter 5, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian/Alaska Native residents were underrepresented for mortgage applications and had higher denial rates for mortgage loans than Asian American and non-Hispanic white residents. As described in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City contracts with Bay Area Affordable Homeownership Alliance (BAAHA) to administer first-time homebuyer seminars, homebuyer education and counseling, and below market rate ownership units under the Inclusionary Housing Program. The City provides educational seminars on housing resources and financial planning to increase housing mobility in neighborhoods with higher concentrations of low-income and minority residents. 13 Lending Tree. “Nearly 86% of Mortgage Refinances Are Approved, and These States Have the Highest (and Lowest) Approval Rates.” https://www.lendingtree.com/home/refinance/highest-lowest-refinance-approval-rates-study/. Accessed: November 23, 2021.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-8
Federal Housing Administration (FHA) Loans
The FHA loan program was designed to make it easier for first-time homebuyers to get financing and afford a home. FHA loans are only allowed on one to four living-unit properties. These properties can be purchased with an FHA loan if the owner occupies one of the units. Alameda County qualifies as a high-cost area and has a higher loan limit than the national average through FHA loan program. In 2022, prospective home buyers could receive a loan of up to $970,800 for a single-family home and $1,867,275 for a four-plex through an FHA loan.14

3.2 Governmental Constraints
City policies and regulations can impact the feasibility and cost of housing development. Policies and regulatory actions include land use controls, site improvement requirements, building codes, and development fees. The following section describes these governmental constraints.

3.2.1 Land Use Controls
Land Use Designations
San Leandro’s Land Use Element is a component of the City’s General Plan which sets forth the vision, goals and policies for the city’s urban form and land use patterns, including residential development. The Land Use Element includes land use categories which define the use and building intensity throughout the city.

There are different housing types in the city, including single-family dwellings, duplexes, multifamily apartments, condominium buildings, town houses, mobile homes, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs). Residential densities in San Leandro cover a wide spectrum that promote the development of the various housing types, as demonstrated by the density ranges in the various land use categories (shown in dwelling units per acre [du/acre]):
 Garden Density Residential: 1-4 du/acre
 Low Density Residential: 3-6 du/acre
 Low-Medium Density Residential: 7-11 du/acre
 Medium Density Residential: 12-18 du/acre
 Medium-High Density Residential: 19-25 du/acre
 High Density Residential: 26-50 du/acre (smaller parcels are permitted a maximum of 24.2 du/acre)
 Downtown Mixed Use: 24-100 du/acre (dependent upon the zoning district of the site)  Transit-Oriented Mixed Use (60-80 du/acre)
 Corridor Mixed Use: residential density is defined by the maximum FAR, which is 1.5 for projects with housing
 Bay Fair Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): residential density is defined by the maximum FAR, which is 3.0 for projects with housing
Lower density residential land use categories are generally located throughout the city's northeastern, central, southern, and eastern areas. Higher density residential land use categories 14 FHAloans.guide. 2022. Alameda County, CA 2022 FHA Loan Limits. https://fhaloans.guide/loan-limits/california/alameda-county Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-9
are generally located in the eastern portion of the city along major transit corridors such as San Leandro Boulevard, Alvarado Street, and Antonio Street and the Bay Fair TOD area. As shown in Table 3.2, the City has several land use categories that permit high density residential uses that support the development of low and moderate-income housing.

Residential land use categories comprise 50.8 percent of San Leandro’s land area. Commercial land use categories cover 4.8 percent, mixed use 6.8 percent, industrial 20.4 percent, and public and open space 17.2 percent.15 Due to the industrial history of the eastern San Francisco Bay Area, the percentage of land designated for industrial use in San Leandro is similar to other cities in the eastern Bay Area.

Zoning Regulations
The City’s Zoning Code is the mechanism by which the vision, goals, and policies of the General Plan are implemented. The Zoning Code regulates the type, location, density, and scale of residential development through height limits, setbacks, Floor Area Ratio (FAR), parking requirements, and other standards. Table 3.2 summarizes the City’s residential land use categories and corresponding zoning district. The table also includes conditionally compatible zoning districts, which are zones that would be acceptable in the corresponding land use category if the types of development are consistent with General Plan goals and policies.

San Leandro has eight residential base zoning districts: Residential-Outer (RO), Residential-SingleFamily (RS), Residential-Duplex (RD), and Residential-Multi-Family (RM). The RM subdistricts permit multi-family densities ranging from 14.5 to 50 du/acre. The City recently established the RM-875 zoning district, a RM subdistrict, which permits up to 50 du/acre, consistent with the City’s High Density Residential land use category. Multi-family and mixed-use development is also permitted or conditionally permitted in several commercial/mixed-use zoning districts including the Bay fair TOD (B-TOD), Commercial Community (CC), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Downtown Area 1 (DA-1), Downtown Area 2 (DA-2), Downtown Area 3 (DA-3), Downtown Area 4 (DA-4), Downtown Area 6 (DA-6), North Area 1 (NA-1), North Area 2 (NA-2), Professional Office (P), South Area-1 (SA-1), South Area-2 (SA-2), and South Area-3 (SA-3) Districts. Maximum densities in these zones range from 24 du/acre to 100 du/acre. The B-TOD and DA-6 Districts do not have a maximum density. The City plans to increase densities in several districts concurrently with the Housing Element adoption, as discussed in greater detail in Chapter 4, Housing Resources, and Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Specific Plans and Strategy Plans
In addition to the General Plan land use categories and zoning districts, the City implements specific plans and strategy plans to guide the development of certain areas within the city. The North Area Specific Plan and Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan are discussed in greater detail below. Although not a specific plan, the East 14th South Area Strategy is also discussed as it relates to a Priority Development Area (PDA).

The purpose of a specific plan or strategy plan is to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element in a focused manner for a particular geographic area, and sets forth policies, land use regulations, development and design standards and implementation programs for these areas. San Leandro adopted the North Area Specific Plan in 1991 and the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan in 2018.
15 City of San Leandro General Plan Land Use Element. 2016. Available:
https://civicaadmin.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=26481. Accessed October 28, 2021 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-10
Table 3.2 General Plan Land Use Category and Zoning Districts General Plan Land
Use Category
Corresponding
Zoning District
Conditionally
Compatible Zoning
Designations Primary Uses
Residential Density
(du/acre) Floor-to-Area Ratio
Garden Residential RO RS, PS Detached single-family homes 1-4 Varies (see Table 3.4, Residential Development
Standards for details)
Low Density RS, RS-40, RS (VP) RS (PD), RD, PS, CN Detached single-family homes 3-6 Varies (see Table 3.4, Residential Development
Standards for details)
Low-Medium
Density Residential
RS (PD) RD, RS, PS Attached and detached single-family
homes
7-11 Varies (see Table 3.4,
Residential Development
Standards for details
Medium Density
Residential
RD, RM-3000, RM2500, RM-2000 RS (PD), RD, PS Townhomes and duplexes, higher density single-family planned unit developments,
and mobile home parks
12-18 n/a
Medium-High
Density Residential
RM-1800 RM-2000, RM-2500,
RM3000, PS
Multi-family residential development, such
as garden apartments, town homes, twostory condominiums, and single-family homes
19-25 n/a
High Density
Residential
RM-875 RM-1800 Multi-family residential development, such as multi-story apartments and
condominiums often in larger complexes,
with shared amenities such as swimming
pools, patios, and recreation rooms
26-50 n/a
Downtown Mixed
Use
DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, P RM-875, RM-1800, CN,
PS
Upper story residential uses with retail,
services, offices, cultural activities, public
and civic buildings, and similar and
compatible uses on the ground floor
24-100 3.5 maximum
Transit Oriented
Mixed Use
DA-2, DA-3, DA-4,
DA-6
RM-875, RM-1800, PS High-intensity, transit focused
developments of housing and/or
office/retail in close proximity to BART
The maximum number
of residential units on
any given property is
dictated by floor area
ratio limits in some
zoning districts and
maximum density limits
in others.

4.0 maximum, up to 5.0
on sites adjacent to a
BART station
Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-11
General Plan Land
Use Category
Corresponding
Zoning District
Conditionally
Compatible Zoning
Designations Primary Uses
Residential Density
(du/acre) Floor-to-Area Ratio
Corridor Mixed Use NA-1, NA-2, SA-1,
SA-2, SA-3, DA-2
RM-875, RM-1800, RM2000, RM-2500, RM3000, CN, CC, P, PS, ILMix of commercial and free-standing or mixed use residential projects along major
transit-served arterials
Maximum residential
density in this category
is dictated by the above
floor area ratio limits
rather than limits on
housing units per acre.

1.0 maximum, up to 1.5
for projects with housing
Bay Fair TOD
Development
(B-TOD)
B-TOD B-TOD Mixed-use urban village that includes high
density housing, retail, office,
entertainment, and civic uses with safe
pedestrian and bicycle connections to
public transit, services, and employment.

Sub-Area 1: 65
units/acre Minimum
Sub-Area 2: 60
units/acre Minimum
Sub-Area 3: 20
units/acre Minimum

3.0 maximum1
* San Leandro offers density bonuses of up to 20 percent above density maximums for projects with average unit sizes below 750 square feet. These bonuses may not be added to the Staterequired density bonus for affordable housing. Only one density bonus program may be applied to any given development. 1 Maximum residential density in this category is dictated by floor area ratio limits rather than limits on housing units per acre. sf = square feet
Definitions
 Conditionally Compatible Zoning Designations – the proposed land use is acceptable if the types of development allowed by that zone are consistent with General Plan goals and policies
 CC – Commercial Community
 CN – Commercial Neighborhood
 DA-1 – Downtown Area 1 Retail Mixed- Use
 DA-2 – Downtown Area 2 Multi-Use Infill
 DA-3 – Downtown Area 3 TOD – Transition Mixed Use
 DA -4 – Downtown Area 4 TOD – Residential Mixed Use
 DA-6 – Downtown Area 6 Office Mixed use
 IL – Industrial Limited
 NA-1– North Area 1
 NA-2 – North Area 2
 P – Professional Office
 PD – Planned Development
 PS – Public and Semi-Public
 RD – Residential Duplex
 RM- Residential Multi-Family
 RM – 875 – Residential Multi-Family (50 dwelling units per gross acre)  RM – 1800 – Residential Multi-Family (24 dwelling units per gross acre)  RM – 2000 – Residential Multi-Family (22 dwellings per gross acre)  RM – 2500 – Residential Multi-Family (17.5 dwellings per gross acre)  RM – 3000 – Residential Multi-Family (17.5 dwellings per gross acre)  RO – Residential Outer
 RS – Residential Single-Family
 RS – 40 – Residential Single-Family (minimum front yard setback 40ft)  SA-1 – South Area -1
 SA-2 – South Area -2
 SA-3 – South Area - 3
Source: San Leandro Multi-Family Development Standards – Development Constraints, 2020 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-12
North Area Specific Plan
The North Area Specific Plan includes a revitalization plan to attract new commercial business and investment in the northern area of San Leandro. This plan covers a 12-block long corridor bordered by the City of Oakland to the north, I-580 to the east, Estudillo Avenue to the south, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) right of way to the west.

The North Area Specific Plan provides development standards and design guidelines for four revitalization districts and the major thoroughfares of East 14th Street, San Leandro Boulevard, Park Street, Bancroft Avenue, and MacArthur Boulevard. Development standards in the North Area Specific Plan address uses, building height and envelope, setbacks, landscape, site access, and parking. The North Area Specific Plan established zoning districts North Area 1 (NA-1) and North Area 2 (NA-2) to implement revitalization districts 1 and 2 along East 14th Street. The area south of Georgia Way was subsequently rezoned DA-2 to be part of the Downtown TOD Strategy area. The NA-1 District now applies to only one parcel – a 4,000 square foot lot currently developed with a duplex. As discussed in further detail in the commercial and mixed use district standards section below, while the NA districts residential density limits of 24 du/acre do not promote the development of high-density housing, the associated land use designation (Corridor Mixed Use) has no maximum density requirements and relies on FAR to determine the number of units that can fit into a proposed development.

Bay Fair TOD (B-TOD) Specific Plan
The B-TOD Specific Plan encompasses 154 acres on the City’s southeastern edge. The B-TOD Specific Plan Area is surrounded by single-family neighborhoods and I-580, I-238, and I-880. The B-TOD Specific Plan was created to transform the area around the Bay Fair BART station into a walkable, transit-oriented community hub. This hub would consist of public gathering spaces and a mix of retail, neighborhood services, high density housing, and office space. The B-TOD Specific Plan area includes the Bayfair Center, other shopping centers, and properties along major arterials including Hesperian and East 14th Street.

The B-TOD Specific Plan Area contains three sub-areas with varying development regulations.

Residential densities for multi-family residential and mixed use residential development are as follows:
 Sub-Area 1: 65 du/acre minimum
 Sub-Area 2: 60 du/acre minimum
 Sub-Area 3: 20 du/acre minimum
San Leandro updated its Zoning Code in November 2021 by adding the B-TOD Zoning District and new design and development regulations for the Bay Fair area consistent with the B-TOD Specific Plan.

East 14th South Area Development Strategy
In 2004, the City adopted the South Area Development Strategy in response to concerns over the quality and quantity of new businesses along the East 14th Street corridor. The East 14th Street corridor stretches for over 2 miles from Downtown to the Bay Fair BART Transit Village area and is part of the City’s South Area Development Strategy. This area includes auto-oriented strip malls, former car dealerships, churches, schools, older multi-family housing, and a hospital. The Strategy Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-13
includes the transformation of the unbroken commercial strip into a series of mixed use districts, the creation of a more pedestrian-friendly environment on East 14th Street and the accommodation of high-quality multi-family housing along the corridor. The density, height, floor area, and lot coverage development standards of this area currently promote mixed use, multi-family development, but the current allowable floor area ratios and density limitations along the corridor do not support this type of development. There has been little redevelopment interest along the corridor since the adoption of the Strategy, which may be attributable to the low development potential achievable under the SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 density limits. The City plans to increase maximum allowable FAR, residential densities, and building heights in land use and zoning districts to promote higher-density redevelopment in priority development areas, as discussed in Chapter 4, Housing Resources.

Overlay Zones
An overlay zone is a zoning district which is applied over one or more previously established zoning districts, establishing additional or stricter standards and criteria for covered properties in addition to those of the underlying zoning district. The following overlay zones in San Leandro impact residential development.

Planned Development (PD) Overlay District and Planned Development Project Approval
The PD Overlay District is a path that allows applicants of development projects to work with the City to modify (or request exemptions) from certain development standards on larger parcels to eliminate rigidity in the built environment. This process encourages innovative site planning techniques and allows for a mix of compatible uses. The following are the standards required for approval of a PD Overlay on a parcel:
 The minimum net area of a PD must be 10,000 square feet for any project.  The number of dwelling units in a PD project shall be established at the time the PD project is approved.
 The minimum residential density in any South Area zoning district for a stand-alone residential development or a mixed use development is 18 du/acre.

To establish a PD Overlay, applicants may request a zoning amendment that must be adopted by Ordinance by the City Council after a recommendation by the Planning Commission.16 The application for rezoning to a PD Overlay District must include:
 A conceptual site plan and a vicinity map showing the relationship of the site to the surrounding area.
 Preliminary calculations in tabular form showing compliance with applicable density, coverage, floor area, parking, and open-space regulations.
 Conceptual elevations of proposed structures and signs, with exterior materials and wall openings indicated.
 Photos of the site and of existing development in the immediate vicinity. 16 City of San Leandro Zoning Code. 2021. Available: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sanleandro-zoning/view.php?&frames=on.Accessed October 27, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-14
The Zoning Enforcement Officer (ZEO) also may require any of the following items, based on the type, location, and potential impacts of proposed development:
 A map showing proposed district boundaries and the relationship of the district to uses and structures directly affected by the proposed PD Overlay District.  Evidence establishing that the land proposed for rezone to PD Overlay District is owned by one individual or that the application is filed jointly by all property owners owning property in the proposed district or that the application is filed by an agency of the City.

Additional development conditions may be as established in the PD project approval. For PDs proposed in any South Area Zoning District, additional development conditions may be required to achieve consistency with the Design Guidelines that are contained in the East 14th Street South Area Development Strategy.

Mobile Home Park Overlay
The City of San Leandro has nine mobile home parks with approximately 855 spaces located within the city limits. In 2021, the City adopted the Mobile Home Park (MHP) Overlay District to reserve land for the construction, use, and occupancy of mobile home parks, and prohibit all uses other than a mobile home park use. The MHP Overlay was applied to all existing parcels with mobile home parks. The MHP Overlay District may be combined with any zoning district. Chapter 5.28 of the San Leandro Zoning Code governs the conversion of mobile home parks within the city and requires City Council approval prior to the closure or conversion of a mobile home park. Applicants must submit a relocation plan for tenants of a mobile home park as part of the application for conversion of a mobile home park to another use.

3.2.2 Residential Development Standards
San Leandro’s Zoning Code contains development standards to protect health and safety, ensure high quality urban design, and ensure compatibility with surrounding uses. When development standards limit the number of housing units that can be built on a particular site or the developable area of a site, the standards may be considered a constraint to housing development. Development standards and zoning code regulations are explained in handouts available on the City’s website.17 Residential District Standards
As previously noted, San Leandro has four residential base districts: RO, RS, RD, and RM. The RS and RM districts each include subdistricts with similar use standards but different setback or density requirements. Table 3.3 summarizes the City’s residential district development standards.

To respond to the requirements of SB 35 and achieve high-quality, multi-family projects and predictability for developers and the community, San Leandro completed the Multi-Family Development Standards project. The project updated residential design and development standards throughout the Zoning Code to replace subjective standards with objective standards as well as establish the new RM-875 District. The following strategies were employed to achieve the MultiFamily Development Standards:
17 Zoning Info Sheets (Handouts). https://www.sanleandro.org/346/Zoning-Info-Sheets-Handouts Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-15
Table 3.3 Residential Development Standards
Zoning
District
Minimum Lot
Area (sf)*
Setback (in feet)
Maximum Height
(feet)
Maximum Density
(Net) Maximum FAR
Maximum Site
Coverage
(percent of lot)
Front
(feet) Side (feet)
Corner
Side (feet) Rear (feet)
RS 5,000 - 6,000 20 5 10 15 30 1 unit + 1 ADU + 1
JADU
50% for first 5,000 sf, 30% for
area > 5,000 - 10,000 sf, then
10% for area >10,000 sf;
+ 500 sf if 2-car garage or 750
sf if 3 or more car garage
50%
RS-40 5,000 - 6,000 40 5 10 15 30 1 unit + 1 ADU + 1
JADU
50% for first 5,000 sf, 30% for
area > 5,000 - 10,000 sf, then
10% for area >10,000 sf;
+ 500 sf if 2-car garage or 750
sf if 3 or more car garage
50%
RS-VP 5,000 - 6,000 20 5 10 15 18 1 unit + 1 ADU + 1
Junior ADU
50% for first 5,000 sf, 30% for
area > 5,000 - 10,000 sf, then
10% for area >10,000 sf;
+ 500 sf if 2-car garage or 750
sf if 3 or more car garage
50%
RO 8,000 20 6-12 10 10-25 30 1 unit (additional
units may be
allowed based on
lot size and unit
type)
50% for first 5,000 sf, 30% for
area > 5,000 - 10,000 sf, then
10% for area >10,000 sf;
+ 500 sf/unit if garage
33%
RD 5,000 - 6,000 20 5 10 15 30 2 units 50% for first 5,000 sf, 30% for area > 5,000 - 10,000 sf, then
10% for area >10,000 sf;
+ 500 sf if 2-car garage exists
or 750 sf if 3 or more car
garage
50%
RM-3000 6,000 - 7,000 20 Min 6;
Avg. 10
20 15 40 14.5 du/acre n/a 50%
RM-2500 7,500 - 8,500 15 Min 6;
Avg. 10
15 15 45 17.5 du/acre n/a 60%
RM-2000 10,000- 12,000 15 Min 6;
Avg. 10
15 15 50 22 du/acre n/a 60%
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-16
Zoning
District
Minimum Lot
Area (sf)*
Setback (in feet)
Maximum Height
(feet)
Maximum Density
(Net) Maximum FAR
Maximum Site
Coverage
(percent of lot)
Front
(feet) Side (feet)
Corner
Side (feet) Rear (feet)
RM-1800 10,000 - 12,000 15 Min.6;
Avg.10
15 15 50 24 du/acre n/a 70%
RM-875 10,000 - 12,000 15 Min.6;
Avg.10
15 15 50 50 du/acre n/a 80%
* Range for Minimum Lot Area is based on Interior and Corner Lots except for RO which has the same range.

Sf = square feet; du/acre = dwelling units per acre; min. = minimum; avg. = average; ADU = accessory dwelling unit; JADU = junior accessory dwelling unit
RD – Residential Duplex
RM – Residential Multi-Family
RO – Residential Outer
RS – Residential Single-Family
FAR – Floor Area Ratio
Source: San Leandro Zoning Code 2022
Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-17
 Established the RM-875 District to implement the High Density Residential land use  Replaced subjective design standards with objective standards  Consolidated and standardized review procedures
The Multi-Family Development Standards project modified and relocated design standards that apply to all multi-family housing throughout the city and eliminated redundant and obsolete provisions in the Zoning Code.

Density
San Leandro’s Zoning Districts provide for a range of residential densities. The RS districts promote single-family development, and, with the implementation of SB 9, allows 2 units per lot and allows a lot split if lots have a minimum of 1200 square feet. Because 2 units are allowed on each lot, a lot split can occur and the original lot would permit 4 units. One ADU would also be permitted on each of the two lots. The RD district promotes single-family and duplex dwellings with up to two units per lot. The RM districts provide opportunities for multi-family development with densities ranging from

14.5 to 50 du/acre. The RO District also promotes single-family and duplex dwellings but allows more than 2 units depending on size of the lot. For example, for lots larger than 14,000 square feet, the number of additional dwellings permitted shall be based upon a requirement of 7,000 square feet for the first single dwelling, 5,000 square feet additional for each additional single-family dwelling, and 7,000 square feet additional for each additional two-family dwelling.

The recent Multi-Family Development Standards project added the RM-875 District to be consistent with the High Density Residential land use designation and provide opportunity for multi-family housing with a maximum density of 50 du/acre.

Lot Standards
The minimum lot size requirement for residential lots in San Leandro is 5,000 square feet in RS and RD zoning districts. The minimum lot size increases to 8,000 square feet in the RO district and ranges from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet in the RM districts. The maximum site coverage requirement is 50 percent in single-family and duplex districts and ranges from 60 percent to 80 percent in the RM districts.

Building setbacks depend on the zoning district. In residential districts, front building setbacks are generally 20 feet for RS and RD zoning districts and 15 feet in RM districts. Side setbacks range from 5 feet to 10 feet in RM districts. Rear setbacks are 15 feet except in the RO District, which ranges from 15 to 25 feet. Lot standards do not pose a potential constraint to development.

Height Limits
Height limits are generally intended to maintain consistency within an area and compatibility between adjacent buildings. The maximum height in RS and RD zoning districts is 30 feet. Maximum heights in the RM districts range from 40 feet to 50 feet, with 50 feet permitted in the RM-2000, RM 1800, and RM-875 districts and do not pose a constraint to development.

Open Space Requirements
Total open space on a site having three or more dwelling units in the RM districts must be at least 200 square feet per dwelling unit. Private open space meeting a portion of the requirement may be on patios or balconies within which a horizontal rectangle has no dimension less than 6 feet and a City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-18
minimum area of 60 square feet for balconies above the first story and 120 square feet for patio or decks at grade level. Common open space, provided by non-street side yards, courts, patios, terraces, and rooftops must be designed so that a horizontal rectangle inscribed within it has no dimension less than 10 feet and a minimum area of 300 square feet, shall be open to the sky, and must not include driveways, pedestrian access to units, or parking areas, or area required for front or street side yards. The Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) may allow up to 30 percent of the total roof top open space provided to be used to satisfy the open space requirement. In a roundtable discussion hosted by the Alameda County Housing Collaborative on November 29, 2021, housing developers noted that inflexible open space requirements pose a challenge to housing development. 18Therefore, the current open space requirements of the RM districts are considered a potential constraint. The City will monitor development standards and modify as needed to eliminate or reduce potential constraints to residential development, particularly for development that can accommodate lower-income households, as specified in Program 14 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Storage Space Requirements
Storage space is required for multi-family dwellings in RM districts and must be at least 250 cubic feet in size and have minimum dimensions of four feet by eight feet. Inflexible storage space requirements pose a challenge to housing development. Therefore, the current storage space requirements of the RM districts are considered a potential constraint.

The City will monitor development standards and modify as needed to eliminate or reduce potential constraints to residential development, particularly for development that can accommodate lowerincome households, as specified in Program 14 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Commercial and Mixed Use District Residential Standards In 2015, the City replaced former commercial designations with new designations that permit residential uses as a part of mixed use projects with the intent to promote multi-family housing. San Leandro has 17 commercial and mixed use zones which permit residential development. These zones and respective development standards are shown in Table 3.4:
 Commercial Community
 Commercial Neighborhood
 Commercial Recreation
 Commercial Services
 Downtown Area 1 (DA-1) – Retail Mixed Use
 Downtown Area 2 (DA-2) – Multi-Use Infill
 Downtown Area 3 (DA-3) – Transit Oriented
Development Transition – Mixed Use
 Downtown Area 6 (DA-6) – Offices and
Mixed Use
 North Area 1 (NA-1)
 North Area 2 (NA-2)
 Professional Office
 South Area 1 (SA-1)
 South Area 2 (SA-2)
 South Area 3 (SA-3)
 B-TOD District
18 Alameda County Collaborative, 2021. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XYrwZxd3Re0VFWGz119bj8uqS9VdUN4H/view Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-19
Table 3.4 Planned Commercial and Professional Development Standards Zoning District Front (feet) Side (feet) Corner Side (feet) Rear (feet) Height of Residential
and Mixed Use Development
Minimum Density Maximum Density Maximum FAR1 Minimum Feet Maximum Feet CC 10 0 10 0 n/a 24 du/acre 1.0 n/a 50
CN, P 10 0 10 0 n/a 24 du/acre 0.5 n/a CN: 50
P: 30
CR 20 0 20 0 n/a n/a 1.0 n/a n/a
CS 10 0 10 0 n/a n/a 0.5 n/a n/a
DA-1, DA-2, DA3,DA-4, DA-6
Varies2 0 0 0, varies
along creek (C)
Parcels < 10,000 sf: n/a
DA-1 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 35 du/acre
DA-2 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 20 du/acre
DA-3 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 20 du/acre
DA-4 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 60 du/acre
DA-6 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 60 du/acre
Parcels < 10,000 sf: 24 du/acre
DA-1 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 100 du/acre
DA-2 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 40 du/acre
DA-3 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 60 du/acre
DA-4 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: 100 du/acre
DA-6 Parcels ≥ 10,000 sf: n/a
DA-1: 3.5
DA-2: 1.5 to 5.0
DA-3: 3.5 to 4.0
DA-4: 4.0 to 5.0
DA-6: 4.0 to 5.0
DA-1: n/a. or 24
DA-2: n/a. or 24
DA-3: n/a
A
DA-4: n/a
DA-6: n/a
DA-1: 75
DA-2: 50
DA-3: 50
DA-4: 60-75
DA-6: 75
NA-1 0 4 0 5 n/a 24 du/acre 1.0 to 1.5 n/a 50
NA-2 20 or 25 15 (or ½ of
building height)
20 (or ½ of
building height)
15 n/a 24 du/acre 1.0 to 1.5 n/a 50
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 Varies2 0 0 0 18 du/acre 35 du/acre 1.0 to 1.5 24 50 Notes:
1 The ranges in FAR relate to what land use category the parcel is in or the general location. For example, parcels adjacent to BART have a FAR of 5.0 and parcels within the Transit Oriented Mixed Use category have a FAR of 4.0. 2 Setbacks for certain districts vary as they are required to be consistent with existing street sections, and ground floor residential uses are required to be setback depending on the district.

Definitions
CC – Commercial Community
CN – Commercial Neighborhood
P – Professional Office
CR – Commercial Recreation
CS – Commercial Services
DA – Downtown Area
NA – North Area
SA – South Area
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-20
This page intentionally left blank.

Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-21
Most housing production during the 6th housing cycle and the next 20 years is anticipated within the Downtown Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Transit-Oriented Mixed Use, and B-TOD land use designations. Development types envisioned in the associated zoning districts (DA, NA, SA, and BTOD) include mid-rise construction as standalone multi-family residential or mixed use development project, and some opportunities for townhouse style development. However, the Multi-Family Development Standards project found that the development standards in the Zoning Code for most commercial and mixed use districts would better promote high density housing if adjustments were made.

As noted, the Multi-Family Development Standards project revised design and development standards for commercial districts and mixed use projects to replace subjective standards with objective standards. The following strategies were employed to remove obstacles for multi-family development within commercial and mixed use districts:
 Aligned General Plan Land Use categories with zoning districts for consistency  Removed subjective design standards
 Established objective development standards for greater predictability and ease of use  Consolidated and standardized review procedures
The Multi-Family Development Standards project modified the front setback requirements in the DA districts to remove subjective standards and provide objective standards. These standards reference the street sections of the applicable street type while ensuring adequate building setbacks to accommodate the planned street, sidewalk, and public amenity improvements.

Daylight Plane Requirements
A Daylight Plane is an angled building height limitation that regulates the massing and design of buildings and defines the building envelope within which all new structures must be contained.

Daylight Planes are intended to provide for light and air, and to limit the impacts of bulk and mass on adjacent properties. The City requires Daylight Planes for projects greater than 19 feet and 6 inches in height in an R District, projects adjacent to an R District, and projects located in a DA or SA District and the parcel is adjacent to an RS or RD District. In an R District, the Daylight Plane on a project begins at 19 feet and 6 inches above grade at each setback line and extends upwards at a 45-degree angle. No portion of the structure shall intrude beyond the Daylight Plane, except as provided for in Section 4.04.312. Building Projects into Yards and Courts, which includes all or portions of balconies, uncovered porches, wheelchair ramps, fire escapes, ornamental features, and other minor features. In a DA or SA District adjacent to a RS or RD District, the Daylight Plane begins at 15 feet above grade at a side or rear property line and extends upwards at a 45-degree angle to a point 35 feet above existing grade at 20 feet from the RS or RD property line. The DA/SA District Daylight Plane standard was amended in 2021 as part of the Multi-Family Objective Standards project in order to address constraints to development in the City’s Priority Development Areas. In a C or P District, the Daylight Plane begins at 8 feet above grade at a side or rear property line and extends upwards at a 45-degree angle.

Mixed Use Development Trends
Development or redevelopment in commercial and mixed use zones could potentially be developed with 100 percent commercial uses and no housing. As shown in Table 3.4, there is no minimum residential density for most districts, except for larger parcels in the DA districts and the SA district.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-22
An analysis of development trends in mixed use zones from 2011 to 2021 shows an increase in the number of entitled projects that contain residential uses as opposed to projects with 100 percent non-residential uses in the past 3 years, as depicted in Figure 3.1. Since 2011, 14 out of 18 projects in mixed use zones had a residential component, or 78 percent. Since 2017, that rate has risen to 82 percent.

Figure 3.1 Mixed Use Trends
Note: “Non-residential” projects contain 100 percent non-residential uses, while “Residential” projects contain a residential component.

Source: City of San Leandro, 2022
In DA-1, ground floor retail was previously required on parcels fronting on East 14th Street and Washington Avenue north of Parrott Street and encouraged on all other parcels in this district. In a roundtable discussion hosted by the Alameda County Housing Collaborative on November 29, 2021, housing developers noted that round-floor retail in mixed use developments faces funding and logistical challenges, and that flexibility of ground-floor use increases the development potential of a mixed use project.19 The Multi-Family Development Standards Project created a path for 100 percent multi-family projects in these locations through a Conditional Use Permit process, thereby increasing the flexibility of potential development options in mixed use zones. Therefore, the City’s development standards allowing 100 percent non-residential uses are not considered a constraint to development or redevelopment in commercial and mixed use zones.

As shown in Table 3.4, the development standards of the DA districts are compatible with the goals of the Downtown San Leandro TOD Strategy to encourage infill redevelopment with mixed uses and high-density housing. However, the development standards in the Zoning Code for most other commercial and mixed use districts do not reflect high-density housing typologies that are needed for high-density development needed to accommodate housing in these areas. For example, as stated earlier, the purpose of the South Area districts and specifically the East 14th Street Corridor is 19 Alameda County Collaborative, 2021. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XYrwZxd3Re0VFWGz119bj8uqS9VdUN4H/view Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-23
to promote mixed use developments, especially multi-story developments, with neighborhood oriented commercial uses. However, the density, height, and FAR standards in the Zoning Code are more in line with townhome development and not mid- to high-rise multi-family or mixed use development, as shown in Table 3.4. This is considered a constraint to high-density housing production along mixed use commercial corridors. Therefore, the City proposes to align development standards with the intended development types to achieve higher-density development potential, as detailed in Chapter 4, Housing Resources, and specified in Program 5 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

B-TOD District Standards
The City established zoning standards for the B-TOD Specific Plan in November 2021 as a key step in implementing the 2018 B-TOD District. To achieve the high-density, walkable community envisioned through the public outreach process for the Specific Plan, the City established the B-TOD Zoning District, which extends to the full planning area. The development standards were created with respect to recent requirements in State law by establishing objective development standards and including opportunities for flexibility and a wide range of land uses. Flexible zoning allows for a broad range of compatible, transit-oriented land uses while remaining flexible about the exact location. Minimum density for residential development is described in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Density for Multi-Family Residential and Mixed Use Residential Development B-TOD Sub-Area Minimum Density (dwelling unit/acre)
Sub-Area 1 65
Sub-Area 2 60
Sub-Area 3 20
Minimum setback requirements for the B-TOD District are zero except for the street-facing setback, which ranges from zero to 20 feet depending on the street and ground-floor use. Maximum building heights in the three sub-areas range between 50 and 90 feet maximum depending on story level.

New residential, office, and mixed use buildings in Sub-Area 1 are required to be built to a minimum of four stories and 45 feet to provide an appropriate development intensity for their location near transit. Structures near residential uses are required to stagger the height to create a daylight plane and not create significant shadows on existing residences.

Overall, the B-TOD District was established to implement the B-TOD Specific Plan which seeks to establish a dynamic new multi-model transit-oriented development area. The residential density and height standards promote the development of high-density housing units and are not considered a constraint to housing.

Citywide Residential Parking Requirements
According to the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, parking can cost $25,000 to $75,000 per space to construct.20 Requiring less parking not only reduces the project budget of residential developments but can allow for more space to build housing units.

Parking standards for developments meeting the State Density Bonus law require a ratio of 0.5 parking spaces per unit for affordable and senior housing development and no more than 0.3 parking spaces per unit for special needs housing development. In residential areas, parking 20 Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, 2016. Available at: http://ternercenter2.berkeley.edu/proforma/ City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-24
requirements are governed by the San Leandro Zoning Code and are summarized in Table 3.6. Two non-tandem covered off-street spaces are required for most single-family homes, consistent with other jurisdictions in the region. Pursuant to recent changes in State law (AB 2097, 2022 – Friedman), parking minimums will not be imposed on projects located within one-half mile of major transit stops, which will be addressed through the concurrent Zoning Code Amendments.

Table 3.6 Residential Parking Requirements
Housing Type Requirements
Single-Family Dwelling 2 covered spaces per unit. New single-family dwellings or additions with more than 4 bedrooms or over 4,000 square feet of livable area shall require one additional space which may be uncovered and in tandem if it is located a minimum of 30 feet back from the front property line.

Two-Family Dwelling 2 spaces per unit, including 1 covered South Area Only
 2, including 1 covered, per unit (tandem allowed)
Downtown Area Only
 1 covered per unit for areas adjacent to BART
 1.5 per unit, including 1 covered, for all other areas Multi-Family Dwelling
(per unit)
Studio or One-Bedroom Unit
 1 covered space per unit plus 0.5 uncovered space per unit; plus 0.25 space per unit for guest parking
 South Area Only: 1.0 covered space, plus 0.5 guest space, per unit (tandem may be considered)
 Downtown Area Only: ≤ 0.25 mile to BART: 1.0 space per unit (plus allowance of unbundled flex parking of 0.25 to 0.50 spaces/unit
at developer’s option)
 Bay Fair TOD Only –Sub Area 1: maximum 1.0 space per unit.  Bay Fair TOD Sub Area 2 and 3: minimum 0.5 spaces per unit, maximum 1.0 space per unit
Two-Bedroom Unit
 2.0 covered spaces per unit plus 0.25 uncovered space; plus 0.25 space per unit for guest parking
 South Area Only: 1.0 covered space, plus 0.75 guest space, per unit (tandem may be considered)
 South Area and Downtown Area Only: ≤0.25 mile to public transit: 1.0 space per unit and > 0.25 mile to public transit: 1.5 spaces per unit
 Bay Fair TOD Only Sub - Area 1: maximum 1.0 space per unit. Sub-Areas 2 and 3:
minimum 0.75 space per unit, maximum 1.5 spaces per unit 3 Bedrooms or more
 2.0 covered spaces, plus 0.5 uncovered spaces per unit; 0.25 space per unit must be designated guest parking
 South Area and Downtown Area Only: 1.0 covered space, plus 1.0 guest space, per unit (tandem may be considered)
 Downtown Area Only: ≤ 0.25 mile to public transit: 1.0 space per unit and > 0.25 mile to public transit: 1.5 space per unit
 Bay Fair TOD Only - Sub Area 1: maximum 1.0 space per unit B-TOD. Sub Area 2 and 3: minimum 0.5 spaces per unit, maximum 1.0 space per unit Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-25
Housing Type Requirements
Bay Fair TOD District Office: Minimum 1.0 space per 1,000 sf (<5,000 sf exempt) Retail: Minimum 2.0 spaces per 1,000 sf (<5,000 sf exempt) Residential: Studio and 1-Bedroom: minimum 0.5, maximum 1.0 space per unit, space per unit, 2 or More Bedrooms: minimum 0.75 space per unit, maximum 1.5 space per unit
Senior Housing 1.2 spaces per unit, including 1 covered space and one space per employee (covered optional)
South Area Only
 0.6 covered space per unit, plus 1.0 space per employee.

Downtown Area Only
 ≤ 0.25 mile to BART: 0.4 covered space per unit, plus 1.0 space per employee.

In-Residence Cottage
Food Operation
1 uncovered space per employee
Group Housing 1 space per 2 beds; plus 1 space per 100 square feet used for assembly purposes or as required by use permit or Planned Development approval
Supportive Housing Subject to parking standards for the applicable residential type in the applicable residential zone
Transitional Housing Subject to parking standards for the applicable residential type in the applicable residential zone
Residential Congregate Care Parking requirement to be based on the unit’s regular residential parking requirement.

Residential Hotels 1.1 parking spaces/room
Source: San Leandro, City of, 2020. Zoning Code.

In 2020, the City analyzed its multi-family parking standards and found that the City’s parking requirements are typical for more auto-oriented suburban development patterns and stakeholders indicated they limit the ability to achieve allowable density. The City’s current parking minimums are a constraint to Housing Production in San Leandro and several approved housing development projects obtained parking exceptions or utilized Planned Developments to provide reduced parking in order to make housing projects financially feasible. These extra discretionary review processes add time and uncertainty, which can impede housing development. The City has a process to consider reduced parking requirements through Major Site Plan Review if the nature of a project supports the reduction and there would be no impacts to nearby parking areas. Prior to the adoption of Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Objective Development Standards, parking exceptions for all uses were reviewed through a process similar to a Use Permit or Variance, which required a noticed public hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustments and specified findings. Beginning in 2021, parking exceptions are now handled through an administrative Major Site Plan Review process with the Zoning Enforcement Official as the decisionmaker. The parking standards for supportive, transitional, and congregate care are the same as typical housing. The parking standards for Group Housing and Residential Hotels (SROs) are not the same as typical housing and can be a constraint to the development of housing for those with special needs. If a reduced parking finding cannot be met pursuant to the parking reduction requirements, this can be a constraint to the development of housing for those with special needs. As detailed in Program 14 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City is committed to retaining the services of a third-party parking consultant to analyze the City’s minimum parking standards and conduct stakeholder outreach to identify recommended reductions or eliminations of residential parking minimums to implement the 2021 Climate Action Plan, reduce identified constraints to housing production and make housing City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-26
developments more financially feasible. Stakeholder outreach shall include discussions with forprofit and non-profit housing developers, housing advocates, and environmental groups. Staff will complete the study and make recommendations for reduction or elimination of minimum parking standards to the Planning Commission at a public hearing for their recommendation to the City Council by December 2024.The City will also lower the parking requirements for Residential Hotels (SROs) and amend the Group Homes parking standard to reflect parking standards for the applicable residential type in the applicable zone, as specified in Program 14.

Provision of a Variety of Housing Types
This section describes the allowable residential development by zone. The regulation of housing opportunities impacts the development of housing opportunities, including those for extremely lowincome households and persons with special needs, such as supportive or transitional housing, emergency shelters, and group residences. Table 3.7 summarizes the City’s existing zoning provisions for various types of housing. Housing types and allowable uses are described below the table.

Single-Family Residential
A single-family residence means an attached or detached building limited to one kitchen where the occupants of the dwelling unit live and function together as a household. Single-family residences are permitted in all residential zones and are indicated as RS in the zoning code. Single-family residences are permitted in all residential zones in the city. Single-family dwellings are permitted byright but are subject to Site Plan review. Subsets of the RS District include RS-40 and RS View Preservation (VP). The RS-40 designation requires the front yard setback to be a minimum of 40 feet. RS (VP) requires a maximum height limit of 18 feet and all new homes and additions are subject to discretionary review to prevent unreasonable blockage of views.21 Single-family residences are permitted uses in RM Zoning Districts which is considered a constraint to multifamily development. The City will revise the Zoning Code to remove single-family residences as a permitted use in RM Zoning Districts as described in Program 14 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Manufactured Home
A manufactured home is a dwelling unit that was manufactured elsewhere and placed on a building site and constructed in accord with federal and State standards for manufactured homes. This definition includes mobile homes and modular homes. The City permits manufactured homes in any R district where a single-family detached dwelling is permitted, subject to the same restrictions on density and to the same property development regulations, provided that such a manufactured home receives a Certificate of Compatibility. Manufactured homes are also permitted in Residential Multi-Family Districts and DA-3 zones with the approval of a conditional use permit. 21 City San Leandro Zoning Ordinance. 2021. Available: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sanleandro-zoning/view.php?topic=2-2_04- 2_04_100&frames=on (Ord. 2020-002 Section 4; Ord. 2001-015 Section 1). Accessed October 28, 2021 Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-27
Table 3.7 Allowable Housing Types by Zone (prior to concurrent Zoning amendments) Residential Districts
Commercial and
Professional Districts
North Area
Districts
South Area
Districts Downtown Area Districts Industrial Districts
Housing Type RS RD RM RO CN CC B-TOD CS P NA-1 NA-2 SA-1 SA-2 SA-3 DA-1 DA-2 DA-3 DA-4 DA-6 IL IG IP IT Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P - P P P P P P P P P P P - - - P Emergency Shelters
(within 0.5 mi of BART
in IT)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P - - UP
Group Housing - - UP - - - - - UP - - UP UP UP - UP UP UP - - - - - Manufactured Home
Parks
- - UP - - - - - - - - - - - - UP - - - - - -
Mixed Use Residential
(see DA, SA, IT
restrictions)
- - - - UP UP P - UP UP UP P P P P P P P P - - - UP
Multi-Family Dwellings
(see DA, SA, IT
restriction)
- - P - UP UP P - UP UP UP P P P P P P P P - - - UP
Group Homes -
Residential Congregate
Care Facilities, (7 or
more)

P P P P P P P - P P P P P P P P P P P - - - P
Group Homes -
Residential Congregate
Care Facilities, Limited
(6 or fewer)

P P P P P P P - P P P P P P P P P P P - - - P
Single-Family
Residential (Within 0.5
miles of a BART station

P P P P - - - - - - - - - - - - UP UP - - - - UP
Two-Family Residential - P P P* UP UP UP - - UP P AR P AR - - UP UP - - - - - Notes:

P = Permitted Use
AR = Administrative Review Required
UP = Use Permit Required
- = Not Permitted
* Subject to Section 2.04.384 RO District—Additional Dwelling Units IL = Industrial Limited, IG = Industrial General, IP = Industrial Park, IT = Industrial Transition Source: San Leandro Zoning Code
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-28
Accessory Dwelling Units
Under State law (Government Code Section 65852.2), an ADU is a dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. ADUs may provide an affordable housing option for family members of the primary resident(s), students, seniors, in-home health care providers, persons with disabilities, young professionals, or others.

The City of San Leandro provides information on design requirements, regulations, and fees related to ADUs on a handout available on the City’s website. 22 In San Leandro, an ADU can be a maximum of 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet depending on the number of bedrooms and size of the main dwelling unit. A Junior ADU (JADU) is a unit that is contained within the habitable floor area of a single-family residence and may share a bathroom with the primary residence. The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square feet for single-family use and 1,200 square feet for multifamily use. An ADU must be located on the same parcel on which a single-family dwelling or multifamily development is located or will be built and may be attached to or converted from a portion of the primary dwelling unit or separate from the primary structure (detached). It includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation.

On parcels that have an existing or proposed single family use, a maximum of one ADU and one JADU is permitted. On parcels with existing two-family or multi-family uses, a maximum of one repurposed ADU and two detached ADUs are permitted.

The San Leandro Zoning Code (Section 2.04.388) allows for the development of ADUs and JADUs through a ministerial building permit review.

The ADU and JADUs do not count towards the maximum density established by the zoning district.

Additionally, no parking spaces are required for ADU or JADUs when a garage is repurposed into the ADU. These requirements ease the development of these structures. Additionally, ADUs and JADUs are not allowed to be used for short-term rentals (30 days or less) which confirms that ADUs will add to the longer-term housing options in the community. Impact fees for new ADU construction depend on the size of the ADU. For ADUs less than 750 square feet, detached and attached ADU impact fees are $3,270 (for wastewater connection; no other fees apply). For ADUs greater than or equal to 750 square feet, impact fees vary depending on the proposed square feet of the ADU and the primary building square feet.

According to the San Leandro Zoning Code, the unit cannot be sold separately from the primary unit(s). However, following the passage of AB 345 in 2021, local jurisdictions must allow for the separate sale of ADUs in limited circumstances, for example, from a qualified non-profit owner to a low-income owner.

The City of San Leandro issues building permits for ADUs. Building permits were issued for an average of 32 ADUs per year from 2018-2021. The City will implement programs to reduce constraints to the development of ADUs and promote the development of ADUs, as discussed in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Multi-Family and Mixed Use Residential Development
Multi-family dwelling means a building containing two or more dwelling units where each unit is for the use of individual households. Multi-family residences include apartments, town houses, condominiums, multi-dwelling structures, or cluster housing with common open space. The Multi22 City of San Leandro Accessory Dwelling Unit Info Sheet. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/1403/Accessory-Dwelling-Unit-ADU-PDF Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-29
Family Development Standards project clarified that multi-family and mixed use development is permitted by right in the DA and SA Districts, except that Conditional Use Permit approval is required to allow ground floor residential on parcels fronting East 14th Street or Washington Avenue, north of Parrott, consistent with the Downtown TOD Strategy and the East 14th Street South Area Development Strategy. Multi-family residential development is permitted by-right in the City’s RM, DA, and SA zones. IT zones also permit multi-family residential development; however, they require a Conditional Use Permit and must be within 0.5 miles of a BART station. There are five types of RM Zoning Districts based on the number of dwellings per gross acre (land area prior to land dedicated for streets or other improvements). They include the following:
 RM-3000 District, density is 14.5 dwellings per gross acre  RM-2500 District, density is 17.5 dwellings per gross acre  RM-2000 District, density is 22 dwellings per gross acre  RM-1800 District, density is 24 dwellings per gross acre  RM-875 District, density is 50 dwellings per gross acre Multi-family residential development is required to undergo Site Plan Review conducted by the ZEO unless appealed or elevated to the Board of Zoning Adjustments. A description of the Development Permit process is outlined later in this section.

Single-Room Occupancy Units
Single-room occupancy (SRO) units are not defined in State law, but under Housing Element law, cities must facilitate SROs as a form of housing for special needs populations (Government Code Section 65583(c)(1)). An SRO unit is usually small, between 200 to 350 square feet. SROs are an important source of affordable private housing for lower-income individuals, seniors, persons with disabilities, and formerly homeless people. Although it is not explicit, SROs are classified as residential hotels in the San Leandro Zoning Code (Section 6.08.112) and are allowed in the SA-1 district with a conditional use permit (CUP). 1.1 parking spaces/room are required, similar to the parking requirement for studio apartments in much of the city, which could pose a constraint to the development of SROs. Not referring to SROs explicitly in the Residential Hotel definition could also be a constraint to the production of SROs. San Leandro does not currently have any SROs. The City will support the development of SROs and other alternative forms of housing, as described in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, including concurrent updates to the Zoning Code to clearly identify SROs, expand where they are allowed, and reduce minimum parking standards.

Residential Congregate Care Facilities
Residential Congregate Care Facilities provide living accommodations and 24-hour, primarily nonmedical care and supervision for individuals. The definition of Residential Congregate Care Facilities describes adult day care and/or overnight non-medical residential living accommodations, day treatment, or foster agency services where the duration of stay is determined, at least in part, by the individual residents’ participation in group or individual activities, such as counseling, recovery planning, and medical or therapeutic assistance. Congregate Care Facilities include facilities licensed by the State of California. While the current definition identifies specific types of care facilities and includes participation in certain activities, it is generally describing facilities that are licensed by the State of California to provide living accommodations and 24-hour, primarily non-medical care and supervision for individuals. The Zoning Code distinguishes between Residential Congregate Care Facilities serving up to six individuals and facilities serving seven or more individuals; however, all City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-30
Residential Congregate Care Facilities are considered a residential use of property, and is a permitted use in all Zoning Districts that allow residential uses. Residential Congregate Care facilities serving seven or more individuals must be located a minimum of 1,000 feet from any other such facility, unless an adjustment is approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustments. Additionally, a zoning permit is required for any facility serving more than 10 adults (Section 2.04.236). Parking standards for all types of Residential Congregate Care Facilities are the same as the applicable residential type in the applicable residential zone.

As described in Program 14 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City will remove barriers to the development of Residential Congregate Care Facilities by amending the Zoning Code to clarify their definition and note that they are subject to the same development standards as the applicable unit type in the applicable zone and to reduce the required separation requirement for facilities serving 7 or more persons to 750 feet, and lower the level of review authority to approve an adjustment to the spacing requirement from the Board of Zoning Adjustments to the Zoning Enforcement Official.

Group Housing
Group Housing, or non-licensed facilities that provide communal living arrangements, are currently allowed in the RM, P, SA, and DA districts with Conditional Use Permit approval. As described in Program 14 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City will remove barriers to Group Housing by clarifying their definition and adding a provision that Group Housing with six or fewer occupants is considered a residential use of property and is a permitted use in all Zoning Districts that allow residential uses.

Emergency Shelters
Emergency shelters are currently defined as facilities limited to 25 beds that serve unsheltered individuals. In addition to providing emergency housing for individuals and families, emergency shelters also have staff and provide amenities such as restrooms, showers, and storage. Emergency shelters are currently permitted by right in the Industrial Limited (IL) District and with a use permit in the Industrial Transition (IT) District. The IL District is approximately 65.6 acres in total and the IT District is 141.5 acres, comprising approximately 2.4 percent of the city’s total acreage. The number of people experiencing homelessness in the 2022 PIT count was 409, with 312 unsheltered. With a limit of 25 beds per shelter, 13 emergency shelters would be needed to accommodate all unsheltered residents. AB2339, which goes into effect on January 1, 2023, further expands requirements for emergency shelters and includes parameters for evaluating sufficient land availability to address a local jurisdiction’s unsheltered residents. Pursuant to AB2339, 62,400 sq. ft. or 1.4 acres of land are required to shelter the 312 unsheltered individuals from the 2022 PIT using 200 sq. ft. per person.

The 25-bed requirement and the limited size and location of permitted zoning districts are considered a constraint to the development of emergency shelters. As noted in Program 16 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City is concurrently amending the Zoning Code to allow emergency shelters with up to 45 beds by right in the General Industrial (IG) and Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District, and increase the number of beds allowed by right in the Industrial Limited (IL) District from 25 beds to 45 beds. The IG District and IL District contain larger sites with existing structures that could be repurposed as emergency shelters or demolished to make room for new structures. The IG and IL Districts contain sufficient numbers of vacant sites to accommodate the need with a total of 28.09 acres of vacant sites; however, the majority of these sites are not close to services. There are 6 vacant lots in the IG District ranging from 0.11 to 4.32 acres each and one Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-31
vacant lot in IL that is 0.11 acres in size. Sites in the industrial zoning districts have the potential for contamination and could require remediation.

To ensure there are adequate non-contaminated sites, including vacant sites, close to services, the City is concurrently amending the Zoning Code to permit emergency shelters in the Commercial Community (CC) District. The CC District is mixed-use, allows for residential uses, and provides sites for commercial centers containing a wide variety of commercial establishments, including retail, services, hotels and motels. Sites are generally suitable for human habitability based on the allowed uses and environmental quality. The CC District offers sites with a range of parcel sizes and existing uses and offers potential for reuse and development in locations with older structures and lower improvement to land value ratios. The CC District allows housing development, has more than 30 acres of vacant land and 60.5 acres of underutilized land (defined as improvement to land value ratio below 1.0, with an average FAR of 0.20 and average building age of 1957), and is close to public transit and medical, social, and/or commercial services. The City will also amend the Zoning Code to permit larger shelters with a use permit in zoning districts where emergency shelters are permitted.

AB 139, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, mandates that emergency shelters may only be subject to those standards which apply to residential and commercial development within the same zone, except that a city can apply standards regulating the number of beds, parking for staff provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, length of stay, and other minor standards. The San Leandro Zoning Code states that an emergency shelter requires an adopted management plan that includes hours and staffing, provides sufficient waiting area, parking and loading facilities, and 24-hour restrooms. The Zoning Code does not have specific standards related to the requirements discussed in AB 139. If these requirements are arbitrarily applied, this could be a constraint on housing for unsheltered persons. The City will concurrently revise the emergency shelter provisions in the Zoning Code to address identified constraints and to be consistent with AB 139 and AB2339, subjecting emergency shelters only to the same objective standards that apply to residential and commercial development within the same zone (e.g., setbacks, height, lot coverage, and FAR), except for objective standards related to location, management, and intake area, as specified in Program 16 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Low Barrier Navigation Center
With the adoption of AB 101 in 2019, cities are required to allow low barrier navigation centers as a permitted use in mixed use zones and other nonresidential zones permitting multi-family residential development. Per AB 101, a low barrier navigation center is defined as: “a Housing First, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing.” When compared to traditional emergency shelters, low barrier navigation centers may provide more services and additional flexibility to clients, such as allowing pets or permitting partners to share living space. AB 101 also requires local jurisdictions to act on a complete application for a low barrier navigation center within 60 days. As San Leandro’s Zoning Code has not been updated to permit low barrier navigation centers, this is considered a constraint to housing for unsheltered individuals and the City will revise emergency shelter provisions in the Zoning Code, consistent with AB 101. The City is currently in negotiations to purchase a motel to develop a short- term low barrier navigation center with shelter/housing units and will take actions, including apply for State Project Homekey funding, City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-32
to open a facility during the Housing Element planning period, as specified in Program 16 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Supportive and Transitional Housing
When compared to emergency shelters, transitional housing is intended to accommodate people experiencing homelessness and their families for a longer time period, typically 6 to 18 months, while residents stabilize their lives and can move into permanent housing. Supportive housing is affordable housing with access to on- or off-site support services that help individuals or families with barriers to employment or housing stability, such as people experiencing homeless, or people with disabilities, and other special needs populations. Transitional Housing is defined as rental housing developments operated under program requirements that call for the termination of assistance at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six months.

The City regulates supportive and transitional housing the same as other residential dwellings of the same type in the applicable zoning districts. Parking standards are also the same as the applicable residential type in the applicable residential zone.

AB 2162, which went into effect on January 1, 2019, requires that cities allow supportive housing with up to 50 units by-right in multi-family and mixed use zones and precludes cities from imposing parking requirements on supportive housing developments located within one half mile of a public transit stop. As San Leandro’s Zoning Code has not been updated to be consistent with these requirements, this is considered a constraint to housing for individuals in need of support and the Housing Element update will revise supportive housing provisions in the Zoning Code, consistent with AB 2162. The City will revise the Zoning Code consistent with AB 2162, as specified in Program 16 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Employee Housing and Farmworker Housing
Under California Health and Safety Code 17021.5, any employee housing providing accommodation for six or fewer employees must be considered a single-family structure with a residential land use designation. San Leandro’s Zoning Code does not currently address employee housing and the Housing Element update will revise employee housing provisions in the Zoning Code as specified in Program 15 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan. California Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5 and 17021.6 generally require agricultural employee housing to be permitted by-right, without a CUP, in single-family zones for six or fewer persons and in agricultural zones with no more than 12 units or 36 beds. No zones in the city permit agricultural uses. The City will amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow agricultural employee housing for six or fewer persons by right in zoning districts where single-family uses are allowed, subject to the same regulations as a single-family dwelling. The City will also assess and monitor, on an annual basis and as data is available, the need for farmworker housing in the city and region. If it is determined that farmworker housing is an identified need, support and facilitate efforts by private, non-profit, and public agencies to provide safe, affordable, and adequate housing for farmworkers, and explore new funding opportunities to support permanent farmworker housing, as specified in Program 10 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

On- and Off-Site Improvements
As an urbanized community, most on- and off-site improvements are already in place, such as sewer, water, and utility lines. Typical on- and off-site improvements which may be required for new development on infill sites include connections to sanitary sewer and storm water infrastructure and improvements to adjacent traffic signals and sidewalks. In cases where water or wastewater Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-33
infrastructure may need to be enlarged or repaired to accommodate new construction, developers are responsible for paying the direct costs of improvements. Although requirements for on- and offsite improvements do add to the overall cost of development, they are necessary to ensure provision of vital infrastructure services to residents. Based on the City’s development pipeline and stakeholder feedback, on and off-site improvements do not create an undue constraint on development.

3.2.3 Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Definition of Family
Local jurisdictions may restrict access to housing for households that do not meet the jurisdiction’s definition for “family.” A restrictive definition of “family” that limits the number of individuals living together may illegally limit the development and siting of group homes for persons with disabilities, but not for housing families that are similarly sized or situated. The City of San Leandro’s Zoning Code defines family as “a person or a group of persons living together and maintaining a common household.”23 This definition is not overly restrictive and is not considered a constraint to housing.

Reasonable Accommodation Procedures
The Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act require that cities and counties provide reasonable accommodation where such accommodation may be necessary to afford individuals with disabilities equal housing opportunities. Cities and counties must also consider requests for accommodations related to housing for people with disabilities and provide the accommodation when it is determined to be “reasonable” based on fair housing laws and the case law interpreting the statutes.

Reasonable accommodation is one of the tools intended to further housing opportunities for people with disabilities. These accommodations can mean local jurisdictions making modifications or exceptions in their zoning laws and other land-use regulations when such accommodations may be necessary to afford disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a reasonable accommodation to waive a setback requirement so that a ramp can be provided to residents with mobility impairments.

Reasonable accommodation enables developers and providers of housing for people with disabilities a means of requesting from the local government flexibility in the application of land use and zoning regulations or, in some instances, even a waiver of certain restrictions or requirements necessary to achieve equal access to housing.

San Leandro uses reasonable accommodations to eliminate obstacles to housing for the elderly, people suffering from chronic illness or people experiencing physical or mental disabilities. This can include residents who are recovering from drug and alcohol addiction who would benefit from living in a non-institutional residential environment. San Leandro’s zoning code states that the City can change, waive, or make exceptions to zoning rules that would otherwise have the effect of limiting the ability of such individuals to live in the residence of their choice in the community. San Leandro Zoning Code Section 2.04.232 removes any special requirements for facilities for the disabled that would limit such individuals’ choice of places to live to the extent that such residences are subject to requirements different from those applicable to similar uses of land. 23 City of San Leandro Zoning Code. 2021. Available: http://www.qcode.us/codes/sanleandrozoning/view.php?cite=section_1.12.108&confidence=6. Accessed October 28, 2021 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-34
In 2009, the City adopted the following policy, “Reasonable Accommodation Policy and Grievance Policy Relating to the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act,” as follows:

It is the policy of the City of San Leandro to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the comprehensive civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination against persons with disabilities. The City of San Leandro will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, events, activities, facilities and public meetings.

In all of its services, programs, events, activities, facilities and public meetings, the City of San Leandro will strive to eliminate any barriers that prohibit persons with disabilities from participating or from having full access to facilities. If a service, program, event or activity is not fully accessible, the City will, to the best of its ability, relocate said service, program, event or activity to an accessible facility, or provide equal services at alternate accessible sites.

A request for special accommodation must be made to the ADA Coordinator by the individual needing the accommodation or his/her representative with at least two (2) weeks advance notice of the service, program, event, or activity. Advance notification within this guideline will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility.

Reasonable Accommodation Policy – Zoning and Land Use
This policy provides a procedure to request reasonable accommodation for persons with disabilities seeking equal access to housing under the Federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (the Acts) in the application of zoning laws and other land use regulations, policies and procedures.

A request for reasonable accommodation may be made by any person with a disability, his/her representative or any entity, when the application of a zoning law or other land use regulation, policy or practice acts as a barrier to fair housing opportunities. A person with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that limits or substantially limits one or more major life activities, anyone who is regarded as having such impairment or anyone who has a record of such impairment. This Article is intended to apply to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts.

Requests for reasonable land use accommodation shall be submitted on an application form provided by the ADA Coordinator and shall include the following information:
(1) The applicant's name, address and telephone number. (2) Address of the property for which the request is being made. (3) The current actual use of the property.
(4) The basis for the claim that the individual is considered disabled under the Acts. (5) The zoning code provision, regulation or policy from which reasonable accommodation is being requested.
(6) Why the reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific property accessible to the individual.

Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-35
Review with Other Land Use Applications.

If the project for which the request for reasonable accommodation is being made also requires some other discretionary approval (including but not limited to; conditional use permit, design review, general plan amendment, zone change, annexation, etc.), then the applicant shall file the information required by Subsection (a) together for concurrent review with the application for discretionary approval.

Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the ADA Coordinator who may at the Coordinator’s discretion, forward to the relevant department head for his/her review and determination. The ADA Coordinator or his/her designee, shall make a written determination within 45 days and either grant, grant with modifications, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation in accordance with §2.5.325 (Findings and Decision).

Findings and Decision for Land Use
The written decision to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation for a land use will be consistent with the Acts and shall be based on consideration of the following factors:
(1) Whether the housing, which is the subject of the request, will be used by an individual disabled under the Acts.
(2) Whether the request for reasonable accommodation is necessary to make specific housing available to an individual with a disability under the Acts. (3) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.
(4) Whether the requested reasonable accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a City program or law, including but not limited to land use and zoning. (5) Potential impact on surrounding uses.
(6) Physical attributes of the property and structures. (7) Alternative reasonable accommodations which may provide an equivalent level of benefit.

In granting a request for reasonable accommodation, the reviewing authority may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the findings required above.

Appeal of Determination
A determination by the reviewing authority to grant or deny a request for reasonable accommodation for land use may be appealed to the Planning Commission.

A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards and practices for the siting, development and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of his/her choice. Requests for reasonable accommodation shall be made in the manner prescribed by §2.5.310 (Application Requirements) and shall be made to the City’s ADA Coordinator.

Requests for all special accommodations or to file grievances with the City regarding the City’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation can be submitted to the City’s ADA Coordinator or Section 504 Coordinator. The contact information for these individuals can be found on the policy City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-36
form. However, while the policy information form is located on the City’s website, it is not easily accessible. Findings that refer to “potential impact on surrounding uses,” can be a constraint to providing reasonable accommodations. The City will review the City’s adopted 2009 reasonable accommodation policy and grievance procedure, update as needed, and provide a link to its Reasonable Accommodations policy on the Housing page of the City website, as described in Program 15 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan. As part of its review, the City will remove criteria that may limit reasonable accommodations, including consideration of potential impact on surrounding uses.

California Building Code
San Leandro adopted and amended the California Building Code (CBC), 2019 Edition. The CBC contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance. The guidelines established by the CBC provide minimum standards to safeguard life or limb, health, property, and public welfare by regulating and controlling the design, construction, quality of materials, use and occupancy, location and maintenance of all buildings and structures and certain equipment. The City’s Building & Safety Services Division ensures that new construction and structural improvements in San Leandro are executed safely and in compliance with the CBC.24
San Leandro adopted local amendments to the CBC to address earthquake design standards within San Leandro. The City has not adopted unique restrictions that would constrain the development of housing for persons with disabilities. Compliance with provisions of the Code of Regulations, California Building Standards Code and Federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is assessed and enforced by the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department as part of the plan check and building permit issuance process. San Leandro’s Building Code Enforcement Team is responsible for enforcing the City's Municipal Code; the California Building, Electric, Plumbing, and Mechanical Codes; the International Property Maintenance Code; and the California Health and Safety Code.

3.2.4 Planning and Development Fees
The City charges various fees and assessments to cover the cost of processing permits and providing certain services and utilities. San Leandro charges for processing residential development permits.

In addition, other fees such as impact fees may be assessed, depending upon the circumstances of the development.

Development permit fees are used to cover the cost of reviewing a development proposal. Fees in the Planning Services Division are based on either direct costs or a fixed fee. The current fees (Fiscal Year 2021 to 2022) for various permits related to housing development are listed in Table 3.8 below:
24 City of San Leandro. 2021. Building Code. Available: https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/bldg/buildcode.asp. Accessed October 28, 2021
Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-37
Table 3.8 Development Review Associated Fees
Action/Activity Fees
Administrative Review and Exceptions
Residential $2,223.16 = $2,097.32 + $125.84 tech fee
Residential Requiring Hearing $4,448.36 = $4,196.57 + $251.79 tech fee Appeal
By Non-Applicant to BZA or City Council $578.45 (+City Clerk Filing Fee if City Council) By Applicant to BZA Direct Cost
By Applicant to City Council Direct Cost + City Clerk filing fee Conditional Use Permit (CUP)/Parking Exception/Variance CUP - Residential Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Parking Exception Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Variance Direct Cost $6,000 deposit
Environmental Review
Exemption without Initial Study (Categorical) $741.40 = $699.43 + $41.97 tech fee Initial Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Direct Cost, based on scope Fence Modification
Single-Family and Duplex $1,112.10 = $1,049.15 + $62.95 tech fee Multi-Family and Non-Residential $1,669.16 = $1,574.68 + $94.48 tech fee Residential (View Preservation) $3,335.26 = $3,146.47 + $188.79 tech fee Planned Development/Development Agreement
Planned Development Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
Development Agreement Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
Pre-Application
First Meeting Free/Each Additional Meeting $557.07 = $525.54 + $31.53 tech fee BZA/Planning Commission Work Session $557.07 = $525.54 + $31.53 tech fee SB 330/SB 35 Housing Project $5,927.52 = $5,592.00 + $335.52 tech fee Site Plan Review
Minor Residential/Certificate of Compatibility/Accessory Dwelling Unit $2,780.23 = $2,622.86 + $157.37 tech fee Major View Preservation $4,448.36 = $4,196.57 + $251.79 tech fee Major Residential/Non-Residential Direct Cost $5,000 deposit Tentative Map/Subdivision/Condominium/Annexation
Tentative Map Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
Amendment/Extension/Revision/Waiver Direct Cost $15,000 deposit Residential Condo Conversion Direct Cost $15,000 deposit Non-Residential Condo Conversion Direct Cost $15,000 deposit Annexation Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
Zone Change/General Plan Amendment/Specific Plan
Zone Change/Code Amendment Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
General Plan Amendment Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
Specific Plan/Amendment Direct Cost $15,000 deposit
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-38
Action/Activity Fees
Plan Check for Building Permit
Single-Family Residential: New Construction/Alterations/Additions $263.00 Multi-Family Residential or Non-Residential: New Construction $656.45 Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) $172.11 per hour
Community Planning Fee (applies to all building permits) 0.3% of total valuation of construction Technology Fee
Applied to all permit fees except Zoning Compliance Letters, Zoning Business License fees, and Plan Check for Building Permit fees. 6% of the total permit fee and is not
refundable.

BZA = Board of Zoning Adjustments
Source: San Leandro Planning Permit Fees and Charges, 2021 - 2022 The permit processing fees depend upon the specific zoning approval required and the type of project or construction. Planning fees are based on a fixed fee or direct cost, such as staff time plus overhead. City Planners are available to identify the approvals that may be required for a project.

When a Planning permit is required for a project, approval of the Planning permit is required before a building permit can be issued.25
Development Impact Fees
San Leandro relies on development impact fees to pay for services needed for the additional growth. Impact fees cover expansions of city infrastructure and services needed to accommodate growth beyond the tasks necessary to build a specific residential project. Public goods and services like schools, parks and art, capital improvement, environmental resources, affordable housing, transportation, utilities, and fire and public safety are covered by impact fees. Development impact fees for San Leandro are described in more detail below:
 School Fees: Support new school facilities to serve future residents of new developments.  Transportation Fees: Funds the costs of expanding transportation infrastructure usage related to new development. There are different development fees for street improvements and are called general traffic impact fees. A general traffic impact fee is assessed if the new use generates more traffic than the former use. Two additional traffic impact fees are based on impact zones around the intersections of Davis Street/Doolittle Drive and Marina Boulevard/I880. The Davis Street/Doolittle Drive intersection fee zones generally lie south of 98th Avenue, west of I-880, north of Marina Boulevard, and east of the Bay. The Marina Boulevard/I-880 intersection fee zone is generally south of San Leandro Creek, west of East 14th Street, north of Manor Boulevard, and east of the Bay. These traffic impact zones are available for view on webbased maps.  Park Fees: Fees set aside for parks and parkland.
 Utility Impact Fees: Funding that covers expansions of water, sewer, electricity, and gas infrastructure.

The City also collects a range of residential impact fees to offset the future impact of development on existing infrastructure, city services (such as public safety), schools, and other services. Park Development Impact Fees are charged to single-family, multi-family, and ADU development at a 25 City of San Leandro. 2021. Development Fees – Fiscal Year 2020 – 2021. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=33067. Accessed October 27, 2021 Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-39
cost per unit to fund park land acquisition, development, or improvements. Street Improvement fees are charged per unit based on the type of construction and location of the development.

Undergrounding of utilities is also charged per unit for housing in certain districts in the city, and sewer connection fees are charged based on the type of residential development. The City collects fees for schools, but the rates are set by school districts. The City does not currently provide an exemption for affordable housing projects.

Overall, the City’s current development impact fees have minimal impacts on overall development costs, given the high price of land in San Leandro and the region. San Leandro has fewer development impact fees than some other cities in Alameda County. However, the City’s Park Development Impact Fees are substantially higher than neighboring jurisdictions and were identified as a constraint during the stakeholder interviews. For example, San Leandro’s Park Development Impact Fees for multi-family units are $15,316 per unit for park land acquisition and $2,436 per unit for park improvements, compared to the City of Hayward’s park fees which range from $1,581 to $7,799 per unit depending on the number of bedrooms. This fee could be considered a constraint to housing, especially for large, high-density developments with a large number of housing units. In addition, development impact fees for ADUs could be a cost burden to single-family homeowners and be a constraint to the development of ADUs. The City plans to conduct a Comprehensive Impact Fee Study by 2024 to assess changes to development impact fees and potential impacts to housing development, as specified in Program 14 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan. As a part of the City’s Comprehensive Impact Fee Study, the City will explore a standardized fee reduction and/or impact fee waiver program for affordable housing projects.

Development Fees For a Typical Project
Table 3.9 provides development fees for a typical project. The fees for a single-family residence were actual fees for a real time, two-story, 2848 square foot single-family residence completed in 2021. The fees for a multi-family residence were actual fees for a 62-unit project completed in 2022.

The table includes City fees and non-city fees. City fees for a single-family residence totaled $54,364.16 while the fees for the multi-family project totaled $1,544,975.50, approximately $25,000 per unit. Non-city fees totaled $19,310.96 for the single-family residence and $239,013.44 for the multi-family project, or $3,855 per unit. The combined totals for City and non-city fees totaled $73,725.12 for single family and $1,783,988.70 for multi-family, approximately $29,000 per unit.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-40
Table 3.9 Development Fees for a Typical Unit
Development Fees for a Typical Unit Single-Family Multi-Family Total Multi-Family Per Unit City Fees
Estimated Grading Permit and Inspection (singlefamily residence if <50 cubic yards. No grading permit required)
N/A 3,695.50 59.6
Development fees for street improvement 1,491.91 84,094.78 1,370.00 Impact fee-park development 19,461.00 986,812.00 15,916.00 Imaging 509.80 1,538.50 24.80
Building Permit Fee-valuation 14,290.31 60,745.42 979.76 Conditional Use Permit N/A 2,728.51 44.00
Site plan review, Planning 250.00 7,200.00 116.12
Planning review 2,326.00 1,225.00 19.75
Plan check fee, Building 5,468.16 47,087.02 759.46
Community Planning fee 3,722.40 40,178.82 648.00
Technology fee, Planning (6% of permit fee) 139.56 300.00 4.84 Solid waste and recycling plan
(Public works review of projects over $100,000.00
in valuation, Construction and Demolition
Recycling)
165.00 316.00 5.01
Miscellaneous fee N/A 131.00 2.11
Credit card processing fee N/A 3.28 0.52
Impact fee-traffic Marina/I-880 N/A 42,298.24 682.23
Impact fee, overhead utility N/A 46,231.83 745.67
Environmental hourly review fee N/A 151.00 2.43
Staff hours (building permit) Engineering 464.43 216.00 3.48 Filing and issuance 123.00 123.00 1.98
Building Standards SB1473 50.00 536.00 8.65
Water Pollution Control Plant -Residential 4,389.00 212,512.00 3,427.61 Total City Fees 54,364.16 1,544,975.50 24,918.59
Non-City Fees
Fire alarm system permit N/A 1,790.14 28.87
Fire plan review (City contracts with Alameda
County Fire Dept.)
4,585.55 39,484.52 636.84
Fire sprinklers/Fire permit $1,001.10 1,790.40 28.88
School impact fee 10,793.92 182,435.44 2,942.00
Energy Conservation (For all buildings subject to the
California Energy Commission's conservation
regulations) 20% of permit fee.
2,769.09 11,771.76 189.86
Strong Motion Impact fee (State mandated tax for
seismic hazard monitoring)
161.30 1,741.08 28.00
Total Non-City Fees 19,310.96 239,013.44 3,855.00
Total Fees $73,725.12 $1,783,988.70 $28,774.01
Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-41
Development Fees for a Typical Unit Single-Family Multi-Family Total Multi-Family Per Unit Estimated Construction Cost1 $714,525.0
0 $13,392,940.0
0 $216,015.16
Overall development cost $788,250.1
2 $15,176,928.7
0 $244,789.17
Proportion of fee cost to overall development cost 9.35% 11.75% 11.75% 1 Construction costs do not include land costs. When land costs are considered, fees as a proportion of total development cost are significantly lower.

3.2.5 Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
Inclusionary housing regulations help increase the availability of affordable housing stock in the city.

San Leandro’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was established in 2004 and requires that a certain percentage of new residential development be made affordable to low- and moderate-income households, depending on whether the project is intended as ownership or rental housing.

Currently, for all new residential developments, at least 15 percent of the total units must be inclusionary units restricted for occupancy by moderate-, low-, or very low-income households at either the affordable rent or affordable ownership cost appropriate for the income of the household. Although inclusionary requirements do increase the cost of market rate development, they are a key component in the City’s efforts to increase the affordable housing supply in San Leandro.

San Leandro’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is a production-first program with very limited options for in-lieu fees. Only new for-sale housing development with two to six total units have the option of providing one affordable unit for moderate-income households or paying an in-lieu fee defined in the ordinance. The in-lieu fee does not apply to rental developments or developments with more than six total units. New for-sale housing developments and condominium conversions involving fewer than two units and new rental housing developments with fewer than four units are exempt from this ordinance.

An Inclusionary Housing Plan is required for residential developments subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (two or more for-sale units or four or more rental units), which is reviewed at the planning entitlements stage for compliance with the Ordinance. All units identified as low- and moderate-income are required to record Inclusionary Housing Agreements (resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal) to ensure long-term affordability.

As described in Program 12 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City is committed to updating the Inclusionary Housing program and will conduct an economic feasibility study to guide any decisions on changes to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including the consideration of thresholds for covered projects, changes to the required inclusionary housing component and/or changes to the in-lieu fee structure and the desire and ability of developers to contribute to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF). Based on the findings of the evaluation and the study, the City shall consider amendments to the ordinance with the goal of increasing the amount of affordable housing built in the city while ensuring the requirements do not pose a constraint to overall housing production.

3.2.6 Permit Procedures and Processing Times
Certainty and consistency in permit processing procedures and reasonable processing times is important to ensure that the development review/approval process does not discourage developers of housing or add excessive costs (including carrying costs on property) that would make the project City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-42
economically infeasible. The City is committed to maintaining comparatively short processing times.

Processing and permit procedures can pose a considerable constraint to the production and improvement of housing. The lengthy processing time, unclear permitting procedures, layered reviews, multiple discretionary review requirements, and costly conditions of approval can contribute to the high cost of housing. 26 Processing times depend on the magnitude and complexity of the proposed development project. In the City, the typical period for administrative review is one to three months. A Use Permit or variance takes approximately six to eight months to complete.

Parking exceptions previously triggered a public hearing before the Board of Zoning Adjustments, but were recently revised to an administrative process through the Zoning Enforcement Official.

Administrative Site Plan Review takes three to four months to complete, unless it is a major residential project which typically takes six to eight months to complete. If a project requires a Use Permit and Site Plan Review, they are processed concurrently.

The average number of days from entitlement to building permit is 198.64 days, based on a review of projects from the past 18 months. This length of time is approximately 15 percent higher than the average number of days for all jurisdictions in Alameda County, which is 172.44 days. The City will continue to improve the efficiency of the development review process, as described in Program 14 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

San Leandro’s Community Development Department provides guidance to developers, construction contractors, or homeowners through its One Stop Permit Center to discuss proposed building plans.

The Multi-Family Development Standards project established objective development and design standards as discussed above, which allowed the City to adjust review thresholds for several project types from discretionary to administrative. As detailed below, the City consolidated and standardized the review process for planning permits in the city.

Site Plan Review
Through the City’s SB2 grant-funded work to develop Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Objective Development Standards, stakeholder input confirmed that uncertainties and delays resulting from prolonged discretionary review processes were a barrier to housing development. As a result, the City updated its development standards and review processes to meet state law, set clear expectations, and streamlined review of housing projects.

There are now three levels of Site Plan Review, and the review authority for all three is administrative at the Zoning Enforcement Official (ZEO) level, as detailed in Table 3.10. The Site Plan Review process runs concurrently with any other required discretionary permits.

Table 3.10 Site Plan Review Process
Type Review Body Required Noticing Hearing
Administrative Site Plan Review ZEO, BZA upon appeal or elevation
None No
Minor Site Plan Review ZEO, BZA upon appeal or
elevation
Adjacent properties No
Major Site Plan Review ZEO, BZA upon appeal or
elevation
Within RS-VSP: 500 feet from property.

Other areas: Adjacent Properties
Yes
ZEO = Zoning Enforcement Official
BZA = Board of Zoning Adjustments
26 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021. Building Blocks. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/constraints/processing-permitting-procedures.shtml. Accessed October 28, 2021 Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-43
An Administrative Site Plan Review is required for the following:
 RD and RM Districts: new dwellings (including multi-family developments), additions, or redevelopment of 2,500 square feet and 50 percent of the gross floor area, new structure greater than 2,500 square feet, and additions or new second/third stories  Commercial Districts: new structures greater than 2,500 square feet, additions, or redevelopment greater than 2,500 square feet and 10 percent of the gross floor area, and major structural upgrades
 B-TOD District: new structures, additions or redevelopment, structural upgrades Minor Site Plan Review is required for the following:
 RO, RS, and RM-40 Districts: new two-story home and second story addition or increase in square footage
 RS-VP: any addition or structure requiring building permit Major Site Plan Review is required for the following:
 RO, RS, and RM-40 Districts: New single-family home or addition which would have floor area greater than 4,000 square feet, addition that exceeds 100 percent of existing floor area, third story or addition, and a new or addition to a two-family dwelling that would result in an additional unit, additions or redevelopment greater than 2,500 square feet and 10 percent of the gross floor area, or increase the square footage of the second or third story.  RS-VP: new single-family home or any additions greater than 250 square feet or results in home over 4,000 square feet
In summary, projects that involve the construction of new housing units are subject to an administrative process (either no site plan review or an administrative site plan review) except for new units in the RS-VP District and new large homes (over 4,000 square feet), new two-story homes, additions of new units to a two-family dwelling, and redevelopment greater than 2,500 square feet in RO, RS, and RM-40 districts.

The City of San Leandro has taken steps to streamline the design review process for residential projects to reduce or eliminate potential delays due to design and is concurrently amending the Zoning Code to revise required findings and clarify that Administrative Site Plan Review is a ministerial process through which objective development standards are applied to proposed projects. The City of San Leandro does not have a design review board. Residential projects are subject to straightforward objective criteria codified in the Zoning Code. Most residential projects are approved either administratively or through the Board of Zoning Adjustments and do not require a subsequent public hearing before the City Council unless appealed. For these reasons, projects are unlikely to be delayed or more costly to develop due to the design review process. The City’s current site plan review process is not considered a constraint to housing development, but the City will continue to explore efforts to reduce constraints to development and streamline development review, as specified in Program 14 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

State Streamlining
Under the 5th Cycle Housing Element reporting period (2015-2023), the City of San Leandro has made insufficient progress toward its Above Moderate income RHNA and is subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions for projects that include at least 10 percent affordability. SB 35 requires that City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-44
eligible projects be reviewed for compliance and consistency with the City’s objective standards and are not subject to discretionary processes, such as CEQA environmental review and public hearings.

Eligible projects with 150 units or fewer must be approved within 90 days and projects with more than 150 units must be approved within 180 days.

Since 2018, three projects have been approved through SB 35 ministerial approval. San Leandro has a SB 35 Streamlined Process information sheet that describes the process for submitting an eligible project for review. In addition, AB 1397 requires that 5th cycle opportunity sites re-used in the 6th cycle and identified to accommodate lower income units (Very Low-Income and Low-Income) be subject to by-right approval if projects include 20 percent affordable units for lower income households on-site, which is addressed in Program 5 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Conditional Use Permits
A conditional use permit (CUP) is required for various uses in certain zoning districts provided they will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoned district. The BZA either approves subject to conditions or denies such uses.

Each application is considered on its individual merits. San Leandro has no CUP requirement for multi-family housing in the RM residential district, SA-1 through SA-3 Districts, and DA-1 through DA-6 Districts, but is required in Commercial and Professional Districts, NA-1, NA-2, and IT Districts.

In addition, mixed use development does not require a CUP in the SA-1 through SA-3 Districts, or DA-1 through DA-6 Districts, but is required in Commercial and Professional Districts, NA-1, and IT Districts. Obtaining a CUP requires a noticed public hearing before the BZA. To issue a CUP, the BZA must find that:
 The proposed location of the use is in accord with the objectives of the Zoning Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
 The proposed location of the use and conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will be consistent with the General Plan; will not be detrimental to the neighborhood; and will not be detrimental to properties or improvements in the vicinity or to the general welfare of the city.
 The proposed use will comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, including any specific conditions required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located.  The proposed use will not create adverse impacts on traffic or create demands exceeding the capacity of public services and facilities which cannot be mitigated.27 Beginning with the 2007-2014 (4th Cycle) Housing Element, the City identified the desire to rezone portions of the Community Commercial (CC) Zoning District to allow housing as a permitted use on Washington between Castro and San Leandro Blvd and MacArthur Blvd between Durant and Foothill to expedite the reuse of vacant and under-developed properties. The action was carried forward into the 2015-2023 Housing Element (Action 53.01-C), but has not been completed. The City is proposing to concurrently amend the Zoning Code to establish a Housing (-H) Overlay Zone for the above locations to allow multi-family and mixed-use housing by right and reduce governmental constraints to housing production.
27 City of San Leandro Housing Element. 2015. Available: https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=5207.

Accessed October 28, 2021
Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-45
Building Permits
Building permits are required for most improvements and the fees are calculated based on the construction valuation of each project. These fees are based on the building or structure and the construction work required. The permit technicians receive and review all plans and applications that require building permits. These applications can include additions, alterations, repairs, demolitions, and new construction to buildings. They can also include removing, converting, or replacing any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system. Permit Technicians collect permit fees and issue all the City of San Leandro’s Building permits. Building permit review timelines for all projects are as follows:
 First review: 15 to 20 working days
 Second review: 10 to 15 working days
 Third review: 7 to 10 working days
 Fourth review: 5 to 7 working days
 Fifth review: 3 to 5 working days
Transparency in the Development Process
To increase transparency in the development process, the City’s website publishes resources that help developers and homeowners navigate the residential development and home improvement processes. Specifically, the Planning Division (https://www.sanleandro.org/322/Planning-Division) webpage provides a zoning map, information on the permit center and staff contacts, the public hearing calendar, planning and building permit resources, and permit status information through a citizen access portal. The zoning code and zoning map, plan review procedures, and forms and handouts, among other documents are available online. The City also has an online appointment request system for scheduling review with Planning Division staff. There is also an interface for parcel-specific inquiry to see if a permit has been issued or if there is a project in progress. As discussed in Program 6 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City will create a page on the City’s website with an easily accessible, map-based inventory and dashboard that identifies vacant and nonvacant housing development opportunity sites, including multi-family residential and mixed-use sites. The City will also develop a web-based Housing Development Toolkit that outlines a step-by-step process for residential development, including identifying steps in the entitlement and building permit process, detailed information on development incentives, and funding programs and resources for affordable housing development. The City will evaluate its compliance with the new transparency requirements per Government Code Section 65940.1(a)(1) as part of Program 6 and make changes as necessary.

3.2.7 Short-Term Housing Rentals
The City of San Leandro has adopted two ordinances to regulate the short-term rental of housing or dwelling units in the city. Short-term rentals (STR) are defined as rental of part or all of a residential dwelling unit to paying occupants for less than 30 days. The types of STRs permitted in San Leandro include the rental of a single-family home, apartment unit, or a bedroom in a home. However, the City prohibits the use of ADUs for STRs. STRs are typically advertised and booked through online platforms such as Airbnb and VRBO.

In June 2019, the City Council adopted two ordinances regulating STRs. Title 4, Chapter 4-41 of the San Leandro Municipal Code, which became effective on June 19, 2019, prohibits non-hosted STRs in the city. In a non-hosted STR, the primary occupant of the dwelling unit within which the rental City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-46
takes place is absent from the dwelling for some or all of the rental period. Title 4, Chapter 4-40 of the San Leandro Municipal Code, which became effective on July 3, 2019, allows and regulates hosted STRs in the city. In a hosted STR, the primary occupant of the dwelling unit within which the rental takes place occupies the dwelling during the entire rental period. To legally operate a hosted STR, an applicant must first obtain a City business license and a STR permit, and be subject to the transient-occupancy tax. All STR information is on the City’s website (https://www.sanleandro.org/221/Short-Term-Rentals-STR).

As of June 2022, there are 65 active STR rentals in the city using data from Airbnb and Vrbo (active rentals are those that have had at least one reserved or available day in the past month). 28 Approximately 40 of these STRs (61 percent) are available as entire home rentals. STRs are spread throughout the city and not concentrated in a particular neighborhood. In comparison, Hayward has 250 active rentals, Union City has 75 active rentals, and the City of Alameda has 295 active rentals.

Given the city’s relatively fewer STRs compared to other East Bay cities, the City’s short-term rental policies do not pose a constraint to long-term rental housing in the city.

3.2.8 Code Enforcement
When deciding whether to require a substandard building be vacated or to repair (as necessary), health and safety code requires local governments to consider housing needs. The enforcement agency is required to give preference to the repair of the building whenever it is economically feasible to do so without having to repair more than 75 percent of the dwelling.29 The City’s Code Enforcement Division is responsible for enforcing the City's Municipal Code, which includes Weed and Community Preservation Ordinances, and the Zoning Code. Code enforcement is provided as a complaint-based procedure. Should a violation exist, a Courtesy Notice is posted at the property. The Courtesy Notice states the Municipal Code or Zoning Code violation as well as instructions on how to achieve compliance. Each Courtesy Notice will list the name, telephone number, and email address of the Code Enforcement Officer who issued the notice, along with the required corrective method. The violation must be corrected within a period of ten days, after which time the property will be reinspected. The Building Division is responsible for enforcing Building Code violations and utilizes a similar process.

According to the City’s Municipal Code Title III, Section 3-1-200 (e) (1)), a building is considered dilapidated when it is a neglected building or structure that has been abandoned, partially destroyed, and has broken windows. This also includes partial construction which may have been left for an extended period of time; buildings subject to demolition but have not been demolished; and buildings with cracking and peeling paint. It is the responsibility of property owners to maintain all buildings and structures on the property.

Should the violation continue, an Administrative Citation will be issued to the property owner. The fine for the first Administrative Citation for a Municipal or Zoning Code violation is $100 per violation. Property owners are provided another ten days to comply. Should the violation continue, a second Administrative Citation in the amount of $300 per violation is issued, and the ten-day compliance period is reestablished. Should the violation continue, Administrative Citations for $600 per violation will continue to be issued. For Building Code violations, the first Administrative Citation 28 Airdna.co. June 2022. https://www.airdna.co/vacation-rental-data/app/us/california/san-leandro/overview 29 HCD. Codes and Enforcement of Onsite/Offsite Improvement Standards. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/codes-and-enforcement-of-onsiteoffsite-improvement-standards Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-47
is $130, the second Administrative Citation is $700, the third Administrative Citation is $1,300 and additional violations are $2,500.

If no action is taken by the property owner, the City may obtain a Judicial Warrant to Abate. The warrant is a legal tool that enables the City to abate the violation. Once a Warrant to Abate is received, the property owner is responsible for all costs of abatement. Unpaid abatement costs along with unpaid Administrative Citation fees can be recovered by the City through a lien on the property as detailed in Section 1-12 Citation-Violations of the Municipal Code. The Code Enforcement Ordinance details the enforcement process. Appeals are handled by the City Clerk's Office.30

3.3 Environmental Constraints
Environmental factors could pose a housing constraint if they have the potential to limit the density and location of housing and can greatly impact the feasibility and cost of development. The City of San Leandro has limited potential to expand development into surrounding areas due to physical constraints. The San Francisco Bay (Bay) is located adjacent to the southwest of the city, the East Bay hills, and Lake Chabot abuts the northeastern side, and other urbanized cities surround San Leandro to the north and south. Other environmental constraints are discussed below.

3.3.1 Federal and State Environmental Protection Regulations Federal and State regulations require an environmental review of proposed discretionary projects (e.g., subdivision maps, use permits, etc.). Costs result from fees charged by local government agencies and private consultants to complete the environmental analysis and can add to the cost of housing which is passed on to the consumer. However, these regulations help preserve the environment and ensure environmental quality for San Leandro residents.

Regional plans and programs related to public safety included the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statute and Guidelines, California Noise Insulation Standards (Title 24), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Program. Pursuant to CEQA, nearly all residential development that requires a discretionary action from the Department of City Planning also requires environmental review concurrent with the approval process. The preparation, review, and certification of CEQA documents may add time to the development process.

Additionally, pursuant to State law, the City developed and adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), which assesses hazard vulnerabilities from natural and human-caused hazards, including flooding, drought, wildfire, landslides, severe weather, terrorism, cyber threats, pandemic, and the impact of climate change on hazards, as well as other hazards. The LHMP identifies mitigation actions that the City pursues to reduce the level of injury, property damage, and community disruption that might otherwise result from such events.31 Other plans and programs are essential to ensure that the City has strong, comprehensive, and compatible tools to guide development decisions.
30 City of San Leandro. 2022. Code Enforcement Process. https://www.sanleandro.org/282/Enforcement-Process 31 City of San Leandro. 2017. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=28342. Accessed October 27, 2021 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-48

3.3.2 Earthquakes and Seismic Activity
San Leandro is located in a seismically active area. The eastern edge of San Leandro is crossed by the Hayward Fault which creates the potential for serious and widespread damage. In 2008, the US Geological Survey estimated that there is a 63 percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or greater quake will strike the Bay Area region in the next 30 years, and that there is a 31 percent chance that this quake would occur on the Hayward Fault. Major earthquakes may also occur on the San Andreas Fault and the Calaveras Fault which are 15 miles west and 10 miles east of San Leandro, respectively. 32
Ground shaking and liquefaction hazards exist throughout the city and range from high to very severe. Earthquake hazard maps prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) indicate that a large Hayward Fault quake would trigger very strong shaking throughout the city and a high risk of liquefaction in the Marina Faire/Mulford Gardens and Washington Manor/Bonaire neighborhoods.

Pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Sections 2001 to 2815, the California Geological Survey has designated the area immediately adjacent to the Hayward Fault as a Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone. This zone overlaps with single-family residential zoned parcels. Before any development may occur in the Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zone, geologic studies are required to determine the precise location of active fault traces and feasibility of construction. Structures must be set back at least 50 feet from any fault trace and must be engineered to reduce the potential for earthquake damage. The CBC contains specific requirements for structural design, foundations, grading, and seismic loads to reduce the potential for quake damage. More expensive construction methods are required to reduce the risk of earthquake damage, particularly in multi-story buildings.33 The lengthened permitting process and construction requirements may constrain the development of housing but necessary to ensure building safety.

San Leandro has many buildings that predate modern building codes and may be susceptible to earthquake damage. The City has implemented a decades-long program to retrofit unreinforced masonry buildings, most of which were located in and around Downtown. The City also focuses on seismically strengthening soft-story buildings, concrete tilt-up structures, and older single-family homes. Soft-story buildings are structures that have a weaker first floor and are unable to carry the weight of the stories above during an earthquake. Soft-story buildings typically have large openings in the perimeter walls of the first floor, such as garages, parking beneath the second floor, or large windows.34 The City will explore the creation of a formal program to retrofit soft-story multi-family buildings in San Leandro to preserve existing housing stock, as specified in Program 2 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

3.3.3 Landslides and Erosion
Excessive erosion can contribute to landslides, siltation of streams, undermining of foundations, and ultimately the loss of structures. San Leandro has experienced destructive landslides including a 1998 event that required the relocation of two homes and threatened five others. The San Leandro 32 City of San Leandro Environmental Hazards Element. 2016. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26256. Accessed October 28, 2021 33 City of San Leandro Housing Element. 2015. Available: https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=5207.

Accessed October 28, 2021
34 Los Angeles Department of Building and Safety. Available: https://www.ladbs.org/services/core-services/plan-check-permit/plan-checkpermit-special-assistance/mandatory-retrofit-programs/. Accessed October 27, 2021 Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-49
Hills are currently experiencing erosion which is due to the wearing away of the soil mantle by running water, wind, or geologic forces. 35
Earthquake hazard maps produced by ABAG indicate that a large Hayward Fault quake would trigger very strong shaking throughout San Leandro and a high risk of liquefaction in the Washington Manor and Bonaire neighborhoods.36 The City of San Leandro is located within an area identified by the California Geologic Survey, California Department of Conservation as having moderate susceptibility and therefore is in a Zone of Required Investigation for liquefaction potential.

According to the Environmental Hazards Element of the 2035 General Plan (2016), landslide risk is low throughout most of San Leandro. Although localized areas of instability exist throughout the San Leandro Hills, new housing development is limited in that area. Therefore, landslide risk does not constrain housing development. To counter these factors, San Leandro has enforced grading and erosion control ordinances to reduce these hazards. Maintenance programs along San Leandro Creek also reduce the threat of erosion.

3.3.4 Wildfire
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention (CALFIRE) has designated the eastern edges of the Bay-O-Vista neighborhood and the Daniels Drive area of San Leandro as a “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.”37 The city contains and is adjacent to thousands of acres of potentially flammable coastal scrub and forested open space, located in and near the Lake Chabot Regional Park. CalFire designated lands in city limits as lands in the Local Responsibility Area.

The Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) is responsible for wildfire prevention activities in the city. The ACFD works with property owners to maintain defensible space around homes and to require the removal of flammable vegetation and combustible litter. The California Fire Code specifies additional requirements that are enforced by the City’s Building Department. The City also requires fire-resistant roofing materials in new construction and major remodeling projects. The area designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is a small percent of the city’s total area and does not constrain housing development. The additional costs of building and maintaining housing in high fire danger areas are necessary to protect the safety of residents and property.

3.3.5 Flooding and Sea Level Rise
The flooding hazards in San Leandro consist of overbank flooding of creeks and drainage canals, dam failure, tsunamis, and rising sea levels. Maps published by FEMA indicate that 100-year flood zones lie adjacent to San Leandro near San Leandro Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, and the Estudillo Canal; land adjacent to flood control channels in vicinity of Bayfair Center Mall and Bonaire Park; and coastal areas surrounding Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline, the San Leandro Shoreline Park, and Heron Bay.38
Other flood hazards, including coastal flooding and ponding, have also been mapped in the city.

Because some properties lie within the 100-year flood zone, flood insurance is required for federally insured mortgage loans. Insurance also may be required by other mortgage lenders. In addition, San Leandro’s Flood Plain Management Ordinance requires that new construction, additions, and major home improvement projects be raised at least one foot above the base flood elevation. These 35 Ibid. 36 City of San Leandro General Plan. 2016. 37 Ibid. 38 City of San Leandro Environmental Hazards Element.2016. Available: https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/plan/genplan/default.asp.

Accessed October 28, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-50
alterations can be a significant expense for residential development in these areas. FEMA regulations also require that a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis precede any development in the flood plain and demonstrate that the development does not cause any increase in flood hazards elsewhere. As of 2016, the Alameda County Public Works Agency and the City of San Leandro removed approximately 1,000 properties in western San Leandro from the 100-year flood plain designation. Moving these properties required constructing sea walls in locations such as the west edge of Mission Bay Mobile Home Park and raising bank heights along the Estudillo Canal below Wicks Boulevard.

Another flood hazard is dam failure. The California Office of Emergency Services determined that the failure of the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) dams on San Leandro Creek would significantly impact San Leandro. The Upper San Leandro Reservoir Dam was built in 1977, and the Lake Chabot Dam was built in 1892. Both dams are inspected on an annual basis. Although dam failure is unlikely, fast-moving water could cause substantial damage in the northern part of San Leandro and would flood most of the city. Tsunamis are not identified as a major risk to San Leandro.

The City of San Leandro abides by the requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program which has flood damage prevention regulations that affect how homeowners and developers remodel, renovate, or add on to property. These added requirements may increase the costs of developing homes, potentially constraining future housing development or improvement.

Global sea-level rise has been accelerating and poses a risk to the western side of San Leandro. In the 2035 General Plan, the City of San Leandro adopted a sea level rise scenario of 55 inches by 2100, which was estimated in the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission report Living with a Rising Bay.
39 The report found that flooding associated with sea level rise will first affect marshlands and eventually threaten property and assets in southwestern San Leandro, reaching the neighborhoods east of Wicks Boulevard.

In San Leandro, the assets most at risk from sea level rise include transportation assets, powerlines, cultural amenities along the shoreline, and neighborhoods, parks, and schools in the southwestern portion of the city. While the Downtown and area surrounding the San Leandro BART station remain outside of the projected boundaries of sea level rise, the compounding effects of sea level rise could impede access to the city via I-880 and significantly impact San Leandro residents that live west of the freeway.40 City of San Leandro participates in several regional collaboratives to address sea level rise and climate equity, including the San Leandro Bay/Alameda-Oakland Estuary Adaptation Working Group, Bay Climate Adaptation Network, and BayAdopt. The City’s Climate Action Plan, adopted in 2021, has created several adaption strategies, and the City is currently updating its Environmental Hazards Element with policies to improve community resilience to sea level rise.

3.3.6 Environmental Hazards due to Contamination
Historic and present activities such as manufacturing, plating, cleaning, refining, and finishing frequently involve chemicals that are considered hazardous that are accidentally released into the environment. These activities have resulted in a high level of toxins in the ground of some sites.

The city also has older buildings with asbestos, lead paint, and other materials that are potentially hazardous if disturbed. Lead-based paint was widely used before it was banned in 1978. It does not 39 City of San Leandro Climate Hazard Assessment. 2017. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=27831. Accessed October 28, 2021 40 ibid.

Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-51
pose a threat if left undisturbed, but deterioration or disruption can result in exposure, which in turn can cause damage to the brain and nervous system. Friable asbestos also may be present in older buildings. If asbestos fibers become airborne during demolition or remodeling, they can contribute to lung disease and other ailments. Polychlorinated biphenlys (PCBs) represent another potential threat—these materials were commonly used in electrical equipment prior to 1979. The potential presence of these substances may require special procedures when remodeling or demolishing older buildings.

The City ensures that the necessary steps are taken to clean up residual hazardous wastes on any contaminated sites proposed for redevelopment or reuse. Soil evaluations are required as needed to ensure that risks are assessed, and appropriate remediation is provided. Developing on these sites can involve costs to remediate contaminated soil or groundwater or demolish buildings containing hazardous materials. Remediation of hazardous material that requires removal can result in additional costs that may pose a constraint on development. The remediation cost would typically be on the developer to address the clean-up.

3.3.7 Aviation Hazards
The Oakland International Airport and the Hayward Airport are located in close proximity to San Leandro. The Hayward Airport is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the city. The Oakland International Airport is located approximately 600 feet north of the San Leandro border.

The San Leandro Zoning Code Section 4.04.352 identifies restrictions for development based on proximity from an airport runway, ensuring compatibility with the airport safety zones established for Metropolitan Oakland International Airport by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission and set forth in the Airport Land Use Policy Plan. Section 4.04.352 sets forth the following provisions:
 Residential development is not a permitted use within 1,400 feet from the end of a runway.  New uses shall not be residential within 1,400 feet to 5,300 feet from the end of a runway.

Airport safety zones are not considered a constraint due to the relatively minor amount of land use covered under these zones.

3.4 Infrastructure Constraints
Infrastructure concerns that could constrain new residential construction are the cost, availability, and accessibility of adequate infrastructure for utilities and service systems such as street upgrades, water and sewer connections, and energy connections. All utilities are required to serve and support residential development. In most cases, these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for their maintenance. The cost of these facilities is generally borne by developers, thereby increasing the cost of new construction. San Leandro’s infrastructure is aging and requires regular repair and improvement.41
Water
Water service to San Leandro is provided by EBMUD, a publicly-owned utility serving a 332 square mile area in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. San Leandro comprises 6.6 percent of EBMUD’s 41 City of San Leandro Potential Constraints to Housing Production. 2015. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=25633. Accessed October 28, 2021 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-52
customer base and about 5 percent of its water demand. About 90 percent of the EBMUD water supply originates in the Mokelumne River watershed, which is fed primarily from the melting snowpack of the Sierra Nevada. The remaining 10 percent comes from protected watershed lands and reservoirs in the East Bay Hills. There are also about 800 private wells in San Leandro, many of which were originally used for agriculture. Most of these wells are dormant, and those that are still active are used for landscape irrigation and industry.42 Long-range water supply and demand management plans are included in EBMUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP includes provisions for water rationing during drought periods, as well as aggressive measures for conservation and wastewater recycling. The UWMP also addresses system maintenance and replacement, including projects to protect the reliability of the water supply in the event of an earthquake or fire, including a seismic improvement project to strengthen the Lake Chabot Dam. The City of San Leandro and EBMUD jointly implement water conservation and efficiency programs.43
Residents of Alameda County and San Leandro are presently experiencing an Exceptional Drought.44 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) defines Exceptional Drought as the following:
 Fields are left fallow; orchards are removed; vegetable yields are low  Honey harvest is small
 Fire season is very costly; number of fires and area burned are extensive  Fish rescue and relocation begins; pine beetle infestation occurs  Forest mortality is high; wetlands dry up
 Survival of native plants and animals is low
 Fewer wildflowers bloom
 Wildlife death is widespread
 Algae blooms
This report indicates that water supply in the Bay Area region is severely constrained and limited.

According to the San Leandro Climate Action Plan, in an early century drought (2023 to 2042), the city could experience a drop in average precipitation from an average of 19.0 inches per year to an average of 16.7 inches per year, which would lower baseflows in streams from an average of 4.9 inches per day to 3.7 inches per day.45
EBMUD adopted a Water Conservation Strategic Plan which compares the total water supply sources available to EBMUD with the long-term total projected water use over the next 30 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive years. As there is significant uncertainty in forecasting into the future, EBMUD considers a variety of scenarios in its long-term planning. Residential demand in the EBMUD service area since July 2014 is significantly less than the assumed based on the UWMP. Although current actual demand is lower than estimated demand in the UWMP due to the recent multi-year drought 42 City of San Leandro Community Services and Facilities Element. 2016. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26258. Accessed October 28, 2021 43 City of San Leandro Community Services and Facilities Element. 2016. Available:
https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26258. Accessed October 31, 2021 44 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Integrated Drought Information System. 2021. Available:
https://www.drought.gov/states/california/county/alameda. Accessed October 28, 2021 45 CalAdapt Extended Drought Scenarios. 2021. Available: https://cal-adapt.org/tools/extended-drought/. Accessed October 28, 2021 Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-53
and the downturn in the economy, the UWMP estimate reflects a reasonable expectation for growth over the long term and water demand to year 2035.46 Pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10610 to 10657, EBMUD adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in June 2021, which models a range of scenarios and their impact on water supply and demand and provides a framework to help address potential water shortages through 2050.

The “base condition” represents EBMUD’s current operations and assumptions, including population growth numbers based upon Plan Bay Area projections. All except the five-year drought scenario shows a need for water in the future, but the magnitude of that need varies. Under the “base condition,” EBMUD is projected to meet customer demand through the year 2050 during normal years. However, during multi-year droughts, EBMUD will set mandatory rationing between 10-15 percent and need to obtain supplies to meet customer demands. The “high water demand scenario,” which was developed using predictions about changes in land use, climate, and existing customer water demands, shows a more rapid need for additional water. The potential need for additional water sources indicates that water supply may be a constraint to future housing development. The 2040 Water Supply Management Plan identifies the following methods for reaching water needs: conservation, use of recycled water, water transfers, Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 2, Sacramento Groundwater Banking Exchange, and regional desalination. Using these strategies, EBMUD predicts an ability to meet the projected water needs of the region.47 Pursuant to Senate Bill 1087 (2006), EBMUD’s Board of Directors approved Policy 3.07 which ensures that priority for new water service connections is given to proposed developments that include housing units affordable to lower income households. Policy 3.07 also states that EBMUD cannot deny an application for services to a proposed development that includes affordable housing unless certain specific conditions are met which could include a water shortage emergency condition, or if EBMUD is subject to a compliance order by the Department of Public Health that prohibits new water connections. Based on the requirement to provide priority to developments that include housing units affordable to lower income households, Policy 3.07 assures that the portion of overall water demands for lower-income households, as provided in the UWMP, can be met.

Policies in the City’s General Plan, such as Policy CSF-6.6, Reclaimed Water System, would continue to reduce the need for fresh water demand. Policy CSF-6.6 directs the City to continue the expansion of the reclaimed water system, and the delivery of high-quality reclaimed water for landscaping, industrial use, and other non-potable applications as they become financially feasible.

The policy also directs the City to employ advanced technology so that reclaimed water can eventually be made available to all households.

Wastewater
Two different sanitary sewer systems serve San Leandro. About two-thirds of the city, including most of northern and central San Leandro, is served by the City-owned and operated San Leandro Water Pollution Control Plant. The remainder of the city, including Washington Manor and most of southeastern San Leandro, is served by the Oro Loma Sanitary District. The Oro Loma District also includes unincorporated Alameda County, encompassing Ashland, Cherryland, and San Lorenzo.

Most housing development would be infill development, which may allow existing infrastructure to be preserved in place and reduce costs for developers compared to vacant lot development. 46 https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26286 47 EBMUD 2020. Available: file:///C:/Users/acobb/Downloads/wsmp-2040-revised-final-plan.pdf City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-54
However, extensions and/or replacement of wastewater infrastructure may need to be installed to service new development. Infrastructure extensions would be subject to compliance with applicable regulations and standard conditions for sewer construction projects, including City and/or Oro Loma permits or reviews for construction within public rights-of-way. Depending on the extensiveness of improvements, these regulations could increase permitting costs and timelines for new housing developments.

San Leandro General Plan policies ensure that development is not approved until it can be demonstrated that adequate wastewater collection capacity exists or until a financial commitment to create such capacity has been secured. If there is a lack of capacity, this could decrease the financial feasibility of a housing development.

City of San Leandro System
Wastewater is delivered to the plant via a collection system comprised of 13 sewage lift stations and 130 miles of sanitary sewers ranging in diameter from 4 to 33 inches. It treats about 5 million gallons per day, with peak flows up to 23 million gallons per day during wet weather flow. Maximum dry weather flow capacity is 7.6 million gallons per day. The oldest sewers are located in the northeastern portion of the city from the Oakland city limits to Castro Street roughly between the Southern Pacific Railroad and MacArthur Boulevard. This portion includes the downtown area and the oldest residential areas of the city. Development in these areas would likely require sewer line improvements.48
In 2015, the City commissioned Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study and Master Plan. This plan defined 11 improvements to the sanitary sewer conveyance system to improve capacity. As resources have allowed, these projects have been included in the Capital Improvement Program. When a new project is proposed, information from the Capacity Study is used to determine if additional sewer capacity will be necessary to provide service to the development. If additional capacity is required, the City may use the project’s connection/capacity fee to increase capacity. Although the City does not currently have a formal policy to prioritize sewer service for development that includes housing affordable to lower-income households, in practice there have not been any issues given available capacity. Written procedures will be adopted pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7 as described in Program 10 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

In addition to improvements defined in the Capacity Study, the City regularly replaces aging components of its wastewater collection and transmission system through the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). . The CIP process requires continuing improvements including collection system capacity upgrades, correcting structural problems, and modifications to pump/lift stations and the treatment plant.

A major rehabilitation of the plant was initiated in 2011 and completed in 2017. Replacement of aging equipment and installation of new components has resulted in increased efficiency, lower costs of emergency repairs and improvement to safety and reliability. has The City is currently designing a multi-benefit treatment wetland to treat 20 percent of the City’s treated effluent, projected to begin construction in 2024.49 This project will reduce nutrients from the wastewater while improving the shoreline and increase habitat for native species. 48 City of San Leandro. 2016. San Leandro Environmental Hazards Element https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26256 49 City of San Leandro. 2021. https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/pw/wpcp/projects/treatment_wetland.asp Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-55
Oro Loma Sanitary District
The Oro Loma Sanitary District provides wastewater collection and treatment services for a 13- square-mile service area. Approximately 20 percent of the Oro Loma Sanitary District’s customers are located within the City. The Oro Loma Sanitary District/Castro Valley Sanitary District Water Pollution Control Plant, just south of the San Leandro city limits, is jointly owned by the Oro Loma and Castro Valley Sanitary Districts. It has an average dry weather flow of 12.2 million gallons per day, with a design flow of 20 million gallons per day. Wet weather flows may occasionally exceed design capacity due to infiltration and inflow along the collection system. In the past 20 years, there have been no stoppages or overflows caused by system deterioration or pipe collapse on the gravity system. The district’s Pipeline Program is aligned to adapt to climate change, which estimates lower overall precipitation but more intense periods of rainfall. Developers are required to hire independent engineers to conduct hydraulic capacity studies for residential developments of 10 units or more. This requirement adds cost to housing development but is necessary to ensure wastewater system capacity.50 The City will coordinate with the Oro Loma Sanitary District regarding written procedures to prioritize developments that include housing affordable to lower-income households pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7 as described in Program 10 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

Storm Drainage
The City of San Leandro Department of Public Works owns and maintains 175 miles of storm drainage conduits. The City’s storm drain system feeds into a more extensive system owned and operated by the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. This system includes the lower reaches of San Leandro and San Lorenzo Creeks and several channels extending into San Leandro neighborhoods west of I-880.51
New development or redevelopment projects are required to construct adequately sized storm drainage systems to convey on-site stormwater runoff to existing storm drain facilities. The City of San Leandro requires as a standard condition of approval that developers verify that on-site and offsite drainage facilities can accommodate increased stormwater flows. In addition to building and extending on-site storm drainage infrastructure, project applicants are required to pay for improvements to the storm drain system, if necessary, to accommodate increased flows from the development.

3.5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The law requires all State and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. AB 686 created new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021. The passage of AB 686 protects the requirement to affirmatively further fair housing within State law.

AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive 50 Oro Loma Sanitary District. 2019. Sewer System Management Program. https://oroloma.org/wp-content/uploads/SSMP-Final-.pdf 51 San Leandro Environmental Hazards Element https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26256 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-56
communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Chapter 5 of the Housing Element contains the full AFFH analysis for San Leandro, including a review of fair housing issues; housing access and mobility for minority, low-income, and special needs groups; and socioeconomic differences among neighborhoods. The following is a summary of the AFFH analysis:

Race, Ethnicity, and Income
Despite a historic pattern of exclusion of non-white populations from housing access, San Leandro is now an ethnically diverse city with no single predominant ethnic group. However, white residents are slightly more prevalent in northeastern San Leandro, Hispanic/Latino residents are slightly more prevalent in north-central and northwestern San Leandro, and Asian American residents are slightly more prevalent in southern central and southwestern San Leandro.  San Leandro does not contain any racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty according to the definition from HUD.
 The northwestern area of San Leandro (in the Davis West, Eastshore, and Downtown neighborhoods) has lower economic outcome scores and a higher share of lower and moderate income (LMI) populations. LMI areas tend to have higher degrees of single-parent, femaleheaded households, and persons with disabilities than other areas of the city.  Similar to trends in other areas of Alameda County, areas of San Leandro with higher median incomes are associated with a larger proportion of white residents compared to those with lower median incomes. The northeastern area of the city (between East 14th Street and I-580, and east of I-580) has a higher median annual income (above $87,100) and sizeable predominance of white residents.

Opportunity and Resources
 Approximately 74 percent of San Leandro residents live in areas designated by HCD/California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) as “low resource” or “high segregation and poverty,” and 26 percent residents live in areas designated “moderate resource.” San Leandro does not have any areas designated “high resource.” Higher resource designations signify places that can better support positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families.  San Leandro residents who earned an income below the poverty level have lower environmental health, labor market, and school proficiency compared to the total population.  All areas of the city have less positive educational outcomes according to TCAC opportunity indicators, which take into account math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates.

Disability
 Residents with a disability have been moderately segregated in the city, likely due to the need to live near transit and medical services, income restrictions, and other issues related to housing access. The largest concentration of residents who reported living with one or more disabilities (between 20 and 30 percent of the residents in that area) is in the neighborhood located south of Downtown San Leandro and north of 139th Avenue, between East 14th Street and San Leandro Boulevard.

Housing Constraints
Draft Housing Element 3-57
Housing Discrimination
 According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, San Leandro had a slightly higher ratio of fair housing discrimination cases relative to its population compared to Alameda County as a whole.
 In Alameda County, disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Housing Access and Mobility
 Housing affordability is a concern in San Leandro. In most of the city, at least 40 percent of residents who rent their homes are overpaying (spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs). In some areas, particularly in central San Leandro, at least 60 percent of residents who rent are overpaying.
 African American, Hispanic/Latino, and American Indian and Alaska Native residents are underrepresented in mortgage applications and mortgage loan acceptance rates.  Most areas of San Leandro are considered vulnerable to displacement, and community residents identified displacement and affordability for low-income and minority (non-white) households as a concern.
 Community members identified lack of affordable housing and short-term and long-term shelters for vulnerable and special needs populations, including residents experiencing homelessness and victims of domestic violence.

Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors
The following fair housing issues and contributing factors were identified:
 Fair housing enforcement and outreach:

Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations Lack of local public fair housing enforcement
Access to financial services and education
 Lack of affordable housing, residents vulnerable to displacement, and socio-economic segregation, particularly concentrated in the central and northwestern areas of the city:

Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
Restrictive land use and zoning laws
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
Access to publicly supported housing for persons with disabilities; lack of affordable, integrated housing for individuals who need supportive services Lack of public investments in specific neighborhoods, including services or amenities The City commits to meaningful actions to address identified AFFH issues, which are included in the goals, policies, and programs outlined in Chapter 6, Housing Plan.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
3-58
This page intentionally left blank.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-1
4 Housing Resources
State law requires that every housing element include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the locality’s regional housing need by income level. This chapter documents the methodology and results of the housing Sites Inventory analysis conducted to demonstrate the City of San Leandro’s ability to satisfy its share of the regional housing need.

Infrastructure, services, and financial and administrative resources that are available for the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing in San Leandro are also discussed in this chapter.

4.1 Future Housing Needs
State law requires every community to undertake all necessary actions to encourage, promote, and facilitate the development of housing to accommodate regional housing needs.1 A jurisdiction must demonstrate in the Housing Element that it has an adequate supply of suitable land to accommodate its share of the region’s projected growth, including housing at all income levels. This section assesses the adequacy of San Leandro’s land inventory in meeting future housing needs.

4.1.1 Regional Housing Needs Assessment Requirement
This update of the City’s Housing Element covers the planning period of January 2023 through January 2031 (called the 6th Cycle Housing Element update). Each jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need is called the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Councils of governments, including the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), are responsible for developing a methodology for allocating the regional determination to each city and county in its region. This methodology must align with State objectives, including but not limited to:
 Promoting infill, equity, and environmental protection  Ensuring jobs-housing balance
 Affirmatively furthering fair housing
The 6th Cycle RHNA is based on population projections, income distribution, and access to jobs.

ABAG released its Draft RHNA allocations to each jurisdiction in the region in May 2021 and Final RHNA allocations were determined in November 2021 after considering appeals. Each jurisdiction must revise the Housing Element of its general plan and update zoning ordinances to accommodate its portion of the region's housing need.

San Leandro must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and development standards to accommodate its RHNA, which is 3,855 housing units for the 6th cycle. As defined by the U.S. Census, a housing unit is a house, an apartment, a group of rooms, or a single room occupied or intended for occupancy as separate living quarters. Residential construction that cannot be counted toward the City’s RHNA allocation include dormitories, bunkhouses, and barracks; quarters in predominantly transient hotels and motels (except those occupied by persons who consider the hotel their usual 1 Government Code section 65100 – 65763, Article 10.6. Housing Elements City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-2
place of residence), quarters in institutions, general hospitals, and military installations (except those occupied by staff members or resident employees who have separate living quarters).2

The RHNA methodology used weighting of indicators such as opportunity access and job proximity to allocate housing units by different income categories to meet the State mandate to reduce overconcentration of lower income households in historically lower-income communities in the region.

The RHNA for each jurisdiction is distributed into four income categories based on the Area Median Income (AMI)3
:
 Very low-income (less than 50 percent of AMI)
 Low-income (50-80 percent of AMI)
 Moderate-income (80-120 percent of AMI)
 Above-moderate income (more than 120 percent of the AMI) The RHNA does not project the need for extremely low-income units, but State law (AB 2634, 2006- Lieber) requires that the City project its extremely low-income housing needs based on Census income distribution data or assume 50 percent of the very low-income units required by the RHNA as extremely low-income units. The City’s very low-income requirement is 862 units. Therefore, the City’s RHNA allocation of 862 very low-income units was distributed as 431 extremely low (50 percent of the 862 very low-income units required by the RHNA) and 431 very low-income units.

However, for purposes of identifying adequate sites for the RHNA allocation, State law does not mandate the separate accounting for the extremely low-income category.

As shown below in Table 4.1, 46.7 percent of San Leandro’s RHNA is allocated to housing units affordable to above-moderate income households, 18.1 percent for moderate-income households,

12.8 percent for low-income households, and 22.4 percent for very low-income households (including 11.2% for extremely low-income).

Table 4.1 San Leandro Regional Housing Needs Requirement Allocation Income Category (Percent of Alameda County Area Median Income [AMI]) Number
of Units
Percent
of Total Units
Extremely Low Income (15-30% AMI) 431 11.2%
Very Low-Income (30-50% AMI) 431 11.2%
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 495 12.8%
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 696 18.1%
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 1,802 46.7%
Total 3,855 100.0%

4.2 Meeting the RHNA
Jurisdictions can use planned and approved projects, estimated accessory dwelling unit (ADU) production, and vacant and underutilized sites to accommodate the RHNA. Each of these topics are addressed below.
2 HCD. Housing Element Site Inventory Guidebook Government Code Section 65583.2. June 2020. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/housing-element/docs/sites_inventory_memo_final06102020.pdf 3 The Area Median Income of Alameda County is $125,600 for a household of four people.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-3

4.2.1 Planned and Approved Projects
Housing units that have received their planning entitlements or that have secured their building permits but have not yet completed construction (“pipeline projects”) can be used in the Opportunity Sites Inventory towards meeting the City’s RHNA for the 6th Cycle Housing Element.

These units can count towards the RHNA based on their estimated affordability levels when they were approved or permitted. “Pipeline Projects” can be credited towards the City’s 6th Cycle RHNA goals only if the City can demonstrate that the units will be completed (i.e.: “finaled” building permit or that have received their Certificate of Occupancy) in the RHNA “Planning Period” that runs from June 30, 2022 to December 31, 2030. Affordability (the income category in which the units are counted) is based on the actual or projected sale prices or rent levels, based on each project’s Inclusionary Housing Plan, which is reviewed at the entitlements stage. All units identified as lowand moderate-income are required to record Inclusionary Housing Agreements (resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal) on the title of the property or other accepted mechanisms under State law that establishes affordability of the units.

Multifamily or single-family developments that use density bonuses, the inclusionary housing ordinance, or public subsidies and have a regulatory agreement recorded on the property title that restrict rents or sales prices to below-market rate prices can be counted as accommodating the construction of housing affordable to households in the various income categories identified in Table 41 above. The City may conduct an alternative method to count housing units constructed to affordability levels below 120 percent AMI if it can produce a market study with a methodology acceptable to CA Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (Government Code Section 65583.1(d)). Table 4.2 identifies the approved or pending projects that are credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA. The City can count 2,535 housing units towards the RHNA with planned and approved projects that are on track to be completed by December 31, 2030 based on current building permit status and direct conversations with project proponents. The list of pipeline projects in Table 4.2 is not an exhaustive list of housing entitlements. More than 500 pipeline housing units were excluded from the list due to uncertainty on timing. Community Development staff monitor the pipeline regularly and conduct frequent discussions with project proponents to check in on the status of approved development projects and proactively work to address any internal processing delays as well as advocate for timely processing by outside agencies if issues arise.

Recognizing the importance of the pipeline projects in addressing the statewide housing crisis and meeting San Leandro’s RHNA, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2022-013 on September 19, 2022,which automatically extended all entitlements issued for residential projects between January 1, 2019 and June 30, 2022 for an additional two years “in order to allow such projects to proceed and precent the expiration of entitlements for critically needed housing units.” The two-year extension addresses pandemic-related delays in the development pipeline preventing projects from progressing into construction. The Sites Inventory includes a buffer of 115% of the Remaining RHNA, which will help account for any potential drop out of pipeline projects. Program 5 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, commits the City to maintaining adequate sites to meet the RHNA at all times during the planning period.

The locations of planned and approved projects that are on track to be completed by December 31, 2030 based on current building permit status and direct conversations with project proponents are symbolized with the corresponding map identification numbers on Figure 4.1.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-4
Table 4.2 Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects
Map
Identification
Number Project Name Existing Use
Zoning
District
Lot
Size
(acre)
Very LowIncome
Units
LowIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome Units
Total
Units
Percent of
Maximum
Allowable Units
Achieved Status
1 915 Antonio St
(and 844 Alvarado
St, related)
Music
conservatory
DA-4(S) 5.72 0 0 0 687 687 120% Approved
3/7/19
2 1188 East 14th
Street
CVS Retail and
City-owned
parking lot
DA-1(S) 1.60 0 0 10 186 196 122% Approved
7/6/21
3 1388 Bancroft
Ave.

Two older
medical
professional
office buildings
P 1.27 0 0 4 38 42 136% Approved
9/21/20
4 110 East 14th
Street.

Former
furniture
warehouse and
commercial
building
NA-2 1.12 20 200 0 1 221 502% Approved
10/15/20
5 903 Manor Blvd.
(Maple Lane)
Bowing Center CC 2.30 2 0 4 33 39 71% Approved
9/8/20
6 15693 E. 14th St. Vacant parking
lot
C-RM (in BTOD Specific
Plan Area)

3.60 48 206 0 243 497 577%1 Approved
8/3/21
7 1447 Scenic view Vacant RS(VP) 0.31 0 0 0 1 1 100% Approved 12/15/20
8 874 Lewelling Single-family
home
RM-3000(PD) 0.47 0 0 0 6 6 43% Approved
11/4/19
9 2436 Washington
Ave
Office Building RM-1800 2.83 0 7 0 40 47 95% Approved
12/5/2011
10 342 Marina Single-family
home
RM-1800 0.27 0 0 0 6 6 95% Approved
10/15/18
11 Town Hall Square Bank, Office
Building, and
Parking Lot
DA-1(S) 1.2 13 0 0 167 180 150% In Planning
Review
Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-5
Map
Identification
Number Project Name Existing Use
Zoning
District
Lot
Size
(acre)
Very LowIncome
Units
LowIncome
Units
ModerateIncome
Units
Above
ModerateIncome UnitsTotal
Units
Percent of
Maximum
Allowable Units
Achieved Status
12 15101
Washington
Vacant RM-1800 1.00 72 0 0 0 72 252% Approved
4/25/2022
13 15015 E 14th
Street
Vacant B-TOD 0.31 0 0 0 10 10 100% In Planning
review
14 14341 Bancroft
Ave.

Single Family
Home
IP/RS split
zoned

0.98 0 1 2 19 22 85% In Planning
review
15 2824 Halcyon Dr Single Family
Home
IP/RS split
zoned

2.4 0 1 2 15 18 87% Approved
5/2/2022
16 Shoreline MultiFamilyParking lot and
storage
RM-1800 (PD) 6.3 0 0 0 285 285 201% Approved
6/21/2022
17 Shoreline SingleFamilyGolf course. RM-2000 (PD) 16.26 0 0 8 198 206 56% Approved 6/21/2022
Total Units 155 415 30 1,935 2,535 138%1
Average
Definitions
1 The project at 15693 East 14th Street is an SB35 project that was permitted when the B-TOD site was still zoned for a regional mall and is not included in the calculation for percent of maximum allowable units achieved.

B-TOD – Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development
CC – Commercial Community
CS – Commercial Services
DA – Downtown Area
IP – Industrial Park
NA – North Area
P – Professional Office
RM – Residential Multi-Family
RS – Residential Single-Family
SA – South Area
VP – View Preservation
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-6
Figure 4.1 Planned or Approved Projects
Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-7

4.2.2 Accessory Dwelling Units
State law defines an ADU as an attached or detached residential dwelling unit that contains permanent places for living, sleeping, and cooking. In San Leandro, an ADU can be a maximum of 800 square feet to 1,200 square feet depending on the number of bedrooms and size of the main dwelling unit. A Junior ADU (JADU) is a unit that is contained within the habitable floor area of a single-family residence and may share a bathroom with the primary residence. The maximum size of a JADU is 500 square feet for single-family use and 1,200 square feet for multifamily use. Short-term rentals of 30 days or less are prohibited. Owner occupancy is not required in the ADU, JADU, or primary residence. The unit cannot be sold separately from the primary unit(s).4 ADUs may provide an affordable housing option for family members of the primary resident(s), students, seniors, inhome health care providers, persons with disabilities, young professionals, or others.

The City of San Leandro issued building permits for 27 new ADUs in 2019, 20 in 2020 and 45 in 2021.

In 2020, San Leandro amended its Zoning Code to align with state law by allowing the creation of ADUs and/or JADUs through ministerial review.5 The average number of ADUs permitted from 2019 to 2021 was 30.7; therefore, the City assumes that a total of 245 ADUs will be developed between 2023 and 2031 (approximately 31 for each year of the planning period). According to a 2021 ADU Affordability Report published by ABAG, it is assumed that the 245 ADUs will have the following affordability distribution6
:
 30 percent very low-income households (73 units)
 30 percent low-income households (73 units)
 30 percent moderate-income households (74 units)
 10 percent above moderate-income households (25 units)

4.2.3 Planning for Remaining RHNA
After subtracting the anticipated units from planned and approved projects and estimated ADUs, the City must demonstrate its ability to meet the remaining RHNA through the identification of specific parcels or sites. Table 4.3 shows the remaining RHNA by income level after accounting for planned and approved projects and estimated ADUs.
4 City of San Leandro Accessory Dwelling Unit Info Sheet. Available: https://www.sanleandro.org/DocumentCenter/View/1403/AccessoryDwelling-Unit-ADU-PDF 5 Government Code Sections 65852.1, 65852.2, and 65852.22 et seq. 6 ADU Affordability Report, Association of Bay Area Governments, 2021 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-8
Table 4.3 Remaining RHNA
Income Category
(Percent of Alameda County Area
Median Income [AMI])
Units Pending,
Approved, or
Under
Construction
Estimated
ADUs
Total Units
from
Pending
Projects
and ADUs
RHNA
Allocation
Remaining
RHNA
Needed
Extremely Low and Very Low
Income (<50% AMI)
155 73 228 862 634
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 415 73 488 495 7
Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 30 74 104 696 592
Above Moderate Income (>120%
AMI)
1,935 25 1,960 1,802 0
Total 2,535 245 2,780 3,855 1,233
Definitions
ADU – Accessory Dwelling Unit
RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation
The City will meet its remaining RHNA requirement through a list of housing opportunity locations.

Government Code Section 65583(a)(3) requires local governments to prepare an inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having the potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. The inventory of land suitable for residential development shall be used to identify sites that can be developed for housing within the planning period (Section 65583.2). This inventory of suitable land, called the Sites Inventory, contains sites that could have the potential for new residential development within the housing element planning period (2023 to 2031). The Sites Inventory must include the following:
 A parcel-specific listing of sites, using assessor parcel numbers (APNs).  The general plan land use designation and zoning district of sites  Parcel size, which can be a key factor in determining development viability, capacity and affordability.
 A map showing the location of sites.
 A description of existing uses on any non-vacant sites.  A description of whether the parcel has available or planned and accessible infrastructure.  The income category (above moderate-, moderate-, or lower-income) that the site is expected to accommodate based on the allowed density (see below).  Whether the parcel was identified in a previous housing element Sites Inventory.

This section outlines the methodology used to identify the key information in the Sites Inventory. A detailed, parcel-specific Sites Inventory is provided in Table 4.9. Table 4.4 demonstrates the City’s capacity to address the remaining RHNA under current and amended zoning standards. Current zoning provides for adequate sites to fully meet the City’s RHNA for all income categories. Although San Leandro has no shortfall of sites, the City is concurrently amending the General Plan and Zoning Code to align development standards to accommodate mid- to high-rise multi-family or mixed-use development in the City’s Priority Development Areas. The amendments will also achieve a greater buffer, which was noted as a priority at community outreach sessions.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-9
Table 4.4 Addressing Remaining RHNA
Income Category
(Percent of Alameda County Area Median
Income [AMI])
Remaining
RHNA Needed
Current Sites
Inventory
Capacity
Amended Sites
Inventory Capacity
Low- and Very-Low Income (<80% AMI) 641 653 (104%) 814 (127%) Moderate Income (80-120% AMI) 592 671 (113%) 788 (133%) Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 0 933 1052
Total (% Buffer) 1,233 2,257 (183%) 2,654 (215%)
Definitions
RHNA – Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Land Use and Zoning Ordinance Updates
The City’s 2035 General Plan (adopted in 2016) envisions most development in the city to occur in the transit-oriented Priority Development Areas, including Downtown San Leandro, the Bay Fair BART station area, and along East 14th Street. Development in these areas is intended to have an urban character, with apartments, condominiums, and mixed-use development. Most sites in the Sites Inventory are located in Priority Development Areas consistent with the City’s 2035 General Plan and vision for the development of these areas.

Chapter 3, Housing Constraints, identified the density, height limitations, and floor area ratio (FAR) standards in those areas as more conducive to townhome development than mid- to high-rise multifamily or mixed-use development, thus posing a constraint to the development of residential buildings beyond two or three stories. In order to address this constraint, the City is updating the Zoning Ordinance concurrently with the Housing Element update to increase allowable FAR and density in certain land use designations and zoning districts. The City is proposing to increase the allowable densities in the San Leandro General Plan in the Downtown Mixed Use District and Transit Oriented Mixed Use District land use designations. The City is proposing to increase the allowable FAR in the Corridor Mixed Use land use designation.

Correspondingly, the allowable density would also be increased in the following zoning districts:
 DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4 (Downtown Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4)  SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 (South Area 1, 2, and 3 District)
The maximum height limit would also be raised in the DA-2, SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 zoning districts accordingly so that the development standards are compatible for mid-rise construction.

Development Trends
To support the Sites Inventory and justify the ability of market rate and affordable development to occur in San Leandro, this analysis compares the proposed allowable density, FAR, and building heights in San Leandro’s Priority Development Areas to development standards in similar areas in the City of Hayward. The City of Hayward was selected for comparison due to its similarity with San Leandro in location, size, and development patterns. East 14th Street in San Leandro continues into Hayward as Mission Boulevard, the main commercial corridor in the city. Downtown Hayward and the Mission Boulevard Corridor are areas identified by the City of Hayward as priority areas for residential and mixed-use development, similar to the Downtown, East 14th Street Corridor, and BTOD areas in San Leandro. Development of mid-rise and mixed-use projects has occurred in these City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-10
areas of Hayward in the 5th housing cycle. Some of these projects are discussed in detail in Appendix D, Development Analysis.

In Hayward, the Mission Boulevard Corridor’s existing uses and development patterns are similar to those near San Leandro’s East 14th Street. Anchored by Downtown Hayward to the north and the South Hayward BART Station to the south, development along the Mission Boulevard corridor is characterized by large-scale commercial and light industrial uses including auto dealerships, auto repair and accessory businesses, single-tenant commercial buildings, and pockets of single-family homes. Since 2010, multiple large-scale residential projects have contributed to a mix of housing types along the corridor including affordable and market-rate townhomes and midrise apartment buildings.

The tables below outline the proposed changes to density, FAR, and building heights in San Leandro followed by a comparison to the development standards in Hayward’s high-density areas. Updates to the land use and zoning districts will allow for density ranges and FAR that are similar to, or higher than, than those allowed in high density areas in Hayward.

Table 4.5 shows the proposed allowable FAR in the General Plan land use designations in Priority Development Areas in San Leandro. The proposed maximum allowable FAR in these districts ranges from 2.5 to 5.0, higher than the range of 0.8 to 2.75 in comparable land use designations in Hayward (0.8 FAR in the High-Density Residential District, 2.0 FAR in the Sustainable Mixed-Use District, and

2.75 FAR in the Transit Overlay Zones7
, with an average FAR of 1.9). The proposed average FAR in the San Leandro land use designations is 3.8, higher than the average FAR of 1.9 in comparable Hayward districts.

Table 4.5 Proposed FAR – San Leandro General Plan Land Use Designations Land Use Designation Current FAR Proposed FAR
Downtown Mixed Use Maximum 3.5 Maximum 3.5
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use Maximum 4.0, 5.0 adjacent to BART Maximum 4.0, 5.0 adjacent to BART Corridor Mixed Use Maximum 1.5 Maximum 2.5 (increase of 1.0 FAR) Average Maximum 3.5 Maximum 3.8
FAR = Floor Area Ratio
BART = Bay Area Rapid Transit
Table 4.6 outlines the proposed allowable densities by land use designation in San Leandro, which will increase by 25 to 45 du/acre above current standards. The proposed average maximum dwelling units per acre (du/ac) by land use designation is 125, compared to 84.5 in Hayward. 7 The Transit Overlay Zone is a zoning district in the Hayward Zoning Code; however, it is referenced in the FAR range listed for the Sustainable Mixed Use Land Use district in the General Plan.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-11
Table 4.6 Proposed Allowable Density by General Plan Land Use Designation in San Leandro
Land Use Designation
Current Allowable Density Range
(units/acre)
Proposed Allowable Density Range
(units/acre)
Downtown Mixed Use 24-100 24-125 (increase of 25 du/acre) Transit-Oriented Mixed Use 60-80 60-125 (increase of 45 du/acre) Corridor Mixed Use Residential density
dictated by FAR
Residential density
dictated by FAR
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Table 4.7 shows the proposed allowable densities by zoning district in San Leandro’s Priority Development Areas. The proposed updates include an increase of 25 du/ac in the DA-1 and DA-4 zones, 35 du/ac to 85 du/ac in the D-2 zone (depending on proximity to transit), and 50 du/ac in the SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3 zones. The proposed maximum density by zoning district ranges from 85 to 125 du/ac. The allowable densities in zones in City of Hayward’s high-density areas range from 4.3 to 100 du/ac. The average proposed maximum density by zoning district in San Leandro is 110.8 du/ac compared to the average in Hayward which is 77 du/ac.
8 There are minimum residential densities in
DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4, DA-6, SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 zoning districts and all three B-TOD Sub-Areas.

Table 4.7 Proposed Allowable Density by Zoning District in San Leandro Zoning District Current Maximum Density (du/a) Proposed Maximum Density (du/a) DA-1 100 125 (increase of 25 du/acre)
DA-2 40 85; or
Within the General Plan
Downtown Mixed Use land use category: 100
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use category: 125
(increase of 45-85 du/acre)
DA-3 60 100; or
Within the General Plan
Transit-Oriented Mixed Use land use category: 125
(increase of 40-65 du/acre)
DA-4 100 125 (increase of 25 du/acre)
DA-6 N/A N/A
NA-1, NA-2, P 24 24
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 35 85 (increase of 50 du/acre)
DA = Downtown Area
NA = North Area
SA = South Area
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
8 Some zones in Hayward rely on the Downtown Hayward Design Plan instead of providing a maximum du/ac in the Zoning Ordinance, and these zones were not included in the calculation. Calculations are approximate.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-12
Table 4.8 shows the proposed minimum and maximum building height by zoning district in the priority development areas of San Leandro. The maximum heights will range from 30 feet to no maximum limit, similar to the City of Hayward’s maximum heights in high-density areas, which range from 35 to 124 feet. Site test fits analysis conducted by the City found that height limits in these zones were generally sufficient to accommodate intended development types.

Table 4.8 Proposed Allowable Height Amendments
Residential and Mixed-Use Residential Development
Zoning District Minimum (feet) Current Maximum (feet) Proposed Maximum (feet)1 CC None 50 50
CN, NA-1, NA-2 None 50 50
CR, CS None None None
DA-1 None /24 75 75
DA-2 None /24 50 65
DA-3 None 50 50
DA-4 None 60-75 75
DA-6 None 75 None
P None 30 30
SA-1, SA-2, SA-3 24 50 65
1 Base height limit. Does not include parapets, rooftop amenities, stair access, elevator towers, and other such structures.

CC = Commercial Community
CN = Commercial Neighborhood
P = Professional Office
CR = Commercial Recreation
CS = Commercial Services
DA = Downtown Area
NA = North Area
SA = South Area
Site Selection
Land suitable for residential development must be appropriate and available for residential use in the planning period. Other characteristics to consider when evaluating the appropriateness of sites include physical features (e.g., susceptibility to flooding, slope instability, or erosion) and location (proximity to transit, job centers, and public or community services). Sites used in the inventory can be a parcel or group of parcels, such as:
 Vacant sites zoned for residential use
 Vacant sites zoned for nonresidential use that allow residential development  Residentially zoned sites that are capable of being developed at a higher density (nonvacant sites, including underutilized sites)
 Sites owned or leased by a local government
 Sites zoned for nonresidential use that can be redeveloped for residential use and a program is included to rezone the site to permit residential use
Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-13
Suitability of Nonvacant (Redevelopment) Sites
As part of the Alameda County Housing Collaborative discussion series conducted in November 2021, housing developers in Alameda County indicated that underutilized nonvacant sites currently occupied by a single-tenant retail or office use are ideal for redevelopment. These sites usually have existing utility connections, and single ownership and tenancy reduces the potential complexity of a change in ownership or use. This developer feedback was considered during the site selection process.

To identify potential sites for additional development, geospatial data was used to identify vacant and underutilized properties in the city. Nonvacant parcels were chosen as sites likely to be redeveloped during the planning period based on the following factors:
 Improvement-to-land Value Ratio. A parcel’s improvement-to-land value ratio can identify properties that are potentially underutilized. Non-vacant sites in the development pipeline have Improvement-to-land value ratios between 0 and 10.29 with an average improvement to land value ratio of 1.28. A ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the real estate market values the land itself more highly than the structures built on that land. These underutilized parcels present opportunities for property owners and developers to invest in improvements that increase the overall value of the property. It should be noted that the improvement-to-land value ratio of a property does not necessarily consider development standards or environmental constraints that may impact the feasibility of redevelopment on the site.  Existing Use Versus Zoned Use. A comparison of a site’s current use to the use for which it is zoned can also help identify underutilized properties. For example, a parcel currently occupied by a parking lot which is zoned for high-density residential or mixed-use development presents an opportunity for the property owner to convert the property to a higher-value use.  Age of Structure. The age of a structure may help determine the likelihood of redevelopment during the planning period. New construction on the site may indicate that it is unlikely that a property owner would invest in additional improvements or redevelop the site. A structure that was built 30 years ago or more has a higher likelihood of needing rehabilitation. Structures on non-vacant sites in the sites inventory range from the mid-1940s through the late 1980s, which is generally consistent with trends observed on sites in the development pipeline.  Floor Area Ratio. A low floor area ratio (less than 1.0) indicates underutilization of a site, especially in areas zoned for high density. Any potential development on parcels with higher floor area ratio buildings may incur higher land acquisition and demolition costs. Non-vacant sites in the development pipeline average a floor area ratio of 0.35. Non-vacant sites in the sites inventory have floor area ratios ranging from 0.07 to 0.40 with an average floor area ratio of

0.16.  Ownership Patterns. In cases where site consolidation (i.e., merging of parcels) is required for redevelopment, properties owned by a single entity are simpler to consolidate and/or redevelop. Similarly, when land is publicly owned, the City can directly facilitate affordable housing.

Environmental Considerations
Fire Hazard Severity Zones, identified by CalFire, designate the range of fire hazard based on three key factors: fuel, slope, and weather. These zones have varying degrees of fire hazard (i.e., moderate, high, and very high), based on physical conditions that create a likelihood that an area will burn over a 30- to 50-year period. In San Leandro, sites that fall within the Very High Fire Hazard City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-14
Safety Zone were not excluded from the available Sites Inventory, but these areas are noted as they may contribute additional costs for design considerations and buffer lands.

Realistic Development Capacity
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(c), the City is required to calculate the realistic number of units (or, realistic development capacity) of the sites identified. The number of units is calculated using the following methodology. Site acreage is multiplied by allowable du/ac, which is reduced to 70 percent to a realistic allowable density to provide a more conservative estimate of units likely to be developed. The number of existing units on the site is subtracted to provide a net unit count that can be applied towards the RHNA. There are no sites with existing residential units in San Leandro’s Sites Inventory.

Realistic capacity for sites located in zoning districts that are concurrently being amended is reflected as 70 percent of the amended density. Where there is no maximum density in a given zoning district (B-TOD and DA-6), 125 du/ac is conservatively used in lieu of a maximum density and

87.5 du/ac (70 percent of maximum) is used to calculate realistic capacity even though observed densities are significantly higher.

Suitable Sites for Affordable Housing
State law requires that jurisdictions demonstrate in the Housing Element that there are adequate sites to accommodate that jurisdiction’s share of the regional growth. According to HCD, the following density standards are used for estimating the appropriateness for household income affordability in a metropolitan area such as Alameda County:
 A density standard of 0 to 14 units per acre (primarily for single-family homes) is assumed to facilitate the development of housing in the above moderate-income category.  A density standard of 15 to 29 units per acre (primarily for medium-density multi-family developments) would facilitate the development of housing in the moderate-income category.

Site Acreage x
Maximum Dwelling
Units per Acre =
Maximum Density
Allowed
Maximum Density
Allowed x 70% =
Realistic Allowable
Density
Realistic Allowable
Density - Existing
Units on Site = Units
that count twards
RHNA
Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-15
 A density standard of 30 or more units per acre (primarily for higher-density multi-family developments) would facilitate the development of housing in the low- and very low-income category.

In addition to default density standards, HCD established that parcels intended to support the development of units appropriate for lower-income households should be between 0.5 and 10 acres. Parcels smaller than 0.5 acres, even when zoned for high densities, may not facilitate the scale of development required to access the competitive funding resources that facilitate affordable housing projects. Conversely, affordable housing developers may be unable to finance the scale of project necessitated by parcels greater than 10 acres. The average parcel acreage in the Sites Inventory is 0.73. Some parcels that are less than 0.5 acres are adjacent to other parcels in the City’s inventory, allowing for the possibility of lot consolidations. The City will provide technical assistance for lot consolidations for housing developments (Program 5 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan), with priority for developments that support low- and moderate-income housing.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
The California legislature adopted AB 686 (2018, Santiago) in 2018 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the Fair Employment and Housing Act. The law:
 Requires all state and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities.
 Creates new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021.9
For purposes of evaluating the appropriateness of the Sites Inventory through the lens of the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH), HCD suggests a geo-spatial analysis using a series of indicators that consider patterns and degrees of integration and segregation of households based on racial and ethnic, income, and disability; areas at risk of displacement; environmental health concerns; and other factors. As described in the analysis in Chapter 5, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, the City’s Sites Inventory will not exacerbate conditions of economic or racial/ethnic segregation, nor displace existing populations. Conversely, the Sites Inventory would accommodate opportunities for distribution of households of low-, moderate-, and above moderate-income levels across the city, and provide opportunities for mixed-income developments on several large sites. The City will also implement housing programs to increase housing opportunities and promote housing and neighborhood equity, as outlined in Section 6, Housing Plan.

Sites Inventory Buffer
To ensure that sufficient capacity exists in the Sites Inventory to accommodate the RHNA throughout the planning period, it is recommended jurisdictions create a buffer in the housing element inventory by including least 20 percent more capacity than required for lower- and moderate-income units. The Sites Inventory has a buffer of 27 percent for lower-income units and 33 percent for moderate-income units.
9 HCD. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing in California. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-16
Jurisdictions can also create a buffer by projecting site capacity at less than the maximum density to allow for some reductions in density at a project level. The Sites Inventory includes a projection of densities at 70 percent of the maximum du/ac, which is a highly conservative estimate. Sites located in zoning districts that are being concurrently amended to allow higher density development are calculated at 70 percent of the amended density. As shown in Table 4.2, most of the recent permitted or constructed residential developments in the city have achieved an average of 165 percent of the maximum dwelling units per acre. There are minimum residential densities in all mixed use zoning districts. By projecting densities lower than recent patterns, the City has accounted for the potential for sites to be developed with fewer residential units than anticipated.

Including a high buffer was expressed as a community priority and is particularly important due to the possibility that development or redevelopment in commercial and mixed-use zones could potentially be developed with 100 percent commercial uses. The following zones with units in the Sites Inventory allow for multi-use development:
 Commercial Community (CC)
 Downtown Area 1 (DA-1) – Retail Mixed Use
 Downtown Area 6 (DA-6) – Offices and Mixed Use
 South Area 1 (SA-1)
 South Area 2 (SA-2)
 South Area 3 (SA-3)
 B-TOD District
There is no minimum residential density for most districts, except for larger parcels in the DA districts and the SA district. However, as discussed in Chapter 3: Housing Constraints, an analysis of development trends from 2011 to 2021 shows an upward trend of the percent of projects in mixed use zones that included residential uses as opposed to those which did not. Since 2011, 14 out of 18 projects in mixed use zones had a residential component, or 78 percent. This trend increased in recent years. Since 2017, 82 percent of developments included residential uses and only 18 percent did not. The overall buffer for the Sites Inventory (115 percent) and buffer for low-income and moderate-income units (27 and 33 percent, respectively) surpass the 18 percent gap, meaning the RHNA buffer compensates for the possibility of 100 percent commercial developments.

Additionally, the Multi-Family Development Standards project, which was initiated in 2020, reduced constraints to developing residential in Mixed Use zones and encouraging residential development.

Zoning Code amendments modified the front setback requirements in the DA districts to remove subjective standards and provide objective standards. These standards reference the street sections of the applicable street type while ensuring adequate building setbacks to accommodate the planned street, sidewalk, and public amenity improvements. In a roundtable discussion hosted by the Alameda County Housing Collaborative on November 29, 2021, housing developers noted that ground-floor retail in mixed use developments faces funding and logistical challenges, and that flexibility of ground-floor use increases the development potential of a mixed use project.10 In order to address this constraint, the Multi-Family Development Standards Project made multi-family housing more widely permitted by right in Priority Development Areas and created a path for 100 percent multi-family projects in specified locations of the downtown that previously required ground-floor commercial through a Conditional Use Permit process, thereby increasing the flexibility 10 Alameda County Collaborative, 2021. Available at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XYrwZxd3Re0VFWGz119bj8uqS9VdUN4H/view Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-17
of potential development options in mixed use zones. The City will also facilitate infill residential development in Priority Development Areas as outlined in Program 8 in Section 6, Housing Plan.

4.3 Adequacy of Residential Sites Inventory in Meeting
RHNA
Table 4.9 outlines details about the sites selected for the Sites Inventory, which is mapped in Figure 4.2. The Sites Inventory includes 2,654 units on 19 sites. There are 814 lower Income units, 788 moderate-income units, and 1,052 above moderate-income units. None of the small sites (sites less than 0.5-acre) in the Sites Inventory are used to accommodate lower-income housing.

The sites in the inventory were selected based upon the following criteria, which were informed by analysis of San Leandro’s development pipeline (Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects):

1. Underutilization: If the current use of a site does not utilize the site’s maximum potential, such as a large and underused parking lot, this is an indicator that a property owner could increase the overall value of a property by redeveloping. Underutilized parcels may be opportunities for property owners and developers to invest in further improvements that increase the overall value of the property. This criterion can be identified by assessing the maximum density allowed on the site after rezoning and by evaluating the floor area ratio of opportunity sites as compared to sites in the development pipeline. Non-vacant sites in the development pipeline average a floor area ratio of 0.35. Non-vacant sites in the sites inventory have floor area ratios ranging from 0.07 to 0.40 with an average floor area ratio of 0.16.

2. Improvement-to-land value ratio: A parcel’s improvement-to-land value ratio can identify properties that are potentially underutilized. Non-vacant sites in the development pipeline have value ratios between 0 and 10.29 with an average value ratio of 1.28. A value ratio of less than 1.0 indicates that the real estate market values the land itself more highly than what is currently built on that land. These underutilized parcels represent opportunities for property owners and developers to invest in further improvements that increase the overall value of the property. It should be noted that the improvement-to-land value ratio of a property does not necessarily consider development standards or environmental constraints that may impact the feasibility of redevelopment on the site.

3. Age of structure: The age of a structure identifies sites that may be likely to develop.

Structures over 30 years of age may no longer suit the needs of the uses on the site or may need improvements due to deterioration. Structures built over 30 years ago are indicated below in Table 4.9 in the “Year Built” column. Structures on non-vacant sites in the sites inventory range from the mid-1940s through the late 1980s, which is generally consistent with trends observed on sites in the development pipeline.

4. Expressed interest in development: Developer or property owner interest in constructing housing on a particular site is a useful indicator that there is feasible development potential on a parcel.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-18
This page intentionally left blank.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-19
Table 4.9 Sites Inventory
Sites
Inventory
ID
Site
Group
City Site
Address or
Street
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy
Structure
Age
Current
Improvement
to Land Value
Ratio
Current
Floor Area
Ratio
Current
General
Plan
Current
Zoning
Current
Min.

Density
Current
Max.

Density
Amended
Max.

Density
Current Realistic Capacity Amended Realistic Capacity
Used in Prior Housing
Element
Developer
Interest
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Criteria
Met
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Units
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Units
1 13489 E 14TH
ST
077D1405-001-
01 0.29 Vacant - 0.00 0.07 MUC SA-2 18 35 85 0 0 7 7 0 0 12 12 Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements -
Vacant
Developer
interest in site
Low
Resource
1, 2, 4
2 13940 E 14TH
ST
077E1548-001-
06 0.67 Vacant - 0.00 0.00 MUC SA-1 18 35 85 5 6 6 17 12 14 14 40 Used in Two Consecutive Prior Housing Elements -
Vacant
Developer
interest in
neighborhood
Low
Resource
1, 2
3 14583 E 14TH
ST
077D1460-001-
00 1.36 Misc.

Commercial
Uses
1944 0.37 0.20 MUC/RM RD/SA-1 18 35 85 33 0 0 33 35 0 0 35 Used in Prior Housing Element – Non-Vacant
Developer
interest in
neighborhood
Low
Resource
1, 2, 3
4 15242

HESPERIAN
BLVD
077D1490-019-
00 4.23* BART parking
lot
- 0.00 0.00 BTOD/PR B-TOD 65 N/A N/A 56 0 319 375 56 0 319 375 Used in Prior Housing Element – Non-Vacant
Property owner
interest - TOD
Work Plan
Low
Resource
1, 2
5 14263 E 14TH
ST
077D1432-040-
01 0.72 Used car lot
and auto
storage
1935 0.28 0.12 MUC SA-1 18 35 85 17 0 0 17 43 0 0 43 Used in Prior Housing Element – Non-Vacant
Developer
interest in
neighborhood
Low
Resource
1, 2, 3
6 14830 E 14TH
ST
077E1593-013-
08 1.00 Used car
dealer
- 0.03 0.00 MUC SA-3 18 35 85 23 2 0 25 59 5 0 64 Used in Prior Housing Element – Non-Vacant
Developer
interest in
neighborhood
Low
Resource
1, 2
7 1805

WASHINGTON
AVE
075-0008-
003-03

0.52 Brake and
wheel shop
and surface
parking
1941 0.99 0.32 MUD DA-2 20 40 100 5 5 5 15 11 13 13 37 Used in Prior Housing Element – Non-Vacant
– Low
Resource
1, 2, 3
8 A 604

MACARTHUR
BLVD
076-0319-
014-02

0.76 Restaurant
and surface
parking
1959 0.31 0.28 MUC CC 0 24 24 0 12 0 12 0 12 0 12 Used in Prior Housing Element – Non-Vacant
Property owner
interest in site
Moderate
Resource
1, 2, 3,
4 9 A 560

MACARTHUR
BLVD
076-0319-
025-01

0.46 Restaurant
and surface
parking
1954 0.17 0.10 MUC CC 0 24 24 0 7 0 7 0 7 0 7 Used in Prior Housing Element – Non-Vacant
Property owner
interest in site
Moderate
Resource
1, 2, 3,
4 10 14875

BANCROFT
AVE
077E1593-015-
04 0.80 Misc.
commercial
uses
- 0.55 0.09 MUC SA-3 18 35 85 7 7 7 21 14 16 16 46 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
Property owner
interest in site/
On the market
Low
Resource
1, 2, 4
11 B 1300

FAIRMONT DR
077D1495-021-
00 5.78 Shopping
center and
surface
parking
1981 0.82 0.24 BTOD B-TOD 60 N/A N/A 152 177 177 506 152 177 177 506 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
Property owner
/ developer
interest in site
Low
Resource
1, 2, 3,
4 12 B 1330

FAIRMONT DR
077D1495-018-
00 0.97 Shopping
center and
surface
parking
1980 1.68 0.22 BTOD B-TOD 60 N/A N/A 26 30 30 86 26 30 30 86 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
Property owner
/ developer
interest in site
Low
Resource
1, 3, 4
13 B E 14TH ST 077D1495-022-
00 3.07 Shopping
center and
surface
parking
1980 1.71 0.19 BTOD B-TOD 60 N/A N/A 80 94 94 268 80 94 94 268 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
Property owner
/ developer
interest in site
Low
Resource
1, 3, 4
14 B 15251 E 14TH
ST
077D1495-015-
00 0.50 Shopping
center and
surface
parking
1986 2.90 0.27 BTOD B-TOD 60 N/A N/A 0 43 0 43 0 43 0 43 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
Property owner
/ developer
interest in site
Low
Resource
1, 3, 4
15 15555 E 14TH
ST
077D1490-030-
00 4.78* Bayfair Center
Mall and
surface
parking
1970 0.82 0.40 BTOD B-TOD 65 N/A N/A 125 146 146 417 125 146 146 417 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
Property owner
interest in site
Low
Resource
1, 2, 3,
4 16 600 CASTRO
ST
075-0067-
001-06

0.83 Warehouse
and surface
parking
1973 0.57 0.22 MUTOD DA-2 20 40 125 8 8 8 24 22 25 25 72 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
– Low
Resource
1, 2, 3
17 C 440 PERALTA
AVE
075-0225-
001-04

1.33 Warehouse
and surface
parking
- 0.25 0.42 MUTOD DA-2 20 40 125 12 13 13 38 35 41 41 117 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
– Low
Resource
1, 2
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-20
Sites
Inventory
ID
Site
Group
City Site
Address or
Street
Assessor's
Parcel
Number
Size
(Acres)
Existing
Use/Vacancy
Structure
Age
Current
Improvement
to Land Value
Ratio
Current
Floor Area
Ratio
Current
General
Plan
Current
Zoning
Current
Min.

Density
Current
Max.

Density
Amended
Max.

Density
Current Realistic Capacity Amended Realistic Capacity
Used in Prior Housing
Element
Developer
Interest
TCAC
Opportunity
Category
Criteria
Met
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Units
Lower
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Total
Units
18 C 523 SAN

LEANDRO
BLVD
075-0225-
001-03

0.88* Auto body
shop and
surface
parking
1962 0.14 0.10 MUTOD DA-2 20 40 125 8 9 9 26 25 26 26 77 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
– Low
Resource
1, 2, 3
19 1565

ALVARADO ST
075-0047-
014-00

4.55 Warehouse
and surface
parking
1988 2.34 0.37 MUTOD DA4/DA-6 60 100 125 96 112 112 320 119 139 139 397 Not Used in Prior Housing Element
Developer
interest in site
Low
Resource
1, 3, 4
Total 33.50 653 671 933 2,257 814 788 1,052 2,654
*Custom Area Assumptions – see Appendix B, Sites Inventory for more details on assumptions B-TOD – Bay Fair Transit Oriented Development
CC – Commercial Community
DA – Downtown Area
RD – Residential Duplex
SA – South Area
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-21
Figure 4.2 Sites Inventory
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-22
The current uses of the identified sites are listed in Table 4.9 Two of the sites in the inventory are currently vacant. Nine of these sites have large parking lots. Additional uses include shopping centers; auto-oriented uses such as auto repair shops, auto storage, and used car dealerships; restaurants; and warehouses. Most nonvacant sites are considered underutilized because the zoning of each site allows for higher density development than the current uses, potentially indicating that the property owner could convert to a higher value use. Additionally, of the sites with a known date of development, the age of structure ranged from 34 to 77 years old. Older developments are more likely to be redeveloped than new developments because the building size and/or features no longer serve current or desired uses. Of the 19 developments, developers and/or property owners expressed interest in 10 sites as of August 2022. None of the sites currently have existing residential units.

4.3.1 Priority Development Areas
About 80 percent of new housing envisioned in San Leandro during the next 20 years is expected to be built within the Downtown Mixed Use, Corridor Mixed Use, Transit-Oriented Mixed Use, and Bay Fair Transit-Oriented Development land use designations. These areas, shown in Figure 4.3, are generally referred to as Downtown, the Bay Fair TOD, and the East 14th Street corridor. These areas are “Priority Development Areas,” a term used by regional agencies to identify locations approved for future higher density growth that are typically accessible by one or more transit services in close proximity to services, and targeted for more focused public funding (e.g., infrastructure, affordable housing, economic development). These areas are locations for transit-oriented development, generally within walking distance of high-quality public transit and commercial centers. The City of San Leandro made significant efforts during the 4th and 5th cycle housing element planning periods to mitigate constraints to the development of housing, particularly in these areas. These three areas are primarily covered by the following long-range plans:
 Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan (adopted 2018)
 East 14th Street South Area Development Strategy (adopted 2004)  Downtown Transit Oriented Development Strategy (adopted 2007) To further support development in the Priority Development Areas, the City utilized State SB2 Planning Grants Program funding to develop objective design and development standards for multifamily residential and mixed-use development in order to provide greater predictability to developers and community members. The Multifamily Development Standards amendments were adopted in January 2022 and they included standardizing and streamlining the development review process in accordance with recent changes in state law. Concurrent with the Housing Element Update adoption, the City will amend the Zoning Code to further align development standards in the Priority Development Areas with intended development types through increase allowable density, floor area ratio, and building height, where appropriate.

The City continues to encourage growth in the Priority Development Areas. In 2021, construction was completed on the AC Transit Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) extension along East 14th Street, which increased transit connectivity in the downtown and northern portion of the city. Economic Development staff continue to promote available development sites through an updated Housing Opportunity Site list. City staff also work with private owners to assist with the development of key sites in the Priority Development Areas and continue to support the site assembly of both Cityowned and private parcels to gain an economy of scale for a mixed-use development and to activate these important locations.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-23
Figure 4.3 San Leandro Priority Development Areas
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-24
Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan
The Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan was adopted in 2018, following an extensive community engagement and planning process. It is intended to transform the area around the Bay Fair BART station, including Bayfair Center, other shopping centers, and properties along Hesperian, East 14th, and other major arterials, into a dynamic new transit-oriented development area. It sets a vision for the Bay Fair area to become a walkable, transit-oriented community hub, with public gathering spaces and a mix of retail, neighborhood services, housing, and office space. To be consistent with this vision, in 2020 the City of San Leandro added the B-TOD Zoning District and new design and development regulations for the Bay Fair area, as recommended under the approved Specific Plan.

The Bay Fair TOD Area is at the southeastern edge of the city, adjacent to unincorporated Alameda County to the east and south. The area is surrounded in most directions by single-family neighborhoods and further beyond, by three Interstate freeways (I-580, I-238, and I-880).

Housing is intended to be a central focus in future development in the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area and the plan promotes a range of housing options and affordability levels to mitigate the risk of displacement for existing residents. The proximity to the Bay Fair BART Station and AC Transit bus lines makes the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area well situated for residential development.

The General Plan established the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area land use designation for the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area, while the Specific Plan implementing the Bay Fair TOD Zoning District establish the details of land use, design, and development requirements for the area.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-25
Vacant and Underutilized Properties in the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area Housing opportunity sites identified in the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area meet the criteria for density and size for development appropriate for lower-income households. Table 4.10 summarizes the assumed development potential of underutilized sites within the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area (Figure 4.4).

All sites identified in the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area are located within 0.25-mile from the Bay Fair BART station. Housing close to transit stations was identified as a need for low-income households based on input from stakeholder interviews conducted in January 2021 as part of the Housing Element Update (Appendix A). The Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area has current infrastructure that could support new development and redevelopment. All identified parcels are privately owned. The Sites Inventory identified 26 acres of vacant and underutilized land within the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area that can accommodate a realistic development potential of 1,694 housing units, as shown in Figure 4.4.

Publicly Owned Sites
Only one site on the Sites Inventory is publicly owned. The Bay Fair BART station property was identified as a housing site in the 5th Cycle Housing Element and is included in the current Sites Inventory. The City of San Leandro has worked collaboratively with BART to plan for the conversion of surface parking lots into a vibrant TOD. As noted in Program 8 in Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City is committed to formalizing its working relationship with BART through a MOU and is working to advance pre-development efforts on the BART property and surrounding Bay Fair TOD area by completing infrastructure phasing and financing recommendations to support redevelopment of these key sites. As part of this study, the City will further analyze barriers to redevelopment of the BART property, which include the need for ADA-compliant station access across jurisdictional boundaries (City of San Leandro and Unincorporated Alameda County), continued bus access, and an enhanced crossing of the Estudillo Canal that connects the BART property to the surrounding TOD area.

City and BART staff are currently working with a UC Berkeley graduate program class focused on public-private partnerships that is studying the Bay Fair BART site. The City successfully completed timely zoning amendments for BART-owned properties pursuant to AB2923 and is committed to making multi-modal improvements in the vicinity to enhance station access.

The Bay Fair BART site is included as a mid-term (5-10 year) station in the BART Transit-Oriented Development Program Work Plan. As noted in Program 8, the City will continue to advocate for reclassifying the Bay Fair station as a near term (0-5 year) station whenever opportunities arise throughout the 2023-2031 planning period.

The City is committed to supporting BART in acquiring sufficient funding and commitment to infrastructure for parking replacement and station access, and if necessary, will implement a locally led parking resource assessment and management plan for at least a ¼-mile radius around the station area.

Next steps for redevelopment of the BART property include entering into a MOU and working with BART on the preparation of a RFP for the site.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-26
Figure 4.4 Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area Sites Inventory Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-27
Table 4.10 Site Inventory Parcels in the Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area General Plan Land Use District Acres
Number
of Parcels
Maximum Allowed
Density (du/ac)
Number of Existing
Units on Parcel
Potential
New Units
Bay Fair TOD Specific Plan Area 26 6 1251 0 1,694
TOD – Transit Oriented Development
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
1 Maximum allowed density is assumed for modelling purposes based on the FAR standards.

East 14th Street South Area Corridor
East 14th Street is San Leandro’s “Main Street.” South of 150th Avenue, the east side of the street is in unincorporated Alameda County while the west side is in San Leandro. The County has completed a number of plans and streetscape improvement programs for the street as it passes through the unincorporated Ashland-Cherryland district. Within San Leandro city limits, the west side of the street includes vacant parcels to the north of the Bayfair Center on Bayfair Drive and East 14th Street with the potential for private development.

In 2004, the City adopted the South Area Development Strategy in response to concerns over the quality and quantity of new businesses along the East 14th Street corridor. Key goals of the Strategy include the transformation of the unbroken commercial ‘strip’ into a series of mixed- use districts, the creation of a more pedestrian-friendly environment on East 14th, and the accommodation of high-quality multi-family housing along the corridor.

Following adoption of the South Area Strategy, the City adopted three zoning districts (SA-1, SA-2, and SA-3) to implement the Plan. Each zone is tailored to emphasize a slightly different mix of uses.

Concurrent with the Housing Element adoption, the City is amending the development standards in the SA Districts to help stimulate development interest.

Following the adoption of the East 14th Street South Area Corridor Design Guidelines in 2007, the Zoning Ordinance established the following zones:
 SA-1: The SA-1 zone allows for the most activity in terms of existing retail shopping and include several opportunity sites that could accommodate new development.  SA-2: The intent of this zone is to promote opportunities for new infill residential, including multi-family residential uses that would be sensitive to the existing neighborhoods adjacent to properties fronting the East 14th Street Corridor. A mixture of residential, commercial, and community-oriented uses is encouraged in multi-story buildings.  SA-3: The SA-3 zoning is located at the southern end of the East 14th Street South Area and provides opportunities for larger office, commercial, and multi-family residential development.

Vacant and Underutilized Properties in the East 14th Street South Area Corridor All potential sites identified in East 14th Street South Area Corridor meet the criteria to count toward the City’s share of the RHNA for lower-income housing based on density and lot size. Table 4.11 summarizes the capacity of vacant and underutilized sites within the East 14th Street South Area and are shown in Figure 4.5 and Figure 4.6.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-28
Figure 4.5 San Leandro Sites Inventory East 14th South Area Corridor Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-29
Figure 4.6 Sites Inventory, RD Zone
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-30
Table 4.11 Site Inventory Parcels in the East 14th Street South Area Corridor General Plan
Land Use District Acres
Number
of Parcels
Maximum Allowed
Density (du/ac)1
Number of Existing
Units on Parcels
Potential
New Units
SA-1 2.75 2.5 85 0 722
SA-2 0.29 1 85 0 12
SA-3 1.8 2 85 0 111
RD 0.68 0.5 18 0 18
Total 4.8 6 - 0 213
1 Density standards are based on the rezone discussed in Land Use and Zoning Ordinance Update Site number three is split between the SA-1 zone and the RD zone. The parcel is split down the middle, with seventeen units listed under the SA-1 zone and 18 units listed under the RD zone.

Definitions
SA-1 – South Area - 1
SA-2 – South Area - 2
SA-3 – South Area – 3
RD – Residential Duplex District
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
Downtown Transit Oriented Development Strategy Area
In 2007, the City adopted a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Strategy for a roughly 300-acre area including Downtown San Leandro and the BART Station vicinity. This area is projected to accommodate more than half of the city’s growth between 2015 and 2035.

The TOD Strategy establishes a land use framework, circulation system, and development guidelines addressing building design, heights, and streetscapes. The document also identifies the capital improvements, open spaces, and public amenities that should accompany private development.

Downtown Area Zoning Districts (DA-1, DA-2, DA-3, DA-4, and DA-6) and associated land use and development standards were adopted to implement the land use categories in the Downtown TOD Strategy:
 DA-2, Multi-Use Infill: Multi-Use Infill areas are located in clusters surrounding the downtown core. They currently contain a mix of uses and scales, including residential, office, retail, and service. Mixed use development is encouraged, particularly ground floor retail along East 14th Street and Washington Avenue.
 DA-4, TOD Residential Mixed-Use: TOD Residential Mixed-Use areas are located on major vehicular arterials with convenient access to BART and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and in areas where increased height and density will not have significant impacts on adjacent low scale neighborhoods. The predominant use in these areas is residential, although small quantities of retail or office that serves the residents can be provided as a mixed-use component of a residential project.
 DA-6, Office Mixed-Use: Large footprint office development currently exists in the area around the San Leandro Boulevard and Davis Street intersection. This area is designed for office, residential, and ground floor retail uses.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-31
Vacant and Underutilized Properties in the Downtown TOD Strategy Area Twelve sites identified in this inventory are designated DA-2 – Multi Use Infill, DA-4 – Residential Mixed Use, and DA-6 – Office Mixed Use. All sites meet the criteria to count toward the City’s RHNA for lower-income housing based on density and lot size. Table 4.12 summarizes the capacity of vacant and underutilized sites within the Downtown TOD Strategy Area and are shown in Figure 4.7.

Table 4.12 Site Inventory Parcels in the Downtown Area
General Plan Land Use
District
Total
Acres
Number
of Parcels
Maximum Allowed
Density (du/ac)1
Number of Existing
Units on Parcel
Potential
New Units2
DA-2 3.56 4 125 0 301
DA-4/DA-6 4.55 8 125 0 398
Total 8.11 12 - 0 699
1 Density standards are based on the rezone discussed in Land Use and Zoning Ordinance Update 2 Potential units minus existing units
Definitions
DA-2 – Downtown Area 2 Multi-Use Infill
DA-4 – Downtown Area 4 TOD – Residential Mixed Use
DA-6 – Downtown Area 6 Office Mixed use
du/ac = dwelling units per acre
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-32

4.3.2 Additional Sites
Two sites in the Sites Inventory are located outside of designated Priority Development Areas. These parcels are adjacent to each other and have the same property owner, who has expressed interest in redevelopment (Figure 4.8).

Table 4.13 Site Inventory Parcels in the East 14th Street South Area Corridor General Plan
Land Use District Acres
Number
of Parcels
Maximum Allowed
Density (du/ac)
Number of Existing
Units on Parcels
Potential
New Units
CC 1.22 2 24 0 19
Definitions
CC – Commercial Community
du/ac = dwelling units per acre

4.3.3 Recycling Trends
Redeveloping (or “recycling”) on non-vacant parcels is another way to achieve the State’s goal of alleviating California’s housing crisis. Many urban areas, including San Leandro, have a limited number of vacant parcels near transit, jobs, and amenities. By enhancing the land uses on nonvacant, underutilized properties (e.g.: underperforming commercial sites) mixed-use or residential development can jumpstart revitalization on aging commercial corridors. Nonvacant sites can also be easier and less costly to develop than vacant sites. According to a presentation by the Alameda County Collaborative (convened by ABAG) and a Developers Roundtable held in November 2021, real estate developers expressed a preference for reusing sites instead of proposing construction on vacant parcels because of the presence of existing utility connections. Other areas to consider with non-vacant parcels include: an analysis of existing structures on those sites (i.e.: how much demolition the site requires), and who is currently occupying the non-vacant site (i.e.: commercial office buildings or single-tenant commercial buildings are the easiest to redevelop).

Recycling Trends in Planned and Approved Projects
Planned and approved development projects in San Leandro that are counted towards the RHNA (listed in Table 4.2) are indicative of future development trends. Table 4.14 compares the density and lot size of nonvacant parcels in the Sites Inventory to planned and approved development projects. Sites included in the inventory of this Housing Element for the 6th cycle RHNA are very similar to the select projects described above in terms of size, existing conditions and uses. The range and averages of densities (du/ac) and percent density achieved in the San Leandro planned and approved projects is larger than those in the recycling trends noted in the prior section. Planned and approved projects were able to achieve a development potential above 100 percent due to density bonuses, which was conservatively not considered for estimations in the Sites Inventory.

The nonvacant parcels in the Sites Inventory also have lower floor area ratios and similar uses to those of the planned and approved projects – auto-centric commercial uses, shopping centers, warehouses, and parking lots. Non-vacant sites in the development pipeline have improvement to land value ratios between 0 and 10.29 with an average ratio of 1.28 while the Sites Inventory has an average ratio of 0.73.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-33
Figure 4.7 Sites Inventory Downtown Area
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-34
Figure 4.8 SItes Inventory – Northeastern San Leandro
Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-35
Table 4.14 Planned and Approved Recycled Projects Compared to Sites Inventory Density Range
(du/ac)
Percent
Density
Achieved
Non-Vacant Sites Floor Area
Ratio Existing Uses
San Leandro
PIanned and
Approved
Projects

7.5-198 (average:
102.8)
43-577%
(Average:
138%)1
Non-vacant sites planned or
approved for redevelopment
had a pre-project average
floor area ratio of 0.35.

Music conservatory, shopping
center, office building, bowling
center, warehouse, singlefamily home, retail center,
golf course
Sites
Inventory
Assumed Realistic
Allowable Density:

16.8-87.5 (average:

52.2)
Assumed 70% Non-vacant sites in the sites
inventory have existing floor
area ratios ranging from 0.07
to 0.40 with an average floor
area ratio of 0.16
Pottery store, auto storage,
parking lot, used car lot, brake
and wheel shop, restaurant,
commercial uses, shopping
center, warehouse, auto body
shop
1 Because the density achieved for site number 6 in Table 4.2 is an outlier, it is not included in the average. The development on that site was achieved through SB35 when the site was zoned for a regional mall.

4.4 Senate Bill 9
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9; Atkins-2021), requires local agencies to ministerially approve a housing development of up to two units in a single-family zone. Additionally, it requires a ministerial approval for an urban lot split in a single-family zone. The impact of this legislation on the potential to increase development of new units was analyzed by the University of California Berkeley Terner Center for Housing Innovation. The Terner Center estimated that there were 0.09 SB 9 net units per eligible lot in Alameda County. San Leandro has 18,600 single family parcels. Using the methodology applied by the Terner Center for Alameda County, there may be potential for 1,674 additional net units under SB 9.
11 Potential development under this legislation was not considered for purposes of meeting RHNA requirements, but SB 9 may facilitate the development of more infill housing. Under Program 14 in Section 6, Housing Plan, the City will initiate an amendment to the Zoning Code in compliance with SB 9 to address objective standards and lot split criteria.

4.5 Availability of Infrastructure and Services
The City is committed to several actions and expenditures to provide infrastructure and enhancements that support and facilitate new development. Infrastructure is the basic physical asset that allow the city to function, including streets, sewer and water lines, telecommunication lines, and park lands. The City’s budget ensures the continued maintenance and improvement of the City’s infrastructure. The ongoing Capital Improvement Project (CIP) program outlines the spending plan for infrastructure improvements and other specific large-scale capital purchases. Projects include major street and park improvements, building construction, and significant facility maintenance and upgrades. All the parcels in the Sites Inventory have existing infrastructure. Within one week of adoption, the City will provide a copy of the adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to the East Bay Municipal Water District, City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Division, and Oro Loma Sanitary District, pursuant to Government Code Section 65589.7. 11 https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/SB-9-Brief-July-2021-Final.pdf City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-36

4.5.1 Wastewater System
The City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Division (SLWPC) is responsible for the regulation, collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from all residential and commercial sources within the City's sewer service area, located in the northern two thirds of the City. Wastewater from the southern third of the City is collected and treated by the Oro Loma Sanitary District system. The SLWPC and Oro Loma plant both direct treated wastewater to a common outfall controlled by EBDA, a joint powers authority, which discharges treated effluent to the San Francisco Bay.

City of San Leandro Water Pollution Control Division (SLWPC) The SLWPC adopted a revised Sewer System Management Plan (SSMP) in 2017. The SLWPC consists of approximately 130 miles of pipe, ranging from six to 42 inches in diameter, and 13 remote lift stations. The sewers in the city system range in age from new to over 70 years old. The oldest sewers are located in the northeastern portion of the City from the Oakland city limits to Castro Street roughly between the Southern Pacific Railroad and MacArthur Boulevard. This portion includes the downtown area and the oldest residential areas of the city. From 2011 to 2016, the total number of sanitary sewer overflows ranged from zero to four annually and total volume of spills ranged from 1,000 to 2,500 gallons. The SLWPCP has a maximum capacity of 9.7 million gallons per day.12
The Public Works Department operates and maintains the City’s wastewater treatment facility and sewer collection system. The Operations and Maintenance Sections operate the Water Pollution Control Plant 24 hours a day, treating two billion gallons of wastewater annually.

The Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP) Enterprise Fund provides the funding for the regulation, collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater from all residential and commercial sources, including operation and maintenance of the Water Pollution Control Plant, 125 miles of sanitary sewer pipelines, 15 remote sewage pump stations, and the inspection and maintenance of the City’s storm water collection system. The Environmental Services Enterprise Fund provides the funding for Wastewater Pretreatment operations.

Oro Loma Sanitary District
The Oro Loma Sanitary District (OLSD) adopted a revised SSMP in 2019. The Oro Loma Sanitary District consists of 272 miles of public sewer, 32,000 building service connections, and 6,022 manholes. The average age of the collection system is 58 years. Stoppages and overflows have been on a steady decline since 1992 when the District focused its efforts on aggressive line cleaning, continuous video inspection, and dedicated funding to repair or replace every line defect which could result in a service interruption. In the past 20 years, there have been no stoppages or overflows caused by system deterioration or pipe collapse on the gravity system. The OLSD infrastructure has averaged less than one overflow per hundred miles of pipe per year over the last 10 years. From 2011 to 2016, the total number of sanitary sewar overflows ranged from one to five.13 As of 2022, the OLSD is in the process of updating 40 miles of sewer infrastructure. The OLSD treatment plant has a permitted capacity of 20 million gallons per day.

Developers are required to hire independent engineers to conduct hydraulic capacity studies for residential developments of 10 units or more.
12 https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=10881 13 https://oroloma.org/wp-content/uploads/SSMP-Final-.pdf Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-37
The combined capacity of the SLWPCP and the OLSD treatment plants is 29.7 million gallons per day.

The 2035 San Leandro General Plan Environmental Impact Report conservatively assumed that 90 percent of increased water demand becomes wastewater. Using this same assumption, the development of housing units in the RHNA would generate 90 percent of the estimated 1.3 million gallons per day calculated in Section 4.5.2 below, or 1.2 million gallons per day of wastewater. The SLWCP and OLSD treatment plants have sufficient capacity to serve the development of housing units in the RHNA.

4.5.2 Potable Water System
Water service in San Leandro is provided by EBMUD, a publicly owned utility. Based on historical averages, about 90 percent of the EBMUD water supply originates from the Mokelumne River watershed, with the remaining ten percent coming from protected watershed lands and reservoirs in the East Bay Hills. During prolonged droughts, the Mokelumne River supply cannot meet EBMUD’s projected customer demands. To address this issue, EBMUD has obtained and continues to seek supplemental supplies. For example, EBMUD has completed construction of the Freeport Regional Water Facility and the Bayside Groundwater Facility.

Long-range water supply and demand management plans are laid out in EBMUD’s Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The UWMP includes provisions for water rationing during drought periods, as well as aggressive measures for conservation and wastewater recycling. The UWMP also addresses system maintenance and replacement, including projects to protect the reliability of the water supply in the event of an earthquake or fire.

EBMUD adopted a Water Conservation Strategic Plan which compares the total water supply sources available to EBMUD with the long-term total projected water use over the next 30 years, in five-year increments, for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive years. As there is significant uncertainty in forecasting into the future, EBMUD considers a variety of scenarios in its long-term planning. Residential demand in the EBMUD service area since July 2014 is significantly less than the assumed based on the UWMP. Although current actual demand is lower than estimated demand in the UWMP due to the recent multi-year drought and the downturn in the economy, the UWMP estimate reflects a reasonable expectation for growth over the long term and increased water demand to year 2035.14 Pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10610 to 10657, EBMUD adopted a Water Shortage Contingency Plan in June 2021, which models a range of scenarios and their impact on water supply and demand and provides a framework to help address potential water shortages through 2050.

The “base condition” represents EBMUD’s current operations and assumptions, including population growth numbers based upon Plan Bay Area projections. The five-year drought scenario does not show a need for water in the future; however, the High-Water Demand and Extreme Drought Scenario did show a need for water, but the magnitude of that need varies. The 2040 Water Supply Management Plan identifies the following methods for reaching water needs:
conservation, use of recycled water, water transfers, Bayside Groundwater Project Phase 2, Sacramento Groundwater Banking Exchange, and regional desalination. Using these strategies, EBMUD predicts an ability to meet the projected water needs of the region.15 EBMUD’s consumption in 2020 was 121 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). The 3,855 housing units in the RHNA would provide housing for an estimated 10,987 persons using the 2019 average persons 14 https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=26286 15 EBMUD 2020. Available: file:///C:/Users/acobb/Downloads/wsmp-2040-revised-final-plan.pdf City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-38
per household described in Table 2.10 in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment. The water consumption from the development of the RHNA would be approximately 1.3 million gallons per day, or 0.6 percent of the 194 million gallons per day of the 2035 projected water demand for the EBMUD service area. EMBUD has sufficient water supplies for development of the 3,855 housing units in the RHNA.

4.5.3 Stormwater System and Drainage System
The San Leandro Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of storm drains within city limits. The Administration Division provides direction to and coordination of all departmental activities and programs, including the Storm Water Program. The City Biennial Budget has consistently included a budget of $1,407,079 to $1,565,900 for the Storm Water Fund, with a steady increase in funding since 2018.

The Storm Water Enterprise Fund provides the funding for the maintenance and improvement of the City’s storm water drainage system to comply with state and federal mandates that require cities and storm water agencies to reduce pollutants in storm water runoff. Operations in this fund include street debris removal and street sweeping. Revenue to this fund is from the collection of fees charged to every owner of real property in the City of San Leandro and is collected through property taxes.

New development or redevelopment projects are required to construct adequately sized storm drainage systems to convey on-site, treated stormwater runoff to existing storm drain facilities. The City of San Leandro requires as a standard condition of approval that developers verify that on-site and off-site drainage facilities can accommodate increased stormwater flows. In addition to building and extending on-site storm drainage infrastructure, project applicants are required to pay for improvements to the storm drain system, if necessary, to accommodate increased flows from the development.

4.5.4 Circulation System
The Transportation Element addresses the movement of people and goods in and around San Leandro, looking at additional factors such as environmental health, equity, greenhouse gas reduction, and the quality of public space along the city’s transportation routes. The City also adopted a Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan which identifies goals and programs relating transportation alternatives to automobile usage.

Approximately 19.6 percent of San Leandro’s employed residents both live and work in the city. The remaining 80.4 percent of the city’s employed residents commute out from San Leandro to another location. Travel patterns in San Leandro illustrate one of the challenges of maintaining a jobshousing balance. While the overall numbers of jobs and employed residents in the city are almost equal, there is still a large volume of commuting in and out of the city.

The Engineering and Transportation Department is responsible for the administration of all engineering services for the City including traffic and transportation engineering. The Project Development Division provides the management and administrative direction of all engineering services required for developing and contracting public improvements and provides engineeringrelated support services to other City departments. The division is also responsible for the pavement management program. This division implements the CIP and administers related construction contracts. The City Biennial Budget for the Project Development Division has consistently increased and totals up to $1,837,500 for the 2022-2023 budget. Additional funding for Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-39
road improvements is included under the CIP. Additionally, voters throughout of Alameda County approved an additional half cent increase to transportation sales tax (Measure BB) to repair roads, increase bicycle and pedestrian safety, reduce traffic congestion, and improve air quality.

4.5.5 Dry Utilities
Dry utilities are defined as electricity, natural gas, cable, and telephone services. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) distributes “grid” electricity and natural gas services to the City of San Leandro while East Bay Community Energy (EBCE) is the energy supplier for San Leandro. In 2021, the San Leandro City Council voted to set the default electricity option for San Leandro residents and businesses to EBCE’s 100 percent renewable energy service in 2022. PG&E owns and maintains above- and below-ground networks of electric and gas transmission and distribution facilities throughout the city. The San Leandro General Plan includes policies and programs which reduce energy use from transportation sources and existing buildings.

Additional services such as telephone and internet are services by private providers. Providers include AT&T, Comcast, Crosslink Networks, amongst others.16

4.6 Environmental Constraints
As noted in Section 3, Housing Constraints, environmental constraints to housing development in San Leandro include risk of wildfire, earthquakes, landslides and erosion, flooding and sea level rise, and environmental site contamination. Many of these constraints are addressed in the City’s 2035 General Plan, adopted in 2016, with City policies to reduce or mitigate risks for development.

The City also certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 2035 General Plan that evaluated the potential impacts of future developments and increases in population and employment. Environmental clearance for future development projects may tier from the EIR, thereby expediting the approval process. Mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR and include measures to minimize impacts associated with potential flooding and other environmental constraints.

The sites identified in the Sites Inventory are infill sites concentrated in the central, urbanized area of the city. None of the identified sites are in the San Leandro Hills, which contain localized areas of instability and are at greater risk for landslides and erosion. The Sites Inventory does not include sites in southwestern San Leandro, which has been identified as the area most at risk for effects of sea level rise and the area identified as a FEMA-designated flood plain. Sites are also not located on the western side of the city which is most susceptible to liquefaction. None of the sites in the Sites Inventory are located in Airport Safety Zones.

Enforcement of the California Building Code by the San Leandro Building Division ensures that new construction will withstand the forces associated with a major earthquake.

The 2035 General Plan directs the City to ensure that the necessary steps are taken to clean up residual hazardous wastes on any contaminated sites proposed for redevelopment or reuse. The City requires soil evaluations on sites as needed to ensure that risks are assessed, and appropriate remediation is provided. None of the sites in the Sites Inventory are identified as clean up sites in Geotracker, Envirostor, of the City’s local database of cleanup sites. 16 https://www.sanleandro.org/depts/cd/econdev/innovation/service_providers.asp City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-40
There are two sites in the inventory (Sites 8 and 9) located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, although they are separated by a freeway from the hillsides where wildfire has the greatest potential. Future development on these sites would be required to comply with basic building designs and standards for commercial and residential buildings as mandated by Title 24 of the CCR and the San Leandro Fire Code, under Section 3-3-100 of the San Leandro Municipal Code. In addition, future development under the proposed Plan would also be required to comply with abatement of fire-related hazards and pre-fire management prescriptions as outlined under the California Health and Safety Code and the California Fire Plan.

4.7 Financial Resources for Affordable Housing
This section describes existing and potential resources for the development of affordable housing in the city. The City’s Housing Services Division administers the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) which are funded from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). More information on development financing programs is included in Section 2, Housing Needs Assessment, and Section 3, Housing Constraints.

4.7.1 Existing Financial Resources
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
In accordance with the City’s Zoning Code Section 6.04.124, developers of ownership residential developments with two to six total units, may satisfy the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance by paying an in-lieu fee to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund. This fund is administered by the Housing Services Division. Monies deposited in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund must be used for affordable housing activities, programs and projects including those that increase and/or improve the supply of housing affordable to moderate-, low-, and very low-income households in the City. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund can be leveraged with State, federal and other public or private funding. As described in Program 12 of Chapter 6, Housing Plan, the City will conduct an economic feasibility study for potential changes to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, including changes to the in-lieu fee structure and the desire and ability of developers to contribute to the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund
The Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund was established to conduct the dissolution of operations related to housing assets and activities of the former Redevelopment Agency and fund affordable housing projects and programs. The City receives all repayments on loans from former Redevelopment Agency assets purchased, constructed or renovated using former Redevelopment Low/Mod Housing tax increment funding. The balance of funds collected, and expenditures of those funds, are detailed annually in the City’s SB 341 Report that is due at the same time as the Housing Element Annual Progress Report (April 1st of each year).

Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA)
PLHA, which is a State HCD Program. provides funding to local governments in California for housing-related projects and programs that assist in addressing the unmet housing needs of their local communities. San Leandro was recently awarded PLHA funding and established the PLHA Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-41
program to use PLHA funds for the predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and/or preservation of multi-family, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, or moderate-income households.

Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME)
The HOME program provides federal funds for the development and rehabilitation of affordable rental and ownership housing for households with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of area median income. The program gives local governments the flexibility to fund a wide range of affordable housing activities through housing partnerships with private industry and non-profit organizations. HOME funds can be used for activities that promote affordable rental housing and homeownership by low-income households, including:
 Building acquisition
 New construction and reconstruction
 Moderate or substantial rehabilitation
 Homebuyer assistance
 Rental assistance
 Security deposit assistance
HOME funds have been utilized to provide tenant-based rental assistance to assist those who are homeless or precariously housed, to provide rent subsidies, as well as to construct or acquire and rehabilitate housing units for rental by individuals with disabilities.17 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG program is administered by HUD. Through this program, the federal government provides annual grant funding (block grant) to jurisdictions (States. Counties, cities) to determine their needs and to undertake needed community development and housing activities.

Activities proposed by the jurisdictions must meet the objectives and eligibility criteria of CDBG legislation. The primary CDBG objective is the development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment, and expanding economic opportunity, principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. Each activity must meet one of the three broad national objectives:
 Benefit low-and moderate-income families
 Aid in the prevention of elimination of slums or blight  Meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community San Leandro typically allocates its annual CDBG funds to the following eligible categories: Public Services, Public Facilities, Housing Activities, and General Administration. CDBG funding supports services for people experiencing homelessness, family support services for abused children and their families, services for people with special needs, minor home repairs for low-income households, and programs.18
17 https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=31664 18 https://www.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=31663 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-42

4.7.2 Potential Financial Resources
Bay Area Housing Finance Agency (BAHFA)
The Bay Area Housing Finance Authority (BAHFA), administered by the Metropolitan Transit Commission (MTC) is the first regional housing finance authority in California. BAHFA has the potential to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to help address affordable housing and housing stability in the Bay Area. The Bay Area Housing Finance Agency will have the ability to issue municipal bonds to generate funds for use to finance 100 percent affordable housing construction along with other housing stabilization tools.

Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts (EIFD)
EIFDs are a type of Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district that cities and counties may form to help fund economic development projects. TIF works by freezing the property tax revenues that flow from a designated project area to the city, county, and other taxing entities at the “base level” in the current year. Additional tax revenue in future years (the “increment”) is diverted into a separate pool of money, which can be used either to pay for improvements directly or to pay back bonds issued against the anticipated TIF revenue.

Several legislative measures have passed in the years following the dissolution of tax-increment financing under the auspices of California Redevelopment Law that modified SB 628 and EIFD requirements: Assembly Bill 733 (2017) allows for EIFDs to fund climate change adaptation projects, including but not limited to projects that address conditions that impact public health (such as decreased air and water quality, temperatures higher than average, etc.) and extreme weather events (such as sea level rise, heat waves, wildfires, etc.); Senate Bill 1145 (2018) allows EIFDs to also fund infrastructure maintenance costs; Assembly Bill 116 (2019) allows for EIFDs to issue bonds without public vote however does increase public engagement requirements.

4.7.3 Planning Grants to Support Housing
State Regional Early Action Planning (REAP)
The REAP program is funded by HCD and administered by ABAG. HCD provides funding for programs which accelerate infill and affordable development; support residents through realizing multimodal communities; shift travel behavior through reducing driving; and increase transit ridership, walking, and biking as primary modes of transportation. The City allocated its REAP funding for the development of the 6th Cycle Housing Element update.

State Local Early Action Planning (LEAP)
The LEAP program is administered by HCD. HCD provides funding for programs that accelerate the development of housing and facilitate compliance to implement the 6th Cycle RHNA. The City allocated its LEAP funding for the development of the 6th Cycle Housing Element update.

4.8 Administrative Resources
This section describes administrative resources available to housing development. These include building, code enforcement, housing programs, and partnerships with non-profit organizations that help San Leandro achieve the goals and objectives of this Housing Element update.

Housing Resources
Draft Housing Element 4-43

4.8.1 City of San Leandro Community Development
Department
The City of San Leandro Community Development Department encompasses the Building and Safety Division, Planning Division, Housing Services Division, Code Enforcement Division, and Economic Development Division.

Housing Services administers programs such as Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Affordable Housing Resources, Tenant-Landlord Counseling/Legal Assistance, Tenant Relocation Ordinance, Rent Review Program, Mobile Home Park Space Rent Stabilization, First Time Homebuyer Program and OwnerOccupied Minor Home Rehabilitation Program.

The Planning Division provides staff support to the Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Adjustments and City Council, formulating and administering plans, programs, and legislation for guiding development. The Planning Division is tasked with ensuring that land uses in San Leandro comply with City codes, the General Plan, City Council policies, and California law. Approval of projects through the planning process is typically required before the City issues grading or building permits. Advanced planning programs provided by the division include comprehensive General Plan updates (including updates to the Housing Element every eight years), preparing and amending specific plans, and conducting special policy amendments.

4.8.2 County of Alameda
The County of Alameda Housing and Community Development Department develops housing and programs to serve the region's low- and moderate-income households, homeless, and disabled populations. The Department maintains and expands housing opportunities for low- and moderateincome persons and families by:
 Preserving the county’s housing stock through rehabilitation and repair assistance program;  Expanding the supply of affordable housing for lower income renters and owners, including first-time homebuyers;
 Serving the needs of the homeless community as the lead agency in the countywide homeless collaborative and partnering with homeless service providers; and  Revitalizing low-income neighborhoods by installing sidewalks and public accessibility improvements, and by constructing neighborhood-serving facilities.

Additionally, Alameda County and Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley administer the Renew Alameda County program, a home improvement loan assistance program designed to allow low-income homeowners to remain safely in their homes by providing rehabilitation and accessibility improvement services and loan financing to cover the associated costs. This program is funded by the voter-approved Measure A1 Affordable Housing Bond.

The County of Alameda Board of Supervisors oversees the Housing Authority of Alameda County (HACA). HACA operates programs funded by the HUD that provide rental housing or rental assistance for low-income families, the elderly, people with disabilities, and others, in much of Alameda County including San Leandro. Specifically, the HACA administers the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program, the Project Based Voucher Program, and the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation Program, as well as owning multiple affordable housing developments in the county.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4-44

4.8.3 Non-Profit Organizations
Non-profit housing developers and service providers are a critical resource for accomplishing the goals and objectives of this Housing Element. This can be accomplished through private/public partnerships. Non-profit organizations that have developed affording housing in the city and county include the following:
 Eden Housing, Inc.
 Mercy Housing California
 BRIDGE Housing Corporation
 Abode Communities
 Allied Housing

4.9 Opportunities for Energy Conservation
The City of San Leandro has existing building code and development review standards to incentivize energy-efficient building development. The City plans to adopt a building electrification and electric vehicle reach code, which is a local building code that aims to advance decarbonization efforts and exceed state minimum requirements for energy use in buildings.

Residential energy consumption constituted approximately 14 percent of San Leandro’s baseline emissions in 2005. From 2005 to 2017, emissions from residential energy usage in San Leandro decreased by 28 percent primarily due to cleaner electricity sources. 19 The San Leandro 2021
Climate Action Plan includes the following residential energy efficiency programs:
 Residential Energy Retrofit Financing: Increase education and outreach for existing energy efficiency financing mechanisms, including PACE programs and utility programs. Create new financing programs, such as a revolving loan program.
 Residential Energy Retrofit Equity: Prioritize City-funded energy retrofit programs in majority people of color census tracts or high energy cost-burdened households.  Homeowner Energy Retrofits: Continue to promote energy efficiency programs and incentives available to residential property owners.
 Rental Energy Retrofits: Work with landlords and tenants’ groups to increase energy efficiency and decrease energy costs in rental homes, including multi-family properties. Mitigate displacement risk by strengthening tenant protections, including relocation assistance and right of return for tenants temporarily displaced by housing retrofits. Utilize methods such as the green lease to address the split incentive issue and prevent tenants paying for property improvements.

Additionally, Program 19 in Section 6, Housing Plan, directs the City to provide resources and support to developers engaging with sustainable design and energy-efficient building construction methods.
19 https://civicaadmin.sanleandro.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=32895 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-1
5 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH)

5.1 Introduction and Overview
In 2018, the California State Legislature passed Assembly Bill (AB) 686 to expand upon the fair housing requirements and protections outlined in the federal Fair Employment and Housing Act.

The law requires all State and local public agencies to facilitate deliberate action to explicitly address, combat, and relieve disparities resulting from past patterns of segregation to foster more inclusive communities. AB 686 created new requirements that apply to all housing elements due for revision on or after January 1, 2021. The passage of AB 686 ensures that California Cities affirmatively further fair housing.

AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH)” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity.” AB 686 added to the Housing Element requirements an assessment of fair housing which includes the following components:
 A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
 An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities  An assessment of contributing factors
 An identification of fair housing goals and actions.1

5.1.1 Approach to Analysis
This AFFH analysis has been prepared consistent with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements which provides guidance on the preparation of housing elements and ensures statutory requirements are satisfied, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(c)(10).

This AFFH analysis evaluates fair housing issues on the following topics:
 Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
 Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty  Disparities in Access to Opportunity
 Disproportionate Housing Needs
 Other Relevant Factors, including historical disinvestment, lack of infrastructure improvements, and presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.
1 Housing and Community Development (HCD). 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/index.shtml City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-2
This AFFH addresses impediments through AFFH-specific goals, and actions based on the contributing factors for each identified fair housing issue.

5.1.2 Fair Housing Methodology
The California Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires cities and counties to analyze areas of segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including:
 The Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer  Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
 U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  CalEnviroScreen
 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
 2020 – 2024 Five-Year Housing and Community Development Plan for San Leandro (Consolidated Plan)
 The 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)  Comprehensive House Affordability Strategy (CHAS)
 US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
Additionally, the analysis includes a discussion of historic land use and segregation patterns and input from sources of local knowledge, including advocates for people with special needs, housing development and advocacy organizations, housing and social services providers, and low-income residents.

5.1.3 Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract level data from an expansive collection of sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes.

5.1.4 Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods. Additionally, census tracts identified as disadvantaged neighborhoods by UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-3

5.1.5 CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.

This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more likely to have greater degree of pollution burden and a higher rate of residents vulnerable to the effects of that pollution exposure as compared to census tracts statewide. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts for pollution and other social and economic burden indicators across California.

5.1.6 California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and the TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals.2 The California Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resource levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children. Opportunity mapping is a way to measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility.2 Opportunity Maps reflect composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicator data shown in Table 5.1.

Table 5.1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, employment, Job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020

5.1.7 2020-2024 Five-Year Housing and Community
Development Strategic Plan for San Leandro
(Consolidated Plan)
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Consolidated Plan is used by the federal government, states, and local jurisdictions to assess affordable housing and community development needs and is a required document for jurisdictions to be eligible for federal HUD grant programs. The City of San Leandro is required to submit a federally mandated Consolidated Plan every five years and submit an Annual Action Plan in order to receive its annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement grant. The Consolidated Plan assesses San Leandro’s affordable housing and community development needs through a housing market analysis; articulating priorities, goals, and strategies to address identified needs; and describing the actions that need to be taken to implement strategies for housing and community development including public services and city infrastructure. San Leandro’s Consolidated Plan comprises of four priority 2 Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcd-methodology.pdf City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-4
needs: Affordable Housing Needs, Homelessness Needs, Supportive Housing Needs, and Community Development Needs. The Consolidated Plan was prepared by City staff and approved by City Council on June 15, 2020. As identified in the FY 2020-21 Annual Action Plan (included as a section of the Five-Year Consolidated Plan), San Leandro received $768,193 in CDBG funds and $238,792 in Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) funds. These amounts represent the approximate annual allocation that the City of San Leandro receives for general administration, community development, and affordable housing development.

5.1.8 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
As part of the CDBG program certification process and prior to HUD’s reinstatement of the AFFH standards in 2020, participating jurisdictions prepared an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years. The Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) was a countywide effort to pool resources and combine efforts to identify discrimination and increase fair housing choices for residents across the county. It was produced in collaboration by Alameda County jurisdictions with the County of Alameda as the lead agency. The AI addresses fair housing issues on both a countywide level and in each jurisdiction. The AI provides an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impediments.

5.1.9 HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data
Each year, HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. These data, known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), demonstrate the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for lowincome households. CHAS data is estimated by the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of median income). It is also important to consider the prevalence of housing problems among different types of households, such as the elderly, disabled, minorities, and different household types.

5.1.10 AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunity for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The AllTransit performance score explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

5.2 Analysis of Impediments Findings
The AI provides a demographic profile of Alameda County, assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. The AI addresses disparities in housing needs, existing patterns of segregation and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-5
racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs) and contributing factors to fair housing impediments.

Regional Trends
The AI identifies the following impediments to fair housing within Alameda County:
 Non-Hispanic white residents are most of the County’s homeowners despite comprising only one-third of the County’s population.
 Residential segregation between white residents and non-white residents has increased in the last decade.
 The County’s Black resident population has decreased by nearly seven percent since 1990. Black residents primarily reside in the cities of Oakland and Berkeley.  Non-white residents are being displaced from areas that have historically consisted of large nonwhite populations.  Residents of areas with higher percentages of non-white residents do not have access to schools that score high on proficiency tests and locations in the city with less air pollution (e.g.: near freeway corridors).
 Median rental prices rose an average of $1,000 (unadjusted for inflation) since 2010, an increase of 55 percent in a nine-year period.
 The average home sales price increased from approximately $300,000 to nearly $900,000 in less than 20 years (unadjusted for inflation).
 The number of unhoused people increased 42 percent from 2015 to 2019 and data from 2022 shows little change to this statistic.
 Non-white households, especially Black and Hispanic households, have the highest rate of disproportionate housing needs, such as incomplete kitchen and/or plumbing facilities, overcrowding (housing more than one person per room), and that experience higher rates housing cost burden (spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs).  Overall, the rate of mortgage approvals has gone up in the last seven years, but racial and ethnic disparities in mortgage approval rates remained unchanged. While white applicants have an average mortgage approval rate of 70 percent, Black applicants have an average approval rate of 59 percent and Hispanic/Latino applicants have an average approval rate of 62 percent.  Housing Choice Voucher holders and those with disabilities often find it difficult to find an appropriate housing unit based on size and/or cost.
 Disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity.

Local Trends
Contributing factors identified as impediments to fair housing in San Leandro are discussed in detail below along with a description of how each impediment is addressed in this Housing Element.

Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Earning Populations HUD defines a Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population earn an income that is considered lower or moderate relative to the area median income (AMI), which for Alameda County is $125,600 for a household of four residents.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-6
In San Leandro, households with low and moderate incomes are concentrated in the Davis West, Eastshore, and Downtown neighborhoods toward the northwestern portion of the city.

Language Barriers
A language barrier can be an impediment to accessing housing. Those who do not speak English may face discrimination, communication challenges while trying to obtain housing, and barriers to accessing services and information. According to the AI, 25 percent of city residents age five and older had Limited English Proficiency (LEP) according to a 2017 study, an increase of 3 percent since 2010.

Lending by Race/Ethnicity
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination when obtaining a mortgage. However, in some communities the lending pool is not representative of the demographics of a community and disparities in loan approvals are an impediment to fair housing.

Limiting Local Land Use Policies
Local land use and zoning regulations play a significant role in the development of housing in the city. According to the AI, land use and zoning regulations, rising housing costs, and the high cost of developing affordable housing contributes towards disproportionate housing needs in San Leandro and Alameda County.

5.3 Fair Housing Resources

5.3.1 Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity is the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair housing agencies to provide fair housing and tenants’ rights information to community members.

Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, resolving issues, and conducting fair housing testing.

Regional Resources
There are three agencies that have historically provided fair housing services in Alameda County.

Table 5.2 lists these organizations and how they address housing and community needs by providing the following services:
 Fair housing testing and complaints
 Fair housing counseling and education
 Tenant/landlord counseling and mediation
 Homeless prevention program
 Rental assistance program
 Rent/deposit grant program
 Homeseeking services
 Shared housing counseling placement
 Homebuyers’ education learning program
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-7
Table 5.2 Fair Housing Service Providers Active in the San Francisco Bay Area Region Organization1 URL Phone Number
Asian Inc https://www.asianinc.org/ (415) 928-5910
Bay Area Legal Aid https://baylegal.org/ (510) 663-4755 Community Housing Development
Corporation of North Richmond
https://communityhdc.org/ (510) 412-9290
East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) https://ebclc.org/need-services/housing-services/ (510) 548-4040 Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity
(ECHO)
https://www.echofairhousing.org/ (855) 275-3246
Project Sentinel https://www.housing.org/ (888) 324-7648 1 Only Bay Area Legal Aid and ECHO serve San Leandro.

Source: County of Alameda AI, 2021; HUD Exchange Housing Counseling Agency search tool Local Resources
The City of San Leandro maintains a contract with the non-profit organization Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO), a regional non-profit fair housing agency. ECHO assists residents with fair housing counseling services, connections to rental assistance and homelessness prevention programs, and conducts fair housing testing. The City allocates CDBG funds to ECHO's fair housing services with the goal of assisting residents and landlords by providing Fair Housing investigation, education, and referral services. If ECHO finds cases of discrimination that they cannot resolve, then those cases are referred to the California Civil Rights Department or other fair housing legal referrals. Bay Area Legal Aid’s BayLegal department provides low-income households with legal assistance related to fair housing and housing discrimination.

5.4 Ability to Address Complaints
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing. Fair housing testing involves one or more individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, State, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination.

Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for discrimination against a specific class, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the discrimination is happening in a consistent systemic pattern in a city or region. In Alameda County, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the real or perceived race, ethnicity, color, religion, gender identity or expression, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters.

ECHO Housing is funded to provide the full range of fair housing enforcement services to local renters and conducts fair housing testing of rental properties to assess how well rental properties conform to fair housing laws. In cases when evidence of deferential treatment is found, the property owners and managers are encouraged to attend fair housing workshops, which provide training and educational resources aimed at ending fair housing discrimination. Between 2017 and 2021, a total of 647 rental properties within jurisdictions throughout the San Francisco Bay Area City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-8
participated in workshops. An overview of the criteria and results of these fair housing audits is summarized below:
 Between 2017 and 2018, a total of 134 properties in 14 jurisdictions were tested. In 21 tests (16 percent of total), email responses revealed differential treatment toward the tester with a Black-identified name. In 113 of tests (84 percent of total), no differential treatment was identified.
 Between 2018 and 2019, 129 properties were tested. In 5 properties (4 percent of total), only the white tester received a response. In the remaining 124 phone tests (96 percent of total), there was no differential treatment.
 Between 2019 and 2020, 183 properties in 17 jurisdictions were tested. In 18 tests (10 percent of total), only the white tester received a response. In 165 tests (90 percent of total), there was no differential treatment found.
 Between 2020 and 2021, 207 properties in 17 jurisdictions were tested. In 17 tests (8 percent of total), housing was denied because the tester had a Section 8 voucher. In 190 tests (92 percent of total), the tester was informed that Section 8 was accepted.

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints filed in local jurisdictions. From 2015 to 2019, 256 fair housing complaints in Alameda County were filed with DFEH. Overall, disability-related discrimination comprised the largest proportion of cases (56 percent). The next highest basis for discrimination were race and familial status, comprising nearly eight percent each. Figure 5.1 shows the outcome of fair housing cases that were resolved in Alameda County between 2015 and 2019. Most cases were resolved with counseling services, conciliation, or landlord education, and 25 percent of cases did not have sufficient evidence.

Figure 5.1 Outcome of Complaints Received, 2015-2019
Source: County of Alameda AI, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-9
According to the AI, approximately seven percent of alleged fair housing discrimination cases in Alameda County between 2015 and 2019 occurred in San Leandro. Since San Leandro’s 2019 population represented approximately 5.4 percent of the County’s population, San Leandro had a slightly higher ratio of fair housing discrimination cases relative to its population. Oakland, Hayward, and the City of Alameda had the highest count of alleged fair housing violations in the county, as shown in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2 Location of Alleged Discrimination, 2015-2019 Source: Alameda County AI, 2021
ECHO Housing received 121 fair housing complaints in San Leandro between 2017 and 2021 (an average of approximately 30 complaints per year. ECHO Housing has received 24 complaints in 2022 to date. The most common complaint regarded disability discrimination, which accounted for 40 percent of complaints. The next common complaint regarded race-based discrimination, which accounted for 20.7 percent of complaints. Other frequent areas of fair housing complaints included familial status, national origin, and source of income. Topics of fair housing discrimination that occurred less frequently in San Leandro included marital status, religion, sex, and age. Common methods of resolution included counseling services and education to landlords, although several complaints had insufficient evidence to move forward.

5.5 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability in a specific geographic area. Segregation generally means the opposite condition, in which there is a high concentration of the characteristics described above in a specific geographic area. To adequately assess the patterns City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-10
of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Alameda County) and at the local scale (San Leandro). To identify socio-economic and demographic spatial trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015-2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies. In its AFFH guidance document published in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:

Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, practices, and procedures—both public and private—that have had enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted meaningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the long-standing federal mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), that federal agencies and federal grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA. Past and present discriminatory policies and practices, including long-term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stock, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, high-resourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems—often through lower income communities of color— to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination and high levels of segregation that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50-year-old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing.3

5.5.1 Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a region relates to fair housing concerns such as household size, locational preferences, and economic opportunity. Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lending practices, and other tactics have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities.

Regional Trends
Regionally, the western, urbanized area of Alameda County contains populations with at least 40 percent non-white residents, as demonstrated in the geographic depiction of 2020 Census data shown in Figure 5.3. At the regional level, segregation is measured between cities. The ABAG and UC Merced segregation analysis provides a racial dot map showing the spatial distribution of racial groups in San Leandro as well as in nearby Bay Area cities.

Comparatively, relatively less urbanized and less densely populated areas of Alameda County which contain, or are proximate to, regional wilderness parks and recreation areas contain a higher percentage of white residents.

HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index to measure segregation levels across a defined geographic boundary. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents 3 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-11
perfect integration between racial groups and 100 representing perfect segregation. 4 Racial/ethnic
segregation in Alameda County slightly increased between 2010 and 2017. According to the AI, the cities of Berkeley and Oakland had a racial/ethnic dissimilarity score of 53 and 55 in 2017, respectively, signaling moderate to high levels of African-American/non-Hispanic white segregation.

In March 2022, ABAG and University of California (UC) Merced published a segregation report to compare integration and segregation patterns between jurisdictions in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The report found cities of Alameda and Berkeley had fewer non-white residents compared to the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole, whereas the percent of non-white residents was higher than the Bay Area in the cities of San Leandro, Hayward, Oakland, and Union City.5 Figure 5.3 Population by Race, 2020 Census Data
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 Leandro and vicinity. Dots in each census block are randomly placed and should not be construed as actual placement of people. 4 HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf 5 ABAG and UC Merced, 2022. https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/folder/157817349553 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-12
Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates and the 2020 Census, Asian American residents comprised the largest racial/ethnic group in San Leandro, followed by Hispanic/Latino residents. Table 5.3 shows the population by racial category for San Leandro in 2000, 2010, and 2020, and compares the 2020 population to the composition of the Bay Area region. San Leandro’s current racial composition has a higher percentage of Asian American/Pacific Islander, Black/African American, and Hispanic/Latino races than the Bay Area, and a lower percentage of residents who identified as Other or Multiple Races and non-Hispanic white. Generally, San Leandro’s population became more diverse over the past two decades, without a singular majority racial group, and the city is one of the most diverse in Alameda County.

Table 5.3 Population by Racial Group, San Leandro and the Bay Area San Leandro (Percent of Population)
Bay Area (Percent of
Population)
Race 2000 2010 2020 2020
Asian American/Pacific Islander 22.7 30.0 36.3 28.2
Black/African American 9.6 11.8 10.7 5.6
Hispanic/Latino 20.1 27.4 25.8 24.4
Other or Multiple Races 5.3 3.7 4.8 5.9
White 42.3 27.1 19.6 35.8
Source: IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System. US Census, 2020. Census State Redistricting Data, Table P002.

Figure 5.5 shows the predominance of white, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian American populations in each census tract in the city. The northwestern and central areas of the city had a sizeable or predominant proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents. The northeastern section of the city along Interstate 580 (I-580) contained a predominantly non-Hispanic white population. Asian American residents comprised the largest ethnic group in the southern portion of San Leandro.

Figure 5.6 highlights the percentage of non-white population by block group for San Leandro using 2014-2018 ACS data. Neighborhoods in the northeastern portion of San Leandro had lower percentages of non-white populations compared to other areas of the city, although only one block group in the city contains less than 20 percent non-white population.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-13
Figure 5.4 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-14
Figure 5.5 Predominant Populations (San Leandro)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-15
Figure 5.6 Percent of Total Non-White Population (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-16
The ABAG and UC Merced segregation analysis utilized the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index to measure segregation levels across neighborhoods in San Leandro. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from 0-1, where 0 represents perfect integration between racial groups and 1 representing perfect segregation.6 In 2020, the highest levels of segregations were between Asian/Pacific Islander and non-Hispanic residents, as shown in Figure 5.5. Overall, segregation between People of Color (defined as residents who are not non-Hispanic white) and non-Hispanic white residents has slightly increased since 2010.

Table 5.4 Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation (San Leandro) Race/Ethnicity 2000 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander vs. non-Hispanic white 0.230 0.237 0.265 Black/African American vs. non-Hispanic white 0.243 0.239 0.247 Hispanic/Latino vs. non-Hispanic white 0.184 0.199 0.199 People of Color vs. non-Hispanic white 0.150 0.161 0.178 Notes: People of Color refers to all who are not non-Hispanic white including people who identify as “some other race” or two or more races”
Source: UC Merced and Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022 ABAG and UC Merced’s 2022 racial isolation index compares each neighborhood’s racial/ethnic composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole. The racial/ethnic isolation index ranges from 0 to 1, where high values indicate that a particular racial/ethnic group is more isolated from other groups.7 Asian/Pacific Islander residents were the most isolated group in San Leandro, meaning that the average Asian/Pacific Islander resident lives in a neighborhood that is 40 percent Asian/Pacific Islander.
8 Table 5.4 indicates that the Asian/Pacific Islander/non-Hispanic white dissimilarity index for San Leandro is 0.265, so 26.5 percent of Asian/Pacific Islander or non-Hispanic white residents would need to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect integration between Asian/Pacific Islander and non-Hispanic white residents. In contrast, other racial groups in San Leandro were less isolated and more likely to encounter other racial/ethnic groups in their neighborhoods. Since 2010, non-Hispanic white residents have become less segregated overtime compared to other racial groups in San Leandro. An overview of racial isolation index values by race/ethnicity is provided in Table 5.5.

Table 5.5 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation (San Leandro) Race/Ethnicity 2000 2010 2020
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.279 0.343 0.408
Black/African-American 0.124 0.148 0.135
Hispanic/Latino 0.221 0.294 0.305
Non-Hispanic white 0.442 0.296 0.226
Source: UC Merced and Association of Bay Area Governments, 2022. 6 ABAG and UC Merced, 2022. https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/folder/157817349553 7 ABAG and UC Merced, 2022. https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/folder/157817349553 8 ABAG and UC Merced, 2022. https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/folder/157817349553 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-17
HUD’s Opportunity Indices were created to inform communities about racial/ethnic segregation and disparities in access to opportunity.
9 Table 5.6 provides opportunity indicator index scores (ranging from 0-100) for San Leandro for each race/ethnicity, as described by the AI. Measured at the neighborhood level, the index scores are intended to inform communities about segregation and disparities in access to opportunity in their jurisdiction and compare the opportunity indicators rankings across racial/ethnic groups.10 Generally, higher index scores are indicative of greater access to opportunity. For example, the “low poverty index” captures the poverty rate within a given neighborhood; the higher the index score means the less exposure to poverty. A higher “jobs proximity” score means that residents have greater accessibility to employment locations within the larger region.11 Each index is measured using the following variables:
 Low Poverty: poverty rate by census tract.
 School Proficiency: the percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group.
 Jobs Proximity: the distance to all job locations from a given block group.  Labor Market Participation: the level of intensity of labor market engagement based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment by census tract.  Low Transportation Cost: estimates of transportation costs of a family of three with an income at 50 percent of the median income for renters by census tract.  Public Transit Usage: estimates of transit trips taken by a family of three with an income at 50 percent of the median income for renters by census tract.  Environmental Health: the potential exposure to harmful toxins by census tract based upon US Environmental Protection Agency estimates.

In San Leandro, non-Hispanic white residents had greater accessibility to areas with fewer environmental health concerns, higher labor market participation, lower poverty rates, and lower access to public transit.. In comparison, Black/African-American and Hispanic/Latino populations had greater access to public transit, lower transportation costs, and closer to employment centers, but had lower levels of school proficiency and greater exposure to environmental health concerns.

Asian/Pacific Islander residents scored highest among residents in school proficiency and access to public transit, had the lowest access to the labor market, low-cost transportation, and jobs proximity, and had the greatest exposure to environmental health concerns. Most opportunity scores were lower for residents earning an income below the federal poverty level compared to the total population in San Leandro. Residents who earned an income below the poverty level in San Leandro had lower labor market participation, lower levels of school proficiency, and greater exposure to environmental health concerns and higher poverty rates.

An overview of opportunity indicators for Consortium Cities is provided in Table 5.7. According to the AI, Consortium Cities refers to Entitlement Cities (Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro and Union City) and Urban County communities (Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, Piedmont, and Unincorporated Alameda County) in Alameda County. The AI defines Consortium Cities and Urban County Communities to compare demographic and 9 HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf 10 Alameda County, 2019. https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/documents/FinalAI_Combined_1-10-19.pdf 11 Urban Institute, 2018. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98674/place_and_opportunity_brief_3.pdf City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-18
Table 5.6 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (San Leandro) Total Population Low Poverty Index
School
Proficiency Index
Labor
Market Index Transit Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity Index
Environmental
Health Index
White, NonHispanic

64.95 27.34 54.31 86.10 83.11 47.75 16.69
Black, NonHispanic

58.35 23.62 53.65 88.10 86.09 54.83 14.97
Hispanic 60.66 24.96 51.21 86.74 84.30 50.87 14.44
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

63.73 28.69 50.17 86.55 82.67 45.94 13.65
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

62.03 23.50 54.26 87.02 84.43 52.99 15.28
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, NonHispanic

63.61 24.99 53.91 85.17 83.71 51.62 16.68
Black, NonHispanic

47.55 23.17 49.37 89.57 89.28 66.90 11.96
Hispanic 49.40 24.17 47.03 88.07 85.62 51.91 11.86
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

59.48 26.66 42.47 85.22 82.65 50.03 11.76
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

48.71 28.44 46.93 86.50 85.17 50.86 13.71
Source: County of Alameda AI, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-19
Table 5.7 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Alameda County HOME Consortium Cities) Total Population Low Poverty Index
School
Proficiency Index
Labor
Market Index Transit Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity Index
Environmental
Health Index
White, NonHispanic

74.10 63.31 69.18 84.18 78.19 44.75 43.41
Black, NonHispanic

58.99 40.26 50.63 86.80 83.10 48.23 32.95
Hispanic 60.13 39.58 50.39 86.92 81.95 42.57 33.93
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

73.39 60.03 68.09 85.67 79.17 43.95 38.37
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

64.76 50.18 56.54 85.94 81.39 45.45 37.11
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, NonHispanic

65.76 55.16 62.13 86.65 80.71 43.00 38.06
Black, NonHispanic

48.63 35.79 46.06 89.08 85.77 45.80 29.24
Hispanic 47.30 32.12 43.07 88.78 84.39 40.84 32.46
Asian or Pacific
Islander, NonHispanic

63.27 51.04 61.69 87.98 83.51 46.55 31.52
Native American,
Non-Hispanic

41.65 34.75 39.50 88.59 84.96 40.19 29.07
Note: HOME Consortium cities include: the City of Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City and the Urban County communities of Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, Piedmont, and Unincorporated Alameda County
Source: County of Alameda AI, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-20
socioeconomic patterns across incorporated and unincorporated communities of Alameda County.

Compared to other HOME Consortium jurisdictions, San Leandro scored slightly higher for jobs proximity, low transportation cost, and access to public transit, but had higher poverty rates, lower school proficiency, less labor market participation, and greater environmental health concerns.

Across racial groups, opportunity indicator trends in San Leandro were similar to other HOME consortium cities. Across Home Consortium Cities, residents earning an income below the poverty level scored slightly lower for environmental health, labor market, school proficiency, low poverty opportunity scores, compared to the total population. Further discussion of race/ethnic composition in San Leandro is provided in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment.

5.5.2 Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity include access to accessible housing and housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s needs as required under federal civil rights law, including equitably provided disability-related services that an individual needs to live in such housing. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice if there are not sufficient housing units with these accessibility features.12
High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.13 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.

Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, 151,362 Alameda County residents had one or more disabilities. Figure 5.8 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities throughout Alameda County. The northwestern area of the county and the urban centers of cities, particularly in the City of Oakland, had higher concentrations of persons living with one or more disabilities than other areas of the county. Additional discussion regarding persons with disabilities in Alameda County is included in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment.

Local Trends
As referenced in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment, 8,880 residents (nearly 10 percent) of San Leandro’s population live with one or more disability. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates shown in Figure 5.7, ambulatory difficulty was the most common disability reported by San Leandro residents.
12 HCD, 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 13 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-21
Figure 5.7 Disability by Type (San Leandro)
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
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.

Figure 5.9 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract, using 2015-2019 ACS data. Generally, neighborhoods located along Wicks Boulevard, the intersection of David Street and East 14th Street, and west of Bancroft Drive are areas where between 10 to 20 percent of residents reported living with one or more disability. The largest concentration of residents who reported living with one or more disabilities (between 20 and 30 percent) was in census tract 4331.04, located south of Downtown San Leandro and north of 139th Avenue, between East 14th Street and San Leandro Boulevard. This neighborhood of San Leandro is predominately multi-family residential in the central and eastern areas, compared to the western area which is zoned for a range of industrial and commercial uses. There are four affordable housing developments in this census tract that provide a combined total of 158 affordable units for seniors and persons with disabilities.

5.52%

4.44%

3.40%

2.62% 2.49%

1.84%

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
With a
cognitive
difficulty
With a selfcare difficultyWith a hearing
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
Proportion of Adult Population Reporting Disability
Type
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-22
Figure 5.8 Percent of Population with a Disability (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-23
Figure 5.9 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-24

5.5.3 Familial Status
Familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 and the martial status of the head of the household. Families with children may face housing discrimination by landlords who fear that children will cause property damage. Examples of differential treatment include limiting the number of children in an apartment complex or confining households with children to a specific location are potentially discriminatory. Single parent households are protected by fair housing law.

A 2016 HUD study studied the effects of housing discrimination based on familial status. The study found that landlords presented households with children fewer housing options, and the units shown were generally larger, and as a result, slightly more expensive to rent.14 Additionally, femaleheaded households with children require special consideration and assistance because of generally greater needs for affordable housing and accessible day care, health care, and other supportive services.

Regional Trends
Alameda County had 577,177 households in 2019. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children present comprise 30 percent (174,344) of the total households in Alameda County. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in Table 5.8. Married couple families with children comprise the largest share of owner- and renter-occupied households with children. Single-parent, female-headed households comprised approximately eight percent of renter-occupied households, but only two percent of owner-occupied households.

Table 5.8 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Alameda County) Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Percent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Married Couple Family, with
Children Present
82,499 25.7% 52,436 19.5%
Single-Parent, Male Householder,
no Spouse Present
4,143 1.3% 6,503 2.4%
Single Parent, Female
Householder, No Spouse Present
6,871 2.2% 21,892 8.1%
Total Households with Children
Present
93,513 30.2% 80,831 30.1%
Total Households 308,891 100% 268,286 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure by Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Figure 5.10 shows an extreme disparity in the county between areas based on the estimated percentage of children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households. According to 2015- 2019 ACS estimates, jurisdictions located in the western areas of the county, such as the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, had relatively higher proportions of children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households. In contrast, the southern and eastern areas of the county, including the cities of Union City, Fremont, Pleasanton, and Dublin, had less than 20 percent of children residing in this type of household. 14 HUD. 2016. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sites/default/files/pdf/HDSFamiliesFinalReport.pdf.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-25
Figure 5.11 shows the percentage of children under the age of 18 who reside with married couples.

Spatially, the eastern portion of the county had a greater proportion of children that reside in households with married couples. Jurisdictions located in the western area of the county, including the cities of Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward had a relatively lower proportion of children that are residing in married-couple household.

Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, households with children present comprised 27 percent of the total number of households in San Leandro, which was slightly lower than the county. An overview of household tenure by type for households with children present is provided in Table 5.9.

Similar to regional trends, married-couple families in San Leandro comprised the largest share of households with children present, and married-couple families were more likely to own than rent. In Contrast, single-parent households were more likely to rent rather than own housing. single-parent, female-headed households comprised 11 percent of renter-occupied households and only one percent of owner-occupied households. The homeownership rate for single-family, female-headed households is lower in San Leandro (1.6 percent) than the county (2.2 percent).

Table 5.9 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (San Leandro) Household Type Owner-Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
Percent of Total
Renter-Occupied
Married couple family, with
Children Present
3,550 20.2% 2,398 17.2%
Single-Parent, Male householder,
no spouse present
251 1.4% 455 3.2%
Single-Parent, Female
householder, no spouse present
287 1.6% 1,589 11.4%
Total Households with Children
Present
3,988 22.7% 4,442 32.0%
Total Households 17,562 100% 13,872 100%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25115 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2015-2019 Estimates.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-26
Figure 5.10 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-27
Figure 5.11 Children in Married-Couple Households (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-28
Figure 5.12 shows the percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households in San Leandro, which ranges from less than 20 percent to less than 40 percent. Neighborhoods east of Interstate 880 (I-880) had a higher percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households. However, none of the neighborhoods in San Leandro had an extremely high percentage of this type of familial status compared to other cities such as Oakland. Neighborhoods in and near Downtown San Leandro (census tracts 4325.01 and 4326.00) had a larger share of single-parent, female-headed households. According to 2015-2019 estimates, these neighborhoods had a sizeable or predominant Hispanic/Latino population, as shown in Figure 5.13.

Figure 5.14 shows the percentage of children in married-couple households across San Leandro.

Most census tracts in the city had between 60 and 80 percent of children living in married-couple households, according to 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Three census tracts exhibited lower percentages of children residing in married-couple households. Neighborhoods in the northern area of San Leandro (census tracts 4323.00, 4322.00, 4321.00) with the highest rates of children residing in married-couple households were also identified as having a larger share of non-Hispanic white and Hispanic/Latino populations. Neighborhoods with lower rates of children residing in marriedcouple households (census tracts 4324.00, 4336.00, 4331.00, and 4331.04) were in predominately Hispanic/Latino census tracts as shown in Figure 5.15. Furthermore, neighborhoods that had lower rates of children in married-couple households were more likely to contain multi-family residential, industrial, and commercial land uses when compared to neighborhoods with high rates of children in married-couple households.

5.5.4 Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in lowincome households must have actual choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low or moderate income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines a LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. The definition of low or moderate income is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the AMI. Data for this analysis are from the HUD Low and Moderate Income Summary Data based on the 2011-2015 American Community Survey (most recent available data).15
15 HUD Exchange 2021: https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/acs-low-mod-summary-data/ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-29
Figure 5.12 Female-Headed Households with Children Present, No Spouse/Partner Present (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-30
Figure 5.13 Children in Single-Parent Female-Headed Households and Predominant Hispanic Population (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-31
Figure 5.14 Children in Married-Couple Households (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-32
Figure 5.15 Children in Married-Couple Households and Predominant Hispanic/Latino Population (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-33
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, Alameda County had a median household income of $99,406. Figure 5.16 displays median household income by block group for Alameda County using 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Median household income tends to be lower in communities located in the northwest area of Alameda County. Generally, households in the urban core of cities had a lower income than rural or suburban areas. Communities with the lowest median household incomes are highly concentrated in the City of Oakland and scattered throughout the cities of Berkeley, San Leandro, and the unincorporated community of San Lorenzo.

LMI populations by census tract for Alameda County are displayed in Figure 5.17. Census tracts within Cities of Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland, and Berkeley contain the highest LMI populations in Alameda County. Spatially, LMI populations are in communities that had a relatively greater percentage of children living in single-parent, female-headed households (Figure 5.10) and a greater percentage of non-white population (Figure 5.12).

Local Trends
Geographically, median household income varies across block groups throughout San Leandro.

According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, San Leandro had an estimated median household income of $78,003, that is 24 percent lower than the median income for Alameda County. Figure 5.18 provides an overview of median household income by block group in the city (data is missing for one block group near the Marina on the western side of the city). The lowest median household income areas are in the northwestern portion of the city, generally near the neighborhoods of Eastshore, Davis West, and Downtown San Leandro. In contrast, the Broadmoor, Estudillo Estates, Washington Manor, and Heron Bay-Marina Vista neighborhoods in the northeastern and southern areas of San Leandro had higher median household incomes. One neighborhood in northeastern San Leandro had a median household income that was 120 percent of the AMI, which also had a sizeable nonHispanic white population, as shown in Figure 5.19.

According to the ABAG and UC Merced segregation analysis, low-, moderate- and above-moderate income residents have become less segregated in San Leandro between 2010 and 2015, while very low-income residents experienced increased segregation during this time.16 Across all income groups, above-moderate income residents were the most isolated income group in San Leandro.

LMI populations in San Leandro were concentrated in the northwestern and central areas of the city, as shown in Figure 5.20. Downtown San Leandro, Davis West, Eastshore, and Mulford Gardens neighborhoods had a higher percentage of LMI populations (between 50 and 75 percent of the population). In contrast, Washington Manor, Floresta Gardens, and Halcyon Foothill neighborhoods had a lower percentage of LMI populations (between 25 and 50 percent of the population).

Neighborhoods located east of Bancroft Avenue toward the northeastern corner of San Leandro had the lowest rate of LMI populations the city. Neighborhoods with higher rates of LMI populations tend to overlap with areas of the city that were predominantly Hispanic/Latino or Asian American populations, as shown in Figure 5.21.
16 ABAG and UC Merced, 2022. https://mtcdrive.app.box.com/s/d0kki6p26idiq81h5vxgqf77a5hsisdw/folder/157817349553 City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-34
Figure 5.16 Median Household Income (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-35
Figure 5.17 Low and Moderate Income Population (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-36
Figure 5.18 Median Household Income (San Leandro)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-37
Figure 5.19 Median Household Income and predominant Racial/Ethnic Population (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-38
Figure 5.20 Low to Moderate Income Population (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-39
Figure 5.21 Low to Moderate Income Populations and Predominant Race/Ethnicity Populations (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-40
Table 5.10 displays income level for large households (households of five or more persons).

According to the 2013-2017 CHAS, almost 60 percent of large households earned an income less than the area median income (29 percent of large households earned a household income below 50 percent of the AMI, and another 30 percent earned between 51 and 100 percent of the AMI).

Comparatively, 40 percent of large households earned an income considered to be above moderate, or greater than the AMI. However, the income distribution of large households generally aligned with that of other household types.

Table 5.10 Household Size by Household Income (San Leandro) Income Level Large Households (5+ Persons) All Other Household Types 0%-30% of AMI 470
(14%)
4,544
(16%)
31%-50% of AMI 505
(15%)
4,899
(17%)
51%-80% of AMI 500
(15%)
4,015
(14%)
81%-100% of AMI 505
(15%)
3,015
(11%)
Greater than 100% of AMI 1,295
(40%)
12,084
(42%)
Total 3,275
(100%)
28,557
(100%)
Notes: Income levels are based on HUD’s AMI calculations for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area. The 2017 AMI for the San Francisco Metropolitan Area is $115,300.

Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release.

5.5.5 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), HUD developed thresholds based on racial and ethnic concentration and income level. The threshold for racial and ethnic concentration is a non-white population of 50 percent or more in metropolitan or micropolitan areas. The income threshold is based on areas of “extreme poverty,” where 40 percent or more of households earn incomes at or below the federal poverty line, or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets both thresholds for racial or ethnic concentration and “extreme poverty” is considered a R/ECAP.

5.5.6 Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
In Alameda County, the only R/ECAPs present are a few neighborhoods west and South of downtown Oakland, as shown with hash marks in Figure 5.22.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-41
Figure 5.22 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-42
Local Trends
While R/ECAPs were not identified within San Leandro, there are areas where lower household income and racial and ethnic concentration overlap. Figure 5.23 displays areas of San Leandro where between 10 and 20 percent of the population earned an income that was below the poverty line, according to 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Poverty rates in San Leandro have shifted slightly over time. The 2010-2014 ACS estimates reported higher levels of poverty status in neighborhoods near Downtown San Leandro compared to 2015-2019 ACS estimates.

Racial and ethnic neighborhood segregation analysis is provided in Figure 5.24. According to Urban Displacement Project data, the predominant racial/ethnic composition of most neighborhoods in San Leandro was a three-group neighborhood mix consisting of Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and non-Hispanic white, or a four-group neighborhood mix consisting of Black/African American, Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and non-Hispanic white. Additionally, neighborhoods located toward the southwestern area of the city had a two-group mix neighborhood composition of AsianAmerican/Non-Hispanic white.

5.5.7 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. RCAAs are defined as affluent, white communities.17 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been adopted by HCD or HUD.

Therefore, this assessment uses the percent white population and median household income as thresholds to identify potential RCAAs. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to LMI areas, as described in Section 4.4, Household Income.

Regional Trends
Figure 5.25 highlights the predominantly white census tracts in Alameda County, which are concentrated in the northern and eastern areas such as the City of Berkeley, the eastern portion of the City of Oakland, and non-urbanized areas. Generally, cities with higher median incomes such as the City of Alameda and Dublin had relatively larger concentrations of white residents compared to jurisdictions with lower median incomes such as the City of Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward.

Local Trends
Similar to trends occurring in Alameda County, areas with higher median incomes are associated with a larger proportion of white residents compared to census tracts with lower median incomes.

Neighborhoods in the northeast corner of San Leandro had a predominately white population and the highest median income levels in the city, as shown in Figure 5.26. 17 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-43
Figure 5.23 Poverty Status (San Leandro)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-44
Figure 5.24 Neighborhood Segregation (San Leandro)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-45
Figure 5.25 Predominant White Population (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-46
Figure 5.26 Predominant Populations and Median Household Income (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-47

5.6 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
According to HCD guidance, land use policies and urban planning impact the ability of residents to access neighborhoods of opportunity, with high-performing schools, greater availability of jobs that afford entry to the middle class, and convenient access to transit and services. The limits on housing choice and access experienced by people within protected classes, such as race, sexual orientation, or disability, have far-reaching impacts on access to job opportunity, quality education, and mental and physical health.18 This section analyzes the following place-based characteristics linked to opportunity indicators: quality education, employment, transportation, and healthy environment.

The primary objective is to understand the disparity between communities in terms of access to real and potential economic benefits and quality of life.

5.6.1 Transit Access and Walkability
Reliable public transit access and active transportation options such as walking and biking are imperative for low-income residents and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities. Lack of transportation options can impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low-income communities in accessing housing and employment opportunities.

Regional Trends
Alameda County generally has widespread access to public transit. Accessible transportation infrastructure includes Alameda Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), Amtrak, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART). AC Transit provides a variety of bus services as well as East Bay Bus Rapid Transit “Tempo” line along an approximately 18-mile arterial corridor connecting the cities of Oakland and San Leandro. Amtrack rail service has stations in Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, and Berkeley on the Capital Corridor line that extends north and south along I-880 and that connects Sacramento to San Jose.

Transit use is higher in parts of the region where the greatest investment in transit service has been made. Almost all major employment centers in Alameda County are served by some form of public transit. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment. Some residents with unique needs, such as households with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home due to childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations.

Alameda County received an average AllTransit performance score of 7.1 which equates to a very high combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible by transit. 19 Local Trends
The City of San Leandro is widely accessible through local transit connections. According to AllTransit, 13.27 percent of workers in San Leandro take public transportation to work. The city has an AllTransit Performance Score of 7.7, higher than county as a whole. There are 11 total AC Transit routes available to San Leandro residents that offer local neighborhood service, early bird, allnighter, and Transbay lines. 18 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 19 AllTransit.Org, 2021. https://alltransit.cnt.org/ City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-48
Figure 5.27 illustrates transit access within a quarter-mile of transit stops for both bus routes and BART. Most of the city is within a quarter-mile access of a transit stop except for the Bay-O-Vista neighborhood on the eastern edge of the city. I-580 acts as a barrier to access to transit in this neighborhood. The San Leandro BART station located in Downtown San Leandro provides public transit lines connecting residents to other jurisdictions. The City is working with AC Transit on service improvements along East 14th Street, including the Tempo Line 1T line from uptown Oakland to the San Leandro BART station, which will increase transit access from Downtown. The Tempo Line 1T project was completed in June 2021 and delivered a range of infrastructure improvements to San Leandro including additional bike lanes and enhancements to existing infrastructure that improve mobility and safety for pedestrians and persons with disabilities.20 The Amtrack Capital Corridor runs through San Leandro but does not have a transit stop in the city.

San Leandro, like most urban areas of the Bay Area, has neighborhoods with moderate to high walkability. Walk Score is a private company that offers a walkability index on its website, that measures the pedestrian friendliness of a given location by analyzing walking routes to nearby amenities and examining population density and road metrics, including block length and intersection density.21 According to Walk Score, San Leandro has a walk score of 63 out of 100, which is categorized as “Somewhat Walkable.”22 Downtown San Leandro has a Walk Score of 87, which is categorized as “Very Walkable.”
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has a walkability index, that ranks block groups according to their relative walkability.23 The EPA walkability map, shown in Figure 5.28, shows that most of the city has a walkability score above that national average. The highest walkability scores are in Downtown toward the northern area of the city, and in the Washington Manor neighborhood in the southern area. Neighborhoods located in the southern areas of San Leandro had lower walkability scores compared to the rest of the city.
20 AC Transit, 2021. https://www.actransit.org/tempo/project 21 Walk Score, 2021. https://www.walkscore.com/methodology.shtml 22 Walk Score, 2021. https://www.walkscore.com/CA/San_Leandro 23 EPA, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/national-walkability-index-user-guide-and-methodology Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-49
Figure 5.27 Access to Transit Within a Quarter-Mile (San Leandro) Source: City of San Leandro and AC Transit, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-50
Figure 5.28 Walkability Index (San Leandro)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2021.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-51

5.6.2 Access to Quality Education
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.24 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses TCAC education domain scores, which incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.

Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Alameda County is illustrated in Figure 5.29. Educational outcomes varied across Alameda County, as jurisdiction in the western portion of the county, including Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, generally had less positive education outcomes compared with the cities in the eastern portion of the county such as Dublin, Pleasanton, and parts of western Livermore. According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, Alameda County, high school graduation rates were highest among Asian-American students (95 percent) and non-Hispanic white students (91 percent).

Comparatively, Black/African-American students (80 percent) and Hispanic/Latino students (81 percent) had lower graduation rates.

Local Trends
San Leandro’s youth are served by the San Leandro Unified School District (San Leandro USD) and San Lorenzo Unified School District (San Lorenzo USD). San Leandro USD provides students with programs that include transitional kindergarten through 5th grade elementary schools, two middle schools, one comprehensive high school, one alternative education high school, and one adult school.25 San Lorenzo USD serves portions of San Leandro. San Lorenzo USD’s Corvallis Elementary and Dayton Elementary are in the City of San Leandro, and Hillside Elementary serves a portion of eastern San Leandro. Figure 5.30 shows San Leandro’s TCAC scores for education outcomes at the census tract level. As discussed, San Leandro has less positive education outcomes than other areas of the county, and no portion of the city has an outcome score considered to be good or excellent.

The southeastern and northern portions of the city had the lowest degree of positive education outcomes. One area located east of the I-880 and north of Davis Street (census tracts 4325.02) had a high percentage of LMI populations in addition to low education scores. 24 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport 25 San Leandro Unified School District https://www.slusd.us/slusd/ City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-52
Figure 5.29 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-53
Figure 5.30 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Outcomes (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-54

5.6.3 Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract. They consider poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity. 26 The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
Economic outcomes vary across Alameda County as shown in Figure 5.31. Areas with more positive economic outcome scores were identified in the northern, central, and southern portions of the county and near Berkeley, Dublin, Pleasanton, and Fremont, with some smaller areas around the cities of Alameda and Livermore. Conversely, the cities of Oakland, Hayward, and San Leandro had large concentrations of less positive economic outcomes.

According to ACS estimates, Alameda County had a labor force participation rate of 64 percent of person 16 years and over, which is approximately 2 percent lower than the labor force participation rate for the county in 2014. Table 5.11 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Alameda County for ACS 2010-2014 and 2015-2019. Overall, the percent of employed residents age 16 and older grew by nearly 5 percent. The portion of residents employed with a disability remained the same (3 percent), but the portion of unemployed residents with a disability increased from 7 to 9 percent.

Table 5.11 Employment Status by Disability Status (Alameda County) Disability Status
Employed
2010-2014
Unemployed
2010 -2014
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015-2019
No Disability 692,695
(97%)
69,499
(93%)
787,286
(97%)
35,569
(91%)
With a Disability 23,385
(3%)
5,570
(7%)
27,804
(3%)
3,665
(9%)
Total 716,080
(90.5%)
75,069
(9.5%)
815,090
(95.4%)
39,234
(4.6%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010- 2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

Local Trends
The TCAC opportunity maps help to identify patterns of negative and positive economic, educational and environmental outcomes across the state. Census tracts are ranked from low (negative outcomes) to highest resource (positive outcomes) based on TCAC’s Opportunity Maps analysis.

TCAC economic outcome scores vary across neighborhoods in San Leandro, as shown in Figure 5.32. 26 MTC, 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-55
Figure 5.31 TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021.

City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-56
Figure 5.32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-57
Generally, lower economic outcomes were in the northern part of the city near the Davis West, Eastshore, and Downtown neighborhoods, and in the southern areas of the city around the Floresta Gardens and Halcyon Foothill neighborhoods. Areas of more positive economic outcomes were in the northeastern and southwestern portions of San Leandro and in the Bay-o-Vista neighborhood.

Generally, areas with lower economic outcome scores were in neighborhoods with a majority Hispanic/Latino or Asian-American population, whereas areas with higher economic outcomes such as the Bay-o-Vista neighborhood had a predominately non-Hispanic white population.

Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table 5.12. The labor participation rate of residents age 16 and older grew by 5 percent, the same increase as the county. Although the portion of residents with a disability increased among the unemployed in the county, this increase did not occur in San Leandro.

Table 5.12 Employment Status by Disability Status (San Leandro) Disability Status
Employed
2010-2014 (percent of
total employed)
Unemployed
2010-2014
(percent of total
unemployed)
Employed
2015-2019
(percent of total
employed)
Unemployed
2015-2019
(percent of total
unemployed)
No Disability 40,271
(97%)
4,024
(93%)
42,836
(96%)
2,285
(93%)
With a Disability 1,168
(3%)
301
(7%)
1,848
(4%)
175
(7%)
Total 41,439
(90.5%)
4,325
(9.5%)
44,684
(95.0%)
2,460
(0.5%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010- 2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.

San Leandro had a large concentration of EPCs in the central area of the city. According to MTC, the EPCs shown in Figure 5.33 have historically faced economic disadvantage and underinvestment. 27 In
San Leandro, households in EPC-designated areas overlapped with communities that were predominately Asian American or Hispanic/Latino. To identify EPCs, census tracts were evaluated to determine if they contain concentrations of the following demographic factors:
28  Non-white population
 Low income households (less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level)  Limited English Proficiency (LEP)
 Zero-vehicle households
 Seniors age 75 and over
 Single-parent families
 Severely rent-burdened households
According to TCAC, census tracts with a designation of High Resource would indicate that the census tract has strong educational and economic opportunities, meaning opportunity for current and future residents. San Leandro does not have any High Resource census tracts. A large concentration of neighborhoods in the central area of San Leandro were categorized as low resource, while 27 MTC, 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities 28 Bay Area Metro, 2021. https://bayareametro.github.io/Spatial-Analysis-Mapping-Projects/Project-Documentation/Equity-PriorityCommunities/#methodology City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-58
neighborhoods in the southwest and northwest areas of the city were categorized as moderate resource. Approximately 74 percent of San Leandro residents lived in areas of low resource or high segregation and poverty and 26 percent residents lived in moderate resource areas, as shown in Table 5.13. The greatest fluctuations were from Non-white residents, who lived in moderate resource areas at a higher degree compared to other racial/ethnic groups; Hispanic/Latino residents lived in moderate resource areas at a lower degree compared to other racial/ethnic groups.

Access to employment opportunities has a significant impact on the type and size of housing a household can afford. HUD’s Jobs Proximity Index utilizes origin-destination employment statistics to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations in the San Francisco Bay Area and assess the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the San Francisco Bay Area, the distance from any single job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location.29 Accessibility to employment opportunities differs across San Leandro, as shown in Figure 5.34.

Neighborhoods with the highest access to employment opportunity are concentrated in the northwestern area of the city, which is predominantly zoned for industrial land uses and near the Oakland International Airport. Generally, accessibility to jobs decreases relative to the distance from that area, with the lowest scores in the southern and eastern areas of the city. Neighborhoods with the lowest job proximity scores had a greater share of single-family residential land and fewer industrial uses compared to areas with greater access to employment. Although it may appear counter-intuitive, neighborhoods with highest proximity to jobs, such as the northwestern area of the city, had the lowest TCAC economic outcome scores and higher rates of LMI populations compared to other areas of the city with lower proximity to jobs. Despite being in close proximity to employment, residents in the northwestern area of San Leandro may not benefit from high proximity to job centers, as this area has low TCAC economic outcome scores and a high share of LMI populations.

5.6.4 Healthy and Safe Housing Environment
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. An assessment of environmentally healthy neighborhoods can include air and water quality, safety, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws—Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000 emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that people have equal access to safe and healthy housing. HUD requires all entitlement jurisdictions to conduct reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act to determine if a proposed project creates adverse impacts due to environmental conditions. It furthers the requirement that human health deserves equal protection for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Under Executive Order 12898, Federally assisted projects may also target funding to communities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts on minority and low-income populations due to environmental conditions.30 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that uses spatial data collected by various regulatory agencies (e.g., air quality indicators from Bay Area Air Quality Management District, water quality indicators from East Bay Municipal Utilities District, monitored chemical releases into the air or water table from 29HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf 30 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-59
Figure 5.33 Equity Priority Communities (San Leandro)
Source: MTC Equity Priority Communities Project, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-60
Table 5.13 Population Living in Low, Moderate, or High Resource Area by Race (San Leandro) Resource Category
American
Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
American/API
Black/AfricanAmerican Non-Hispanic
White Hispanic/Latino
Other Race
or Multiple Race Total
Low Resource or High
Segregation and Poverty Area
(Percent of race/ethnic
group)
286 (72%) 23,483
(74%)
6,604 (73%) 13,451
(65%)
19,877 (82%) 2,462 (70%) 66,163
(74%)
Moderate Resource Area
(Percent of race/ethnic
group)
109 (28%) 8,333 (26%) 2,501 (27%) 7,267 (35%) 4,527 (18%) 1,046 (30%) 23,783 (26%)
High/Highest Resource Area N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Totals
(Percent of total population)
395
(<1%)
31,816
(35%)
9,105
(10%)
20,718
(23%)
24,404
(27%)
3,508
(4%)
89,946
(100%)
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-61
Figure 5.34 Job Proximity Index
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-62
Environmental Protection Agency, HUD socio-economic indicators, etc.). The dataset uses a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by exposures to pollution, environmental effects of existing pollutants in communities, among other indicators of sensitive populations or socioeconomic factors. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores as compared to other California census tracts (shown as percentiles) are disproportionately burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.

Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Alameda County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure 5.35 shows that generally, the more industrialized, western portions of the county have less positive environmental outcomes, most notably near the Oakland International Airport northwest of San Leandro and the corridor along I-880 south of downtown Oakland.

Local Trends
As shown in Figure 5.36, pollution burden varies across San Leandro communities. The northern portion of the city, including Downtown, Estudillo Estates and Bay-O-Vista neighborhoods, has more positive environmental outcomes than areas south and west of Downtown, which are closer to the I-880 freeway, the airport, and industrial areas. Areas close to the I-880 freeway and the airport such as the Eastshore, Davis West and Mulford Gardens Neighborhoods had a high pollution burden for diesel particulate matter, ozone, and traffic. Areas with the worst environmental outcomes were areas that had a predominant Hispanic/Latino or Asian-American population, as shown in Figure 5.36.

According to TCAC, environmental outcome scores vary across the city. Figure 5.37 shows that higher environmental health scores are concentrated in the western part of the city. Areas of lower environmental scores in the northwest of the city have majority non-Hispanic white population; lower environmental scores in the southern area of San Leandro are predominately Asian-American neighborhoods. Conversely, the northwestern area of the city has second to worst percentile i.e.:
“less positive” environmental outcome scores, according to CalEnviroScreen 4.0 consolidated findings (Figure 5.36).

5.7 Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in San Leandro, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions. Information for this section relies on the HUD CHAS data.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-63
Figure 5.35 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-64
Figure 5.36 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-65
Figure 5.37 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-66

5.7.1 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered “cost burdened,” and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.” The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems.

Regional Trends
Figure 5.38 shows areas of Alameda County where renter households experienced housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs). As shown, paying more than 30 percent of gross income on rent is widespread across most of Alameda County, especially in the western portion of the county closest to the I-880 corridor and in the southern portion of the county south of Pleasanton. Similarly, housing cost burden among homeowners was most prevalent across the western area of the county, especially within the City of Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, and Union City. An overview of homeowner housing cost burden is provided in Figure 5.39.

Local Trends
The following analysis describes geographic housing cost burden disparities by households that rent and those that own their homes. Housing cost burden among renters varied across San Leandro. As Shown in Figure 5.40, most of the city had between 40 and 60 percent of renters experiencing housing cost burden, according to 2015-2019 ACS estimates. There were between 60 and 80 percent of renters in four areas of the city (Census tracts 4325.01, 4331.04, 4327.00, and a small portion of 4338—a census tract that is split with the other portion in unincorporated Alameda County) who experienced housing cost burden, reflecting the highest rate of housing cost burden in San Leandro. These areas are mainly west, south, and east of Downtown.

An overview of housing cost burden for owner-occupied households is provided in Figure 5.41. In contrast to renters, all Census tracts in the city contain 20-60 percent of owner-occupied households as being cost burdened, and no census tracts contain more than 60 percent of owneroccupied households as being cost burdened. Housing cost burden among owner-occupied households was more prevalent throughout the western and northern areas of San Leandro, according to 2015-2019 ACS estimates. Between 40 and 60 percent of owner-occupied households in neighborhoods including Downtown, Davis West, Mulford Gardens, Marina Faire, and Washington Manor experienced housing cost burden compared to less than 20 percent of households in the central and eastern areas of the city. Generally, areas with higher rates of overpayment by homeowners were identified as areas with majority Hispanic/Latino in the northern area, and majority Asian-American in the southern area of the city.

In Figure 5.42 two of the three neighborhoods with the highest rates of overpayment by renters had a majority Hispanic/Latino Population; one neighborhood had a majority non-Hispanic white population. Neighborhoods that had the highest rates of overpayment by renters in the northern area of San Leandro were predominately single-family residential (Eastshore and Estudillo Estates), compared to the central area of the city (such as Downtown), which is mostly multi-family residential. The lowest rate of overpayment by renters was in the Washington Manor neighborhood in the southern area of the city, which is predominantly single-family residential.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-67
Figure 5.38 Overpayment by Renters (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-68
Figure 5.39 Overpayment by Homeowners (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-69
Figure 5.40 Overpayment by Renters (San Leandro)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-70
Figure 5.41 Overpayment by Homeowners (San Leandro)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-71
Figure 5.42 Overpayment by Renters and Predominant Racial/Ethnic Populations (San Leandro) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-72

5.7.2 Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than

1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is a measure to understand the needs of large families where there are five or more persons per household. Generally, large households have special housing needs due to lower per capita income and the need for housing with three or more bedrooms.

Some large households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept housing with too few rooms. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding reflects various living situations, including housing units that are inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families that share a single housing unit.

Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain electrical systems in older housing that has not been updated or contribute to a perceived shortage of parking. As a result, some property owners/managers may be more hesitant to rent to large households, thus making access to adequately sized housing even more difficult. According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of large households is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with different preferences for housing size and/or ability to pay according to the household size standards identified.

Regional Trends
Alameda County had 62,587 large households, approximately 11 percent of total households.

Owner-occupied households comprised a larger share of the total number of large households in the county. Overcrowding remains low overall in the county, but there is a disproportionate impact of overcrowding in households primarily occupied by non-white racial/ethnic groups. According to ACS 2015-2019 estimates, two percent of non-Hispanic white households were overcrowded (more than one occupant per room), compared to Hispanic/Latino (20 percent), Asian (10 percent) and Black/African American (5 percent) households. According to the California Department of Health and Human Services data shown in Figure 5.43, overcrowded housing is most prominent in the western region of Alameda County, mainly in urban centers such as the City of Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, and portions of Fremont and Livermore.

Local Trends
As discussed in Chapter 2, Housing Needs Assessment, San Leandro had 4,002 large households, approximately 13 percent of the total households. Owner occupied large households comprised of 59 percent of the total number of San Leandro households. Additionally, 8.1 percent of households in San Leandro are overcrowded, slightly higher than 7.8 percent for the county as a whole. San Leandro had an average of 2.85 persons per household in 2020, a slight increase from 2010, when the city had an average of 2.81 persons per household. As shown in Figure 5.44, neighborhoods with a higher degree of overcrowded households were identified in neighborhoods west of Downtown, in the northern area of the city. The census tract with the highest percent of overcrowded households was census tract 4325.01, in which approximately 22 percent of households were overcrowded. This area, which includes the Eastshore neighborhood, is primarily Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-73
Figure 5.43 Overcrowded Households (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
City of San Leandro
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
5-74
Figure 5.44 Overcrowded Households (San Leandro)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2021
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Draft Housing Element 5-75
single-family residential in the west but has a range of residential types including multi-family residential and mixed use to the east. The predominant population in this census tract is Hispanic/Latino.