Exh B - Housing Element 2023-31 Revised Draft February 14, 2024 — San Pablo City Council, March 18, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

1. Land/acquisition costs include project costs related to land costs or value, demolition, legal, land lease rent prepayment, existing improvements value, and off-site improvements.

Source: Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Project Staff Reports 2017-2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022 Construction costs, including both hard cost (i.e. labor and materials) and soft cost (i.e. development fees, architectural and engineering services, and insurance) are generally high countywide. According to a report published by the Terner Center at UC Berkeley, trends in the prices of both labor and materials have likely contributed to hard cost increases over the 2009 to 2018 period.
24 The Bay Area region was identified as the most expensive region in the state, where average hard costs were $81 more expensive per square foot than in other parts of the state.

TCAC project tax credit applications provide an estimate of construction costs for affordable housing projects in San Pablo – see Table C-26. The median construction cost per square foot is about $190.50, or 27.8 percent of the total project cost. However, in new construction these costs increase significantly – to $322 per square foot and 56.2 percent of the total project cost.

Construction costs have also risen over the course of the COVID -19 pandemic, due in part to supply chain disruptions. The lasting impacts of this trend are not yet known, but it is likely to increase the cost of housing in at least the short to medium term.

According to RSMeans, construction costs (including materials and labor but excluding soft costs such as fees) for a small apartment complex in the Richmond area ranged between $185 to $215 per square foot in 2022. Construction costs vary depending on the type of development, ranging from more expensive steel -frame Type I construction to more affordable wood -frame Type V. Due to the smaller scale, single-family homes tend to be more expensive to construct on a per square foot

24 Hayley Raetz, Teddy Forscher, Elizabeth Kneebone, and Carolina Reid, “The Hard Costs of Construction: Recent Trends in Labor and Materials Costs for Apartment Buildings in California,” Terner Center for Housing Innovation, 2020.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-62
basis than larger, multi -family developments. The estimated construction costs for new single- family homes in Richmond range from $323,538 for basic construction up to $581,836. 25 Table C-26: Construction Costs for Affordable Housing Projects in San Pablo, 2017-2021
Construction Cost1
Project
Year Project Name Project Type Total Cost
Cost per Sq.

Ft.

Percent of Total
Project Cost
2017 Church Lane Acquisition and
Rehab
$7,552,025 $256.00 34.6%
2018 Montevista Senior
Apartments
Acquisition and
Rehab
$2,428,200 $47.00 9.6%
2020 Hilltop Commons Acquisition and
Rehab
$32,108,872 $125.00 21.0%
2021 Alvarado Gardens New
Construction
$26,372,502 $322.00 56.2%
Median Cost $16,962,264 $190.50 27.8%

1. Includes new construction and rehab projects.

Source: Tax Credit Allocation Committee, Project Staff Reports 2017-2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2022 The high cost of land in San Pablo is a constraint to the development of lower -income housing.

Developers will have to construct multifamily housing at higher densities and smaller unit sizes to generate economies of scale for the development to be profita ble, or obtain public or private subsidies to offset high land and construction costs. Further, although land values in San Pablo are relatively lower than in the Bay Area , maximum achievable rents are also lower than what can be generated in other Bay Are a cities. This helps to maintain affordability, but it also reduces the potential for profit and limits incentives for additional development in the city.

Availability and Cost of Financing
One of the most significant factors related to the provision of adequate housing for all segments of the population is the availability of financing – both for real estate development and homeownership. Because the projected net operating income from affordable housing developments is lower than that from market rate developments, developers generally have to secure financing from a variety of sources. Typically, a project’s sources of funds can be divided into three major categories:

1. Equity;

2. “Senior” debt; and,

3. “Subordinate” debt.

25 “ Construction loans by bank or private investors in Richmond, CA ” https://www.lendersa.com/construction- loans/ca/richmond
City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-63
Equity, the funds contributed by the developer, typically include some direct investment by the developer but additional funds are secured from tax credit investors . Because the amount of tax credits generated through a typical project far exceed most developers’ tax liability, other for-profit entities with large tax liabilities (“investors”) or syndicators who act as a broker between the developer and the investors, form a limited partnership with the developer. The partnership then allocates nearly all of the tax credits to the non-developer partners in exchange for equity in the project.

Congress created the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program in 1986 to help low-income housing developers to raise equity for their projects. Each year, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issues tax credits to states for allocation to low-income housing projects. The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, the State agency responsible for administering the credit has established additional regulations for allocating the credit. These include giving higher priority to projects near amenities such as public transit, public parks, public libraries, schools, and senior centers.

Because of the high cost of building housing in California and limited availability of federal tax credits, the State legislature also approved a State housing credit to augment the federal tax credits.

The State credit is also restricted to projects that are not located in difficult to develop areas (DDAs) or qualified census tracts (QCTs) or, if located in DDAs or QCTs, with projects where 50 percent of the units are for individuals with special needs.
26 The Low- Income Housing Fund (LIHF) is the City of San Pablo’s only source of funding for affordable housing. The LIHF was previously funded through a 20 percent set aside of tax increment earned in the City’s Redevelopment areas. Since the dissolution of redevelopment agencies in 2012, the City no longer receives new tax increment revenues. This fund may be used for a variety of purposes, including: (1) preserving long ‐term affordability of units, (2) homeless prevention and rapid rehousing, and (3) development of new housing. As of March 2020, the LIHF had a balance of $5.5 million. Since then, $500,000 has been appropriated from the LIHF to fund the COVID-19 Housing Assistance Grant Program.

Further, the county issues tax-exempt revenue bonds for affordable housing development financing through the county’s Multifamily Mortgage Revenue Bond Program. The County does not offer any set-aside subsidies for the construction or preservation of deed-restricted affordable housing. Although other counties across the Bay Area have approved general obligation bonds for affordable housing (such as Measure A-1 in Alameda County or Measure A in Santa Clara County), Contra Costa has not placed an affordable housing bond measure on the ballot. Measure J, which was on the ballot in March 2020 for transportation and housing improvements, was defeated. Note that the county administers federal and State funding programs that can be used for affordable housing development.

The California Housing Finance Agency offers grants and loans for ADUs through a group of private lenders. Homeowners with annual incomes less than $300,000 are eligible to apply for up to $40,000 in assistance for pre-development costs including architectural designs, permits, soil and engineering tests and other expenses. Grants may also be used to buy down the interest rate on financing. 27 26 California Housing Consortium, “Resources: Affordable Housing 101: How is it Built?” https://calhsng.org/resources/affordable-housing-101/how-is-it-built/ 27 Cal HFA, ADU Grant Program, https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/adu/index.htm and https://www.calhfa.ca.gov/adu/homeowner/adu-steps.pdf
City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-64
The cost of securing financing to purchase a home also impacts the cost of housing and access to homeownership for lower-income households. At the national level, interest rates have remained relatively low since 2015 and experienced a significant decline during the COVID -19 pandemic.

However, rates have started to increase over the course of 2021 – as interest rates continue to rise, the amount of public subsidy needed to bridge the affordability gap for moderate - and lower-income households will also rise. See Chart C-1 for the change in 30-year fixed rate mortgages since 2015.

A new source of funding that may become available during the planning period will be the Bay Area Housing Finance Agency (BAHFA), established by the State under AB 1487 (2019, Chiu), to support the production and preservation of affordable housing by placing new revenue options on the ballot. Although efforts to obtain the necessary approva l of voters has been postponed due to the economic disruption caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision was made not to place a revenue measure on the November 2020 ballot.)
Any new revenue source to be placed on the ballot would require voter approval by a two -thirds vote. Possible future options include:
• General obligation bond backed by property tax receipts (also known as a GO bond) • Parcel tax
• Gross receipts tax
• Per-employee corporate “head tax”
• Commercial linkage fee (only authorized after voters approve a GO bond or parcel tax) The average annual mortgage interest rates for the years 2015 through the fourth quarter of 2021 can be found in the table below. After peaking at close to 5 percent during the 4 th quarter of 2018, the weekly rates fell to 3.11 percent by the end of 2021 but climbed back to 5.22 percent in August of 2022. Meanwhile, the typical home value in San Pablo has increased from $562,000 in July 2021 to $602,000 in June 2022.
28 Generally speaking, households can afford to spend 30 percent of their monthly income on housing.

This figure assumes that the household does not have an already high debt to income ratio, or other high monthly expenses. A two-person San Pablo household earning the Areawide Median Income (AMI) of $100,500 would theoretically be able to make a monthly housing payment of $2,513. With a 10 percent down payment, minor other debts and the highest credit rating this hypothetical two- person family would be able to purchase a home that cost $602,000. However, fewer options are available to those families unable to come up with a 10 percent down payment or low income households with an income of $87,700 or less. Contra Costa County’s Mortgage Credit Certificate Program (MCC) is authorized to provide qualified first-time homebuyers with a federal income tax credit equal to 20 percent of the annual interest paid on the borrower’s mortgage. By reducing the borrower’s federal tax liability, the tax credit provides additional income that can be used for mortgage payments. Unfortunately, as of this writing there were no funds for this program. 29 28 See https://www.trulia.com/CA/San_Pablo/ and https://www.trulia.com/mortgage- rates/?auto=true&loantype=purchase&value=602000&zip=94806&cscore=760%2B&down=100000&va=false#reques t=ZR-FHWPHXQY
29 https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4768/Mortgage-Credit-Certificate-Program City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-65
Another possible source is the Cal Home Program in Richmond offers up to $38,000 in a “silent” down payment assistance loan for low-income households purchasing in Contra Costa. This loan is secured by a Deed of Trust on the property and requires no monthly payments.30 Chart C-1: National 30-Year Fixed Rate Mortgages, 2015-2021 Source: Freddie Mac, Historical Weekly Mortgage Rates Data, 2015-2021

INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABILITY
Much of San Pablo’s infrastructure is old, however, the systems can still accommodate the existing and projected housing needs during the planning period , including buildout of the San Pablo 2023031 Housing Element sites inventory . The cost of infrastructure improvement required for residential development is borne by the developers. Whereas f or large subdivisions, certain improvements such as frontage improvements like curbs and sidewalks, storm drainage and sanitary sewer improvements, water supply and other improvements to street lighting, fire hydrants, street trees and shrubs may be required as conditions of approval of the tentative map , buildout of the San Pablo Housing Element inventory will involve infill development almost exclusively. Improvements to existing infill parcels are typically not necessary. Further, as buildout of the inventory primarily involves infill sites in PDAs where specific plans have previously been prepared, infrastructure needed to support development in these locations has previously been assessed and programmed into the City’s CIP as well as into the relevant master plans maintained by water and sewer providers, including the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and West

30 https://communityhdc.org/down-payment-assistance-programs/

City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-66
County Wastewater District (WCWD), as described below. The Districts maintain system master plans to identify and prioritize maintenance, upgrade and system expansion needs. The City reports annually to the Districts on development activity to ensure future needs are accounted for in the master plans. Accordingly, all of the infill parcels identified in the Housing Element have sufficient infrastructure planned or available for electricity, water and sewer to allow development. As a result, infrastructure does not pose a constraint to development in San Pablo.

Water
EBMUD provides water services for Alameda and Contra Costa counties, including the City of San Pablo. According to EBMUD’s 2020 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP), under base condition assumptions, EBMUD can meet customer demand (including residential demand) out to 2050 during normal years and single dry years. Growth projections in EBMUD’s future water demand reflects residential need projections provided by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), Plan Bay Area, and local land use agencies. Fu rther, per the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), EBMUD’s Board of Directors approved Policy 3.07 which ensures that priority for new water service connections during restrictive periods is given to proposed developments within EBMUD’s existing service area that include housing units affordable to lower- income households in accordance with California Government Code 65589.7.

EBMUD’s water supply system consists of a network of reservoirs, aqueducts (pipelines), water treatment plants (WTP), pumping plants, and other distribution facilities and pipelines that convey Mokelumne River water from Pardee Reservoir to EBMUD Water Treatment Plants and terminal reservoirs. EBMUD has six WTPs in the service area including the San Pablo WTP, which is typically not used except in response to outages at other facilities or other unusual circumstances such as to support EBMUD’s drought operations in 2015.

The capacity of the EBMUD water supply system is dependent on seasonal rainfall and collected snowpack in the Sierra Nevada watershed. On an average annual basis, about 90 percent of the water EMBUD uses is from this source. Water The secondary source is r unoff from local watersheds at EBMUD’s five terminal reservoirs: Briones, Chabot, Lafayette, Upper San Leandro, and San Pablo.

EBMUD’s policy is to operate its terminal reservoirs to maintain enough standby storage to meet rationed customer demand for 180 days, in case the Mokelumne River supply is disrupted. After the emergency ends, the Mokelumne River supply is returned to service soon as practicable and within the regulatory framework to refill terminal reservoirs to meet minimum standby storage levels while also supplying inline plants. Emergency supplies through interties with the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD), and City of Hayward (Hayward) can be used during an emergency to reduce demand on the local reservoirs or used following an emergency to help EBMUD’s recovery in re-establishing storage levels. EBMUD also has a water service contract with the US Bureau of Reclamation to receive water from the Central Valley Project in years when EBMUD’s projected supply of stored water is forecast to be lower than 500 thousand acre-feet (TAF)
31 31 East Bay Municipal Utilities District, Urban Water Management Plan 2020 and Water Shortage Contingency Plan 2020, https://www.ebmud.com/water/about-your-water/water-supply/urban-water-management-plan City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-67

EBMUD’s service area can be separated roughly into two climatic zones relative to the Berkeley - Oakland hills, East-of-Hills and West-of Hills. In the West-of-Hills area, where San Pablo is located, climate tends to be more moderate due to the marine influence of San Francisco Bay, whereas summer air temperatures in the East-of-Hills area can be considerably higher. West-of-Hills single- family residential water consumption is generally lower than East-of-Hills usage and outdoor water use, which accounts for about 28 percent of the total water use for residential customers, is a large component of total water use for single-family customers.

California Water Code Section 10631.1 requires that UWMPs include an estimate of projected water demand for lower income single -family and multi -family residential housing within EBMUD’s service area. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) establ ished low - income thresholds in 2016 for Plan Bay Area 2040 to account for the Bay Area’s high cost of living.

For each census tract, the most recent MTC percentages of low income single -family and multi - family households were applied to single -family and m ulti-family demand projections from EBMUD’s 2050 Demand Study to estimate the projected lower-income residential demand.

EBMUD’s Board of Directors approved Policy 3.07 which ensures that priority for new water service connections during restrictive periods is given to proposed developments within EBMUD’s existing service area that include housing units affordable to lower i ncome households in accordance with California Government Code 65589.7. Policy 3.07 also states that EBMUD will not 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 EBMUD can meet the portion of overall water demands for lower-income households. 32 In accordance with Section 65589.7 of the California Government Code, the adopted Housing Element will be delivered to EBMUD.

Wastewater
WCWD provides wastewater treatment and disposal services to approximately 34,000 residences and 2,450 commercial and industrial businesses in western Contra Costa County including the City of San Pablo and parts of the adjacent unincorporated area. WCWD’s collection system is overall performing well overall but the 2021 Sewer System Management Plan identified and recommended assets for replacement or rehabilitation in the near -term (five- year) planning horizon. This included many sewer lines throughout the City of San Pablo. 33 Larger pipes may be required to meet
the continuing demand if residential areas of the city become more densely developed. WCWD has

32 EBMUD Urban Water Management Plan, pp. 34-36.
33 WCWD Sewer System Management Plan, May 2019, p. 8-1 and https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/embed?mid=1hsaWQcJN4CeYExXSGqTCbSAhuTE&ll=37.97296390941711% 2C-122.3148609682617&z=13
City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-68
installed flow sensors within manholes identified as most likely to experience flows exceeding the capacity of the storm-drain system including one on San Pablo Avenue.

In accordance with Section 65589.7 of the California Government Code, the adopted Housing Element will be delivered to WCWD.

Dry Utilities
Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides gas and electric service to San Pablo residents and businesses with electricity through Marin Clean Energy ( MCE), a public, not -for-profit provider that offers electricity produced primarily by non-polluting, renewable sources such as solar, wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and bioenergy from projects in California, the Pacific Northwest, and Colorado. The exact proportion of each varies with time, based on demand and availability. 34 energy
services, as well as energy efficiency and rebate programs. The San Pablo City Council voted to join MCE in 2014 to reduce climate-changing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

SOCIAL CONSTRAINTS
In addition to physical and market constraints that reduce housing development, the re several social constraints—both external and internal—that may hamper the feasibility of development in San Pablo. A common internal social constraint in the Bay Area is the tendency for some current residents to oppose new residential development in their community that they believe might reduce the quality of life in their neighborhoods and reduce property values. Multi-family projects, higher density development and hou sing planned for lower -income households are the most frequent targets of the so -called NIMBYs ( Not In My Backyard). Discrimination based on the perception that neighborhoods and projects with residents who are lower-income and non-white are prone to crime, graffiti, and other adverse conditions. These perceptions may also significantly influence a developer’s choice to invest and pursue development opportunities in particular cities.

Although NIMBYism is prevalent in some Bay Area cities, it has not posed a significant constraint in San Pablo. Residents are generally very accepting of new projects, with little opposition during public meetings. While some groups and residents voice concern about development on San Pablo Avenue and along creeks, the City is generally able to work with the community to move new projects forward.

The attitudes and perceptions of potential homebuyers and renters do, however, affect San Pablo’s real estate market, which will reduce developer and investor interest. Even though crime rates have improved considerably since a high in 2006 and are lower than several nearby cities including Richmond, El Cerrito and Berkeley, the 2019 crime rate was still 1.3 times greater than the national average.
35 Low developer and investor interest is compounded by the fact that San Pablo suffers from the same high cost of construction, labor, and materials as the rest of the Bay Area.

34 Marin Clean Energy (MCE) https://www.mcecleanenergy.org/about-us/

35 City-Data.com, https://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-San-Pablo-California.html City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-69
C.3 Key Findings
This section is provided for staff review to summarize the key findings of this appendix to inform programs in the Housing Action Plan and narrative language in the body of the draft Housing Element. Key findings related to governmental and non-governmental constraints are provided below.

GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
• 23rd Street and San Pablo Specific Plan restrictions. Specific Plan policies and standards need updating and revision to facilitate residential and mixed-use development in light of current economic and real estate market conditions and to meet current State requirements. There is room for additional streamli ning of standards that are overly complex such as restrictions that prohibit or limit residential uses in ground floor spaces fronting on San Pablo Avenue in Mixed Use areas limit the feasibility of res idential development. At a minimum, regulations should be reduced in mid -block areas. required ground floor commercial uses, parking, Eliminating CUP requirement for live -work development and allowing for shopkeeper spaces that restrict use of ground floor retail to occupant of related housing unit would allow for alternative housing types to help populate corridors. The Specific Plans should also be amended to incorporate or cross -reference Section 17.38.040, Priority development area (PDA) overlay distric t (D2) of the Zoning Ordinance, which establishes alternate development standards for properties in the 23rd Street SP and SPSP plan areas and on Rumrill Road that are within a quarter mile radius of any existing or planned light rail, streetcar, or bus ra pid transit station to promote higher density and pedestrian -oriented uses consistent with ABAG’s Sustainable Community Strategy. The Zoning Ordinance states that the se standards supersede requirements otherwise applicable to mixed -use projects that include residential uses and residential projects with four or more units to allow densities up to 60 units per acre, maximum FAR of 2.5 and a maximum height of 60 feet.
• Residential development in commercial districts. In addition to the 23rd Street SP, some commercial districts in the city that would be appropriate for mixed -use or purely residential projects provide overly strict standards. This includes a CUP requirement for multifamily in the NC and MUCS districts, as well as relatively low permitted densities in the CR and NC districts. The FAR penalty in the CMU districts also reduced residential feasibility. Increased flexibility and further streamlining for resident ial projects in these areas will encourage additional residential development. • Minimum lot sizes. The minimum lot size in the R -3 and R-4 districts (10,000 sq. ft.) is higher than comparable jurisdictions. There are only a few large R -4 parcels, and this standard may be appropriate to maintain. However, the City should consider reducing minimums in the R-3 district, which will help encourage the development of more “missing middle” housing typologies.
• Parking standards. There is potential for reform of parking standards, especially multifamily parking standards. At present, the number of required spaces is not tied to the number of bedrooms, and the requirement of covered parking can limit feasibility and City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-70
increase costs. Reductions or reforms may be particularly appropriate along corridors, with mixed-use projects, and in Specific Plan areas.
• Density bonus ordinance. The City’s density bonus ordinance must be updated pursuant to recent State law. Additional bonuses (including up to 80% for completely affordable projects) are now available.
• Emergency shelters. State law permits up to 300 feet separation from other shelters, however the City requires a 500-foot separation. This is a constraint and must be corrected.

The City also needs to provide standards for Low-Barrier Navigation Centers pursuant to AB 101.
• Transitional and supportive housing. The status of transitional and supportive housing is unclear – both housing types must be permitted equivalently to similar residential buildings. The existing Municipal Code provides conflicting information on the by- right status of these housing types that needs to be corrected. Restrictions on where SRO housing and community care facilities can locate should also be reviewed and modified to permit these housing types in areas where similar uses are allowed. • Employee/farmworker housing. While there is little housing need for farmworkers in San Pablo, pursuant to State law the City must include a definition of “employee housing” that is available to farmworkers. Employee housing for six or less people must be treated the same as a single-family home.
• D3 Overlay. The D3 Overlay restricts all residential development within 500 feet of the I-

80. Pursuant to BAAQMD guidelines, however, there are mitigation measures that can be implemented to reduce pollution concerns while still allowing some residential development. Prohibiting residential development outright may constrain overall housing supply.
• Subdivision costs. The cost of subdividing land is particularly high in San Pablo due to the lack of a City -employed land surveyor. This substantially reduces the ability of property owners to successfully split their lots through SB 9, which may provide an important source of additional missing middle housing in the city.
• ADU standard reforms. ADU standards are generally appropriate, however additional flexibility could be provided for larger ADUs. This may include a CUP for two-story ADUs. • Objective development standards. To ensure that the review of residential projects is based on objective standards as required by the Housing Accountability Act and other State requirements (e.g., urban lot splits under SB 9 and expedited ministerial review pursuant to SB 35), Existing residential development standards need to be revised and, as necessary, revised to comply with mandates for using objective standards for review of residential projects. This review should include exist9ing procedures for review and approval of both ministerial zoning actions and CUPs to comply with applicable statutory and case law.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031 Appendix C: Housing Constraints Revised February 14, 2024 C-71

NON-GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS
• Small lot sizes and limited vacant land. Parcels in San Pablo are relatively small, which can make multifamily and higher-density development difficult to achieve. Further, there is limited available vacant land in the city for development. Costs associated with infill development can make affordable housing projects more difficult to complete. The City should consider actions aimed at incentivizing residential development on small lots, small lot consolidation, and other efforts to reduce costs associated with infill development. • Environmental constraints. Major environmental constraints to development include seismic, slope, flooding, and wildfire concerns. Air and noise quality adjacent to the I-80 is also a substantial issue. Some of these constraints can be mitigated, while others provide a barrier to development.
• Market constraints. The cost of land and construction is relatively high in San Pablo, although the city commands lower market rents than other Bay Area jurisdictions. This has led to reduced incentives for new market rate residential development in the city.

Financing for affordable housing development is limited, especially at the local and county level.
• Availability of financing. Financing for affordable housing development is limited, especially at the local and county level. Although housing in San Pablo is relatively affordable compared with other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County, financing options are limited for first-time and low-income home buyers unable to afford the required down payment or qualify for conventional mortgage financing. • Social constraints. General discrimination in development preferences due to San Pablo’s status as a majority Latino and lower-income jurisdiction has also limited housing supply in the city. There is limited developer interest in the city due to perceived notions of resident preferences and potential profitability. These barriers might be reduced by City actions to facilitate land assembly, revise regulations to provide developers with greater flexibility and an easier review process as well as programs to improve the appearance of residential and commercial areas.

Appendix D
Fair Housing Assessment
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-i
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Table of Contents
Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing ................................................................... D-1 D.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity ................................................................................... D-1 Fair Housing Services ..................................................................................................................................... D-1 Lending Services .............................................................................................................................................. D-3 Brokerage Services .......................................................................................................................................... D-5 Property Management .................................................................................................................................... D-5 Compliance with Fair Housing Law ............................................................................................................ D-6 D.2 Segregation and Integration ......................................................................................................... D-8 Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................................... D-8 Persons with Disabilities ............................................................................................................................... D-13 Familial Status ................................................................................................................................................. D-16 Income Level ................................................................................................................................................. D-21 D.3 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence .................................... D-25 D.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity ...................................................................................... D-26 Regional Context .......................................................................................................................................... D-28 Local Context ................................................................................................................................................ D-32 D.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs & Displacement Risk ..................................................... D-39 Cost Burden ................................................................................................................................................. D-39 Overcrowding ............................................................................................................................................... D-43 Displacement Risk ........................................................................................................................................ D-45 D.6 Other Relevant Factors .............................................................................................................. D-51 D.7 Sites Inventory ............................................................................................................................ D-53 D.8 Summary and Conclusions ......................................................................................................... D-57 List of Figures
Figure D-1: Proportion of Non-Hispanic White Residents, Contra Costa County ............ D-11 Figure D-2: San Pablo Neighborhood Segregation ....................................................................... D-13 Figure D-3: San Pablo Diversity Index ............................................................................................ D-15 Figure D-4: Persons with Disabilities .............................................................................................. D-18 City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-ii
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Figure D-5: Percent of Children in Female Householder Households ................................... D-19 Figure D-6: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households ............................................ D-20 Figure D-7: Low- to Moderate-Income Population, Block Group ........................................... D-22 Figure D-8: Poverty Status (2014), San Pablo ............................................................................... D-23 Figure D-9: Poverty Status (2019), San Pablo ............................................................................... D-24 Figure D-10: R/ECAP and RCAA Locations, San Pablo Region ................................................ D-27 Figure D-11: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, Contra Costa County ........... D-31 Figure D-12: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Composite Score, San Pablo .................................. D-35 Figure D-13: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Economic Score, San Pablo .................................... D-36 Figure D-14: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Education Score, San Pablo .................................... D-37 Figure D-15: TCAC Opportunity Areas, Environmental Score, San Pablo ............................ D-40 Figure D-16: Transit Access .............................................................................................................. D-41 Figure D-17: Homeowner Cost Burden, 2019 ............................................................................. D-43 Figure D-18: Renter Cost Burden, 2019 ........................................................................................ D-44 Figure D-19: Overcrowded Households, San Pablo .................................................................... D-46 Figure D-20: Sensitive Communities in San Pablo ........................................................................ D-47 Figure D-21: Gentrification and Displacement Typologies, San Pablo .................................... D-50 Figure D-22: Racial Segregation/Integration in 2020 and Regional Redlining in the 1930s . D-52 List of Charts and Tables
Chart D-1: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity ............................................................. D-4 Chart D-2: HMDA Loan Applications, 2020 ................................................................................... D-5 Table D-1: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2010 - 2040 ....... D-8 Table D-2: Population by Race/Ethnicity, Contra Costa County Subdivisions, 2019 ............ D-9 Table D-3: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, San Pablo, 2000 - 2019 ............................ D-10 Chart D-3: San Pablo and Regional Dissimilarity Index .............................................................. D-12 Table D-4: Children Under 18 Years in San Pablo Households, 2019 .................................... D-16 Table D-5: Poverty Rates in San Pablo, 2019 ................................................................................ D-21 Table D-6: Domain and Indicators for HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps ................................ D-26 Chart D-4: Opportunity Indices, Total Population ...................................................................... D-29 City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-iii
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Chart D-5: Opportunity Indices, Population Living Below the Poverty Line ........................ D-30 Table D-7: CAASPP Smarter Balanced Test Results, 2018-2019 ............................................. D-33 Chart D-6: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity in San Pablo ............................................................ D-42 Table D-8: Gentrification and Displacement Census Tract Typologies .................................. D-49 Table D-9: AFFH Housing Element Sites Analysis ....................................................................... D-55 Table D-10: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors ....................................................... D-58

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-iv
Revised Draft February 14, 2024

This page intentionally left blank

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-1
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing
California Assembly Bill (AB) 686, passed in 2018, amended California Government Code Section 65583 to require all public agencies to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). AB 686 defined “affirmatively further fair housing” 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” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes. AB 686 requires an assessment of fair housing in the Housing Element 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 assess ment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.

San Pablo is a member of the Contra Costa County Consortium (Consortium), which jointly plans for the housing and community development needs of the county . This includes the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds received from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the production of associated documents , like the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI). In 201 9 the Consortium produced the 2020 -2025 AI to fulfill its federal AFFH obligation. The assessment provided in this chapter relies on this document as a baseline for understanding fair housing issues in the region and in the city. Extensive public outreach, including within San Pablo, was conducted during the preparation of this document. Where necessary, additional data sources are used to provide an up -to-date assessment of fair housing in San Pablo , including AFFH Mapping and Data Resource s provided by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

D.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity
Fair housing services are an essential component of AFFH. They ensure that housing options are accessible to State and federally protected groups, including those based on race, color, gender, religion, national origin, familial status, disability, age, marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, genetic information, or other arbitrary factors. Fair housing services help San Pablo residents understand and protect their right to access housing.

FAIR HOUSING SERVICES
The Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO ) Housing provides f air housing services to residents of several cities in Contra Costa County, including in San Pablo. They also serve Alameda County and Monterey County, and have offices in Antioch, Hayward, Livermore, Oakland, Monterey, and Salinas. ECHO Housing provides counseling, investigation, mediation, enforcement, and City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-2
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
education through their Fair Housing Program. Instances of housing discrimination can be reported to any of ECHO’s program offices. According to the Consortium’s 2020-2025 AI, ECHO Housing suffers from a severe lack of resources and capacity. As of 2019, only one fair housing counselor serves all of Contra Costa County. In general, fair housing organizations that serve the county are lacking resources, which reduces the strength of outreach to marginalized groups, such as limited -English proficiency (LEP) and LGBTQ residents. While the county has a Language Access Plan (LAP) and provides language assistance to persons upon request, the 2020-2025 AI notes that due to the diversity and size of the LEP population in the county a lack of language access may limit fair housing outreach efforts.

The City also works with Housing Rights, Inc. (HRI) to provide additional fair housing services. This partnership is mean to minimize and resolve conflicts and disputes between landlords and tenants , and eliminate all forms of housing discrimination by disseminating tenant/landlord conflict resolution information in the annual mailing about residential programs, and documenting residents' concerns at City Hall before forwarding them to HRI. The City implements a tracking system to record the number of referrals to HRI each year.

Housing discrimination complaints are one method to evaluate the extent of fair housing issues in a community. Complaints can be filed directly with HUD or with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), or with local housing providers such as ECHO Housing. Per the 2019 Annual Report published by DFEH, there were a total of 320 discrimination complaints filed by residents of Contra Costa County, with 22 related specifically to housing. The 2020-2025 AI estimates that there have been 30 to 40 housing complaints filed across the county on an annual basis between 2011 and 2016. In San Pablo, across Fiscal Years (FY) 2016- 2017, 2019-2020, and 2020-2021, ECHO Housing reported 12 total complaints or four complaints annually. Most complaints were on the basis of disability (66.7 percent), followed by race, income source, and other reasons (16.7 percent each) .

This data was corroborated a necdotally by feedback from residents during outreach events in San Pablo’s disadvantaged neighborhoods conducted for the General Plan and Housing Element Update, some of whom reported experiencing discrimination on the basis of income. Percentages may not sum to 100 percent as complaints can be filed under multiple categories. Data for the period between 2017 and 2019 is not available, as ECHO Housing did not differentiate San Pablo cases from other urban county cases.

In November 2020, the City prepared an Affordable Housing Strategy (AHS) to develop policies and strategies to produce and maintain a supply of high-quality, affordable housing. In preparing the AHS, an online survey was distributed to the San Pablo community. Approximately 61 percent of respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement: “I am familiar with local programs to help residents find an affordable home.” While not specific to fair housing, this response indicates a lack of public awareness regarding local housing programs.

This finding is in line with the factors identified in the 2020-2025 AI that contribute to insufficient fair housing enforcement, outreach capacity, and resources. These included lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations, lack of meaningful language access, private discrimination, lack of local public fair housing enforcement, lack of State or local fair housing laws, and unresolved violations of fair housing or civil rights laws . Although multiple fair housing groups in Contra Costa offer services including language access , there are patterns of reoccurring fair housing problems in City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-3
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Contra Costa County that could be reduced with more resources and a firmer public stance on fair housing and civil rights laws by local jurisdictions.

An additional challenge for fair housing rights enforcement in San Pablo is linked to the fact that many tenants do not have formal lease agreements or contracts. As described further below in the discussion of disproportionate needs, staff observes that multigenerational and non -standard family arrangements are common in San Pablo. This means that relatives or friends living with the property owner in the primary dwelling or in an accessory dwelling unit have only informal agreements and lack the leverage to request rectification and rehabilitation of substandard conditions where they occur. The City's Residential Health & Safety (RH&S) Program has proven an effective tool for addressing substandard housing conditions, particularly as access to grants and loans administered by the County for rehabilitation is limited.

The Housing Action Plan in Chapter 4 includes policies and programs that address fair housing awareness and enforcement, including Program 3-F Landlord/Tenant Dispute Resolution; Program 3-G Just Cause Eviction Protections; Program 3-H Awareness of Fair Housing Programs; Program 3- I Outreach to People Living with Developmental Disabilities ; and Program 4-F Residential Health & Safety Program..

LENDING SERVICES
Discrimination in lending practices can be a major contributor to fair housing issues in a community, as this limits the ability of individuals to live in a location of their choosing. Loan denial rates can be derived from data provided by lending institutions in compliance with the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA). The 2020 -2025 AI found, based on 2016 HMDA data for the Oakland -Hayward- Berkeley region, that non-white applicants were consistently denied home loans at slightly higher rates than white applicants, with Pacific Islander and Native American applicants denied at the highest rates.

The data does not indicate the grounds for the denial, and it cannot be proven on the basis of this data that the denials were not justified on the basis of standard financial criteria; however, the trend suggests both that there is potential for bias within the financial system and that there may be a need for financial literacy training among non-whites to help those groups better understand how to improve their credit scores.

Charts 3-1 and 3-2 provide an overview of lending patterns in San Pablo when compared to the county.

Chart D-1 confirms the findings of the 2020-2025 AI and shows that such potentially discriminatory lending patterns have continued at the county level up until the year 2020. San Pablo has similarly seen uneven lending patterns and as of 2020 (the most recent year that data is available) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander and Asian applicants had the highest loan denial rates, followed by Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino applicants. Further, since 2012 white applicants in San Pablo have consistently experienced lower than average loan denial rates. The wider variation in loan denial rates for American Indian or Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander applicants is due to the low number of applicants during the period who identified as such. Chart D- 2 demonstrates that in 2020 the city had lower loan approval rates for both home improvement and home purchase loans than the county.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-4
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Chart D-1: HMDA Loan Denial Rates by Race/Ethnicity
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2012-2020

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-5
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Chart D-2: HMDA Loan Applications, 2020
Source: Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data, 2020

BROKERAGE SERVICES
Real estate brokers or salespersons whose business is in San Pablo may belong to one of several associations, but most likely belong to the Contra Costa Association of REALTORS (CCAR). Like all associations, CCAR has a Multiple Listing Service (MLS)—Paragon MLS—and is part of the NORCAL MLS ALLIANCE, an MLS data integration project across the seven leading MLSs in Northern California. CCAR is bound by the Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice of the National Association of REALTORS (NAR), which explicitly states in Article 10 that members shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, national origin, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
The City’s AHS discusses the role of property management companies in San Pablo’s housing market.

It notes that l arger multifamily properties, which are often operated by professional property management companies, tend to command higher rents than smaller properties. These buildings are typically newer and provide modern amenities, while smaller rental buildings ten d to be older, have smaller units, or provide fewer amenities. Property management companies are also more likely to raise rents on a regular basis. It is also estimated that in 2019, Wall Street investors owned and rented

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-6
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
103 single -family homes in San Pablo .1 As discussed in the AHS, these types of property owners typically charge more than the area median rent and tenants report paying for maintenance and repairs as well as a variety of punitive fees, such as late payment fees. 2 Such practices may place additional burdens on groups already facing disproportionate housing needs.

COMPLIANCE WITH FAIR HOUSING LAW
HCD guidance on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requires an analysis of compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations. Examples of State fair housing laws include:
• California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2)
• FEHA Regulations (California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 2, sections 12005-12271) • Government Code section 65008 covers actions of a city, county, city and county, or other local government agency, and makes those actions null and void if the action denies an individual or group of individuals the enjoyment of residence, landownership, t enancy, or other land use in the state because of membership in a protected class, the method of financing, and/or the intended occupancy.
• Government Code section 8899.50 requires all public agencies to administer programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing and avoid any action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
• Government Code section 11135 et seq. requires full and equal access to all programs and activities operated, administered, or funded with financial assistance from the state, regardless of one’s membership or perceived membership in a protected class. • Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915.)
• Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5.)
• No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, § 65863)
• Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, § 65913.1)
• Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code, § 65913.2.) • Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, § 65302.8.)
• Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65583, esp. subds. (c)(5), (c)(10).)

1 “Wall Street Landlords, California,” Anti-Eviction Mapping Project, 2019. Available at:
https://www.antievictionmap.com/wallstreet/
2 “The New Single-Family Home Renters of California: A Statewide Survey of Tenants Renting from Wall Street Landlords”, Tenants Together, May 2015. Available at:
http://www.tenantstogether.org/sites/tenantstogether.org/files/The%20New%20Single- Family%20Home%20Renters%20of%20California.pdf;
Francesca Mari, “A $60 billion housing grab by Wall Street,” New York Times Magazine, March 4, 2020. Available at:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/magazine/wall-street-landlords.html City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-7
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
As described in Chapter 3: Housing Resources, the Cit y does not receive direct federal funding allocations (e.g., CDBG and HOME funds) due to its small population; instead, federal funds are provided to and allocated by Contra Costa County. aAs the recipient of federal funds, the County is required to maintain Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) certification and to demonstrate compliance through its Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plans, which are submitted to HUD for approval prior to receipt of the CDBG , Emergency Solutions Grants, Housing Opp ortunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPWA) funds, and HOME funds. By extension and to remain competitive for these funds, the City of San Pablo also has a duty to demonstrate AFFH compliance with State fair housing laws, including but not limited to California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA); FEHA Regulations; and Government Code sections 65008, 8899.50, and 11135 et seq.

The City of San Pablo must also compliesy with State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915.), the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5.), and the No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, § 65863).

Density bonus provisions consistent with State law have been are currently incorporated into the Planning and Zoning CodeOrdinance (Title 17.60.0209.03.050 Density bonus program for affordable housingand other incentives), which the City plans to update to comply with State law. As noted in the City’s Affordable Housing Strategy, virtually no new housing units were built between 2010 and 2019, with higher development activity only occurring relatively recently (2018-2021), and in this time, Tthe City has not denied any affordable housing project in its jurisdiction,. and tThrough its Housing Element, the City is implementing a plan to ensure adequate sites to accommodate its RHNA obligations at all times during the planning period, and to comply with other legal requirements.

In the course of preparing this Housing Element, the City has conducted a review of the Zoning CodeOrdinance to identify and address potential constraints to housing development such as overly strict use regulations for residential development—especially special needs h ousing including emergency shelters, mobile home parks, residential care facilities, and single-room occupancy units— in mixed- use and commercial districts ; restrictive site development standards that impede redevelopment in higher-density residential, mixed-use, and commercial districts; and high parking requirements for multifamily residential projects with parking reductions subject to discretionary approval. (S ee Appendix C for more information ). As a result of this review, Programs 21-LB (Corridor Plan ), 1-C (Repeal or Revise the 23rd Street Specific Plan) , 1- D (Revise Multifamily Minimum Parcel Size), 1-E (Facilitate Lot Consolidation), 1-F (Incentives for High Density Residential Development), 1-G (Reduced Parking Standards), 1-L (Objective Standards for Ministerial Review), 2-F (Mobile Home Parks), 2-G (Single-Room Occupancy Hotels), 2-I (Incentives for Affordable and Special Needs Housing), 3-B2-N (Emergency Shelters), 3-C (Employee Housing), and 3-DF (Residential Care Facilities), have been added to the Housing Action Plan in Chapter 4 of this Housing Element to remove identified constraints. TAlthough the City has not enacted a ny local fair housing laws, such as rent control, inclusionary ordinances, or eviction protection ordinances, the City adopted an emergency ordinance (expired May 31, 2020) for a COVID-19 Eviction and Rent Moratorium and complies with State law pursuant to the Tenant Protections Act of 2019 (AB 1482).

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-8
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
D.2 Segregation and Integration
Patterns of segregation within a community may arise from both p ublic and private housing discrimination, whether intentional or unintentional. Although racial and ethnic segregation is perhaps the most common and well-known form, other protected classes may also experience segregation. This section explores patterns and trends of segregation based on race and ethnicity, disability, familial status, and income level in San Pablo and the surrounding region. These groups are not mutually exclusive , and there may be considerable overlap across each protected class. For additional data and analysis regarding special housing needs groups, please see Appendix B Housing Needs Assessment.

RACE AND ETHNICITY
Racial and ethnic patterns of segregation in San Pablo should be understood in the context of changing regional and local demographics. As shown in Table D-1, the population of Contra Costa County has increased by 9.2 percent between 2010 and 2020, with a projected increase of about 14.2 percent between 2020 and 2040. The non-Hispanic white population has the lowest projected growth rate between 2020 and 2040, while the non -Hispanic multi racial population has the highest projected growth rate. While over 50 percent of the population is something other than non -Hispanic white, non-Hispanic whites represent a plurality of the population at about 45.5 percent, followed by Hispanics of any race (25.5 percent) and non -Hispanic Asians (15.3 percent). The 2020 -2025 AI confirms that the county is a large, diverse jurisdiction. The racial/ethnic makeup of the population is similar to the broader San Francisco- Oakland-Hayward, California Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), although the share of Hispanic residents is slightly higher and the share of non-Hispanic Asian or Pacific Islander is slightly lower in the county than in the broader region. The 2020-2025 AI also notes that diversity and integration are not synonymous, and that the county has both areas of racial and ethnic concentration as well as more integrated areas. Patterns of segregation will be explored in more detail below.

Table D-1: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, Contra Costa County, 2010 - 2040 Race/Ethnicity Population Percent Change
2010 2020 2040 Forecast 2010-2020 2020-2040
White (NH1) 504,651 523,428 554,969 3.7% 6.0%
Black (NH) 94,745 103,467 124,890 9.2% 20.7%
American Indian or
Alaska Native (NH)
3,067 3,311 3,805 8.0% 14.9%
Asian (NH) 151,457 175,546 210,435 15.9% 19.9%
Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander (NH)
4,578 5,215 5,882 13.9% 12.8%
Multiracial (NH) 37,576 45,754 63,879 21.8% 39.6%
Hispanic (any race) 256,480 293,079 348,676 14.3% 19.0% Total 1,052,554 1,149,800 1,312,536 9.2% 14.2%

1. NH refers to non-Hispanic.

Source: California Department of Finance, Table P-2D County Population by Total Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Race (2010-2060) City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-9
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Despite the diversity of the county, population is unevenly distributed geographically by race/ethnicity. While East County is relatively white and wealthy, West County—including San Pablo—has a relatively high minority population and lower average household income . Table D-2 breaks down 2019 population estimates by race/ethnicity by county subdivisions, or census county divisions (CCDs), in Contra Costa County. 3 San Pablo, along with Richmond, is contained within West Contra Costa CCD, while cities like Walnut Creek and Concord are in Central Contra Costa CCD. West Contra Costa County CCD and Antioch-Pittsburg CCD contain the lowest proportion of non-Hispanic white residents (23.8 percent and 23.6 percent, respectively) in the county, compared to the 61.3 percent seen in Central Contra Costa CCD and 48.8 percent seen in East Contra Costa CCD.

Figure D-1 shows the concentration of non-Hispanic white residents by CCD.

Table D-2: Population by Race/Ethnicity, Contra Costa County Subdivisions, 2019 Race/Ethnicity Percent Non-Hispanic White
West Contra Costa CCD 23.8%
Briones CCD 36.1%
Central Contra Costa CCD 61.3%
Antioch-Pittsburg CCD 23.6%
Tassajara CCD 29.8%
East Contra Costa CCD 48.8%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table B03002) San Pablo is considered a majority-minority jurisdiction, as the majority of its population is something other than non-Hispanic white. This differs from other portions of the county, as evidenced in Figure D-1, which tend to have a high proportion of white residents. As of 2019, according to American Community Survey (ACS) estimates, minority residents (i.e., all residents that identify as something other than non-Hispanic white) constituted about 92.3 percent of the city’s total population. Unlike the county, about 60.1 percent of the city’s population is Hispanic or Latino, followed by 17.2 percent non-Hispanic/Latino Asian and 10.7 percent non-Hispanic/Latino Black or African American , see Table D -3. The number of non -Hispanic/Latino white, non -Hispanic/Latino Black or African American, and non -Hispanic/Latino American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) residents has steadily decreased since 2000. While the number of non -Hispanic/Latino Asian and non - Hispanic/Latino other residents decreased between 2000 and 2010, both groups have grown significantly between 2010 and 2019. On the other hand, while non-Hispanic/Latino Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander residents increased between 2000 and 2010, this population has since declined. The number of Hispanic or Latino residents has continually increased since 2000. Population projections by race and ethnicity are unavailable at the city level as they have not been prepared by the DOF, the Association of Bay Area Governments-Metropolitan Transportation Commission (ABAG- MTC) or Contra Costa County.

3 County subdivisions, also referred to as census county divisions (CCDs), are delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau for statistical purposes but have no legal function and are not governmental units.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-10
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Table D-3: Population Growth by Race/Ethnicity, San Pablo, 2000 - 2019 Race/Ethnicity Population Percent Change
2000 2010 2019 2000-
2010
2010-
2019
White, Non-Hispanic/Latino 4,886 2,944 2,386 -39.7% -19.0% Black or African American, Non-
Hispanic/Latino
5,403 4,446 3,325 -17.7% -25.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native, Non-
Hispanic/Latino
125 73 50 -41.6% -31.5%
Asian, Non-Hispanic/Latino 4,890 4,281 5,312 -12.5% 24.1% Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,
Non-Hispanic/Latino
146 156 134 6.8% -14.1%
Other, Non-Hispanic/Latino 1,275 777 1,138 -39.1% 46.5% Hispanic or Latino 13,490 16,462 18,622 22.0% 13.1%
Minority1 25,329 26,195 28,581 3.4% 9.1%
Total 30,215 29,139 30,967 -3.6% 6.3%

1. Minority refers to any person not listed as White, Non-Hispanic/Latino Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 (SF1, Table P004); Census 2010 (SF1, Table P9); 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table DP05)
One method to gauge the extent of segregation in a jurisdiction is the dissimilarity index. The dissimilarity index measures the degree to which two groups are evenly distributed across a geographic area and is a commonly used tool for assessing residential segregation between two groups. The dissimilarity index provides values ranging from 0 to 100, where higher numbers indicate a higher degree of segregation among the two groups measured. According to HUD, dissimilarity index values between 0 and 39.99 generally indicate low segregation, values between 40 and 54.99 generally indicate moderate segregation, and values between 55 and 100 generally indicate a high level of segregation. It is important to note that the dissimilarity index uses non -Hispanic white residents as the primary comparison group, whereas San Pablo is majority-minority jurisdictions. Dissimilarity index values compare racial and ethnic groups against the distribution of non -Hispanic white residents in a community and do not directly measure segregation between minority groups (e.g., non -Hispanic Black or African American and Hispanic or Latino segregation).

36.2% - 61.3%

29.9% - 36.1%

23.9% - 29.8%

23.6% - 23.8%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table B03002); City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

SAN PABLO GENERAL PL AN UPDATE
Figure D-1: Proportion of Non-Hispanic
White Residents, Contra Costa County
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-12
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Chart D-3 provides dissimilarity indices for San Pablo and the county derived from 2019 ACS estimates. While the county has relatively high levels of segregation, the city maintains relatively low levels. For instance, there is high segregation between Black and white residents in the county, but low levels of segregation for Black and white residents in San Pablo. However, there is a moderate level of segregation between Hispanic and white residents in the city.

Chart D-3: San Pablo and Regional Dissimilarity Index
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table B01003 and Table B03002) The 2020-2025 AI finds that segregation in the county is primarily an inter-jurisdictional rather than an intra-jurisdictional phenomenon. It notes that there are high concentrations of Black and Hispanic populations in east and west county communities, while there are a low number Black and Hispanic residents in the central county. Geographically, San Pablo is part of West County. Hispanic residents are concentrated in San Pablo, as well as the cities of Pittsburg and Richmond. The trend of inter- city segregation explains why the county has higher levels of segregation as measured by the dissimilarity index while individual cities, like San Pablo, have relatively lower levels.

At the county level, segregation for Black residents has decreased since 1990, while levels of segregation for Hispanics and Asians/Pacific Islanders have increased. The 2020-2025 AI explains that the primary driver of desegregation has been the out -migration of Black residents from historically Black neighborhoods in the Cities of Richmond, Oakland, and San Francisco towards more suburban jurisdictions in the county with historically smaller Black populations. However, when using the alternate exposure index to measure segregation, the 2020-2025 AI concludes that the exposure of Black residents to non-Hispanic white residents has not changed, and that as the proportion of Hispanic and Asian residents in the county has increased, the neighborhoods in which Black residents have historically lived have become increasingly less Black. Exposure estimates the probability that a member of one racial/ethnic group will interact with a member of another racial/ethnic group in their neighborhood.

While the dissimilarity index shows a decreasing imbalance between Black and white residents, this is a byproduct of the increasing share of other minority populations. As the 2020 -2025 AI notes, neighborhood amenities are still largely concentrated in predominantly white neighborhoods.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-13
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
The shortcomings of the dissimilarity index, including the fact that San Pablo is a majority-minority city, may not capture the nuances of segregation between minority groups within the city. Further, the dissimilarity index is only available at the citywide level. To capture these nuances, HCD has provided neighborhood segregation typologies developed by the Urban Displacement Project (UDP) at UC Berkeley.

These typologies identify tracts based on which racial/ethnic groups have more than 10 percent representation within a given census tract. The typologies consider five racial/ethnic groups—including Black, Latinx, White, Asian, and Other. As shown in Figure D-2, while most of the city is either 3 or 4 Group Mix, there are concentrations of ethnic/racial groups in the western portion of the city. The southwestern portion of the city is Mostly Latinx, while the areas north of it are Black-Latinx and Asian- Latinx. Further, as displayed in Figure D-3, most of the city is classified as Higher Diversity by the 2018 ESRI Diversity Index, with two sections of relatively lower diversity in the central and eastern portions of the city.

While there is a relatively higher concentration of Latino residents in the western portion of San Pablo, the 2020-2025 AI concluded that it is unlikely that existing land uses and zoning correlate with a concentration of non-white and low-income residents in San Pablo. While multifamily residence zones primarily lie along the San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street corridors—which are the sites of increased diversity in the city—zoning for single-family residences remains dominant across the city. Further, the City is currently preparing the Rumrill Corridor Plan which will target development along Rumrill Boulevard in the portion of the city classified as Mostly Latinx and Black-Latinx. This will likely include increased multifamily residential or mixed-use development in those areas.

The 2020-2025 AI identifies three trends that will likely contribute to future segregation in the county: the regional housing crisis, aftereffects of the foreclosure crisis, and open space and growth boundaries. The high costs of new housing, as well as gentrification and displacement pressures, may continue patterns of segregation at the regional level as lower-income households and Black and Hispanic or Latino households face increasingly constrained housing choices. Further, the foreclosure crisis, which was particularly acute in San Pablo, has contributed to the decline of household wealth in communities of color, the deterioration of the physical quality of homes, and reduced opportunities for affordable homeownership. Finally, conserved open space limits the amount of land available for the development of higher-density affordable housing and raises equity questions in evaluating the future use of protected areas.

PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Persons with disabilities may face discriminatory housing practices based on their disability, including the lack of accessible dwellings and refusal by housing providers to provide reasonable accommodations. As noted in the Housing Needs Assessment Appendix, according to 2019 ACS five -year estimates, 3,685 persons (12.0 percent of the non- institutionalized population) in San Pablo had a disability. This proportion is about equivalent to Contra Costa County (11.2 percent) and Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
SanPablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - Urban Displacement Project, 2019; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-2: San Pablo Neighborhood
Segregation
3 Group Mixed
4 Group Mixed
Asian-Latinx
Black-Latinx
Mostly Latinx
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
SanPablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ESRI, 2018; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-3: San Pablo Diversity Index
> 85 (Higher Diversity)
70 - 85
55 - 70*
40 - 55*
< 40 (Lower Diversity)*
*No census blocks contained in this category.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-16
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
slightly higher than that of the Bay Area (9.6 percent). As shown in Figure D-4 below, there is a slight concentration of persons with a disability in the southern and eastern portions of the city. This is likely linked to the presence of facilities that serve the needs of the disabled in these locations, including Vale Healthcare, a 2-2-bed skilled nursing facility for older adults at 13484 San Pablo Avenue; the Hatlen Residential Center for the Visually Impaired at 2430 Rd 20; and the concentration of Section 8 housing that serves people with disabilities within the Rumrill PDA. However, no single census tract contains a population with a disability that exceeds 20 percent of the tract’s total population, which is the threshold typically used by HCD as an indicator of overconcentration.

FAMILIAL STATUS
Familial status may be another basis for discriminatory housing practices, including discrimination against families with children. Such discrimination my limit the choices of where families can live and lead to geographic concentrations within a community. Female householders with children in particular may be targets of discrimination. Within San Pablo, as indicated in Table D-4, most children under 18 years live in married-couple households. About 29.3 percent of children live in female householder, no spouse present households, while 11.8 percent of children live in male householder, no spouse present households. While the rate of female-headed households is higher in San Pablo than in Contra Costa County as a whole (12.2 percent) and the Bay Area (10.4 percent),4 City staff reports that the family support network available to single mothers is strong. In addition to informal support from friends and relatives in the community, resources catering to the needs of single mothers in San Pablo include Contra Costa Health's San Pablo WIC at 501 Gateway Avenue, which offers and array of programs, services, and classes for women, infants & children; and Ujima Family Recovery Services, a non-profit charitable organization dedicated to helping families recover from alcoholism, drug addiction and behavioral health problems, located at 1901 Church Lane.

Table D-4: Children Under 18 Years in San Pablo Households, 2019 Household Type1 Number Percent
Married-Couple 4,486 58.9%
Male Householder, No Spouse Present 903 11.8%
Female Householder, No Spouse Present 2,233 29.3%
Other 0 0.0%
Total 7,622 100.0%

1. All households with children are considered family households.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table S0901) Figures 3-5 through 3-6 below indicate there are some patterns of geographic concentration based on familial status. These figures show the percentage of children within a census tract that live within a certain type of family household. For instance, Figure D-5 shows there is a comparatively lower share of children living in female-headed households in the southern and eastern portions of the city, while Figure D-6 shows a relatively higher concentration of children living in married-couple households in

4 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. (ABAG Housing Element Data Package 2021).

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-17
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
the southern, eastern and northern portions of the city. At the regional scale, the 2020 -2025 AI notes that Contra Costa County has a higher percentage of households that consist of families with children than in the broader Bay Area region. Within the county, there is a concentration of households headed by single mothers in San Pablo, Richmond, North Richmond, Bay Point, Pittsburg, and Antioch. These areas tend to have high combined Black and Hispanic /Latino populations. This differs from areas in the central county, which have low concentrations of single mothers and have relatively higher populations of white or Asian and Pacific Islander communities.

PEOPLE EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Based on the 2023 Point -in-Time (PIT) Count, as discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment (Appendix B), there were 48 individuals experiencing homelessness in San Pablo on the night of January 24, 2023. This represents a 28.4 percent decrease over 2020 PIT totals in the city. Staff reports that homeless encampments are most typically found on vacant land adjacent to the I-80 freeway and near San Pablo and Wildcat Creeks in the city. There are currently no homeless or transitional shelters in San Pablo, though Contra Costa County offers various health and social services in San Pablo at the West County Behavioral Health Center. To access services elsewhere in the County, transit service is available. As discussed in greater detail below (see D.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity), there are seven local bus lines that serve the City, providing connections to the regional transportation network, including Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stations in Richmond and El Cerrito, the Amtrak rail station in Richmond, a nd the Richmond Passenger Ferry Terminal. Virtually every parcel in San Pablo is within 1/4 mile of a bus line.

People experiencing homelessness in San Pablo have not necessarily been displaced from housing in the community. Anecdotal information from City staff indicates that some homeless individuals came to San Pablo to gamble at the Lytton Casino but lack the resources to return home.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
> 40%*
30% - 40%*
20% - 30%*
10% - 20%
< 10%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure D-4: Persons with Disabilities
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-5: Percent of Children in Female
Householder Households
> 80%*
61% - 80%*
41% - 60%*
21% - 40%
< 20%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

> 80%*
61% - 80%
41% - 60%
21% - 40%*
< 20%*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure D-6: Percent of Children in
Married-Couple Households
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-21
Revised Draft February 14, 2024

INCOME LEVEL
Geographic concentration by income, including concentration of poverty, is another type of segregation that may exist within a jurisdiction. The concentration of low- or moderate-income (LMI) individuals provides one method to gauge the extent of such segregation. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI – based on the HUD income definition of up to 80 percent area median income (AMI). Figure D-7 provides the distribution of LMI block groups across San Pablo. As can be seen, nearly the entire city is considered an LMI area, with a small portion in the southeastern corner that does not cross the 51 percent threshold.

Poverty rates and the concentration of poverty over time can provide an insight into the economic wellbeing of households and individuals in the county and in San Pablo. According to the 2020-2025 AI, poverty in the eastern portion of the county has risen dramatically as lower-income residents have been displaced from more expensive parts of the Bay Area. In the county, the highest concentrations of both low-income and non -white populations are in Antioch, Concord, Hercules, Pinole, Pittsburg, Richmond, San Pablo, and Walnut Creek (low -income only). As of 2019, about 16.3 percent of San Pablo’s population is below the federal poverty line. Further, poverty is unevenly distr ibuted by race/ethnicity (see Table D-5). Residents living below the poverty line who identify as white alone, Black or African American alone, non -Hispanic/Latino white, or Hispanic or Latino of any race are overrepresented when compared to their share of the total population, while residents who identify as Asian alone are underrepresented among those below the poverty line. For instance, while Black or African American alone residents make up 10.8 percent of the total population, they constitute 14.6 percent of the population living below the poverty line. Residents who identify as Asian alone, on the other hand, make up 17.4 percent of the population but only constitute 11.4 percent of the population living below the poverty line.

Table D-5: Poverty Rates in San Pablo, 2019
Race/Ethnicity1 Total Population Population Below Poverty Level Number Percent Number Percent
White alone 11,284 36.9% 2,237 45.0%
Black or African American alone 3,315 10.8% 728 14.6%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 156 0.5% 19 0.4% Asian alone 5,306 17.4% 566 11.4%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 134 0.4% 0 0.0% Other alone 10,378 33.9% 1,425 28.6%
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 18,575 60.8% 3,052 61.3% White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 2,263 7.4% 496 10.0% Total 30,573 100.0% 4,975 100.0%

1. People who identify as Hispanic or Latino may be any race.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table S1701) Despite relatively high levels of poverty in the city, overall rates have decreased between 2014 and 2019. As is shown in Figures 3-8 and 3-9, the poverty rate has decreased in the western and northern portions of the city, although it has remained relatively stable in the central portion of the city along San Pablo Avenue. In both years, no tract has consisted of higher than 30 percent of its population living below the poverty line.

In 2019, most tracts saw between 10 and 20 percent of their population living below the poverty line while some areas saw between 20 and 30 percent.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
> 51%
25% - 51%
0% - 25%*
*No census blocks contained in this category.

Figure D-7: Low- to Moderate-Income
Population, Block Groups
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2010-2014; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-8: Poverty Status, 2014
> 40%*
30% - 40%*
20% - 30%
10% - 20%
> 10%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2010-2019; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-9: Poverty Status, 2019
> 40%*
30% - 40%*
20% - 30%
10% - 20%
< 10%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-25
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
D.3 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of
Poverty and Affluence
To assist communities in identifying racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs), HUD has developed a census tract -based definition: R/ECAPs must have a non- white population of 50 percent or more, and the poverty rate must exceed 40 percent or be three or more times the average tract poverty rate for the metropolitan/micropolitan area, whichever threshold is lower. According to HUD estimates provided by HCD, during the 2009-2013 period there were no R/ECAPs in San Pablo.

Further, based on 2019 ACS estimates there were still no R/ECAPs in the city. However, as seen in Figure D-10, as of 2019 there are a few R/ECAPs in the region surrounding the city, including in East Bay cities like Albany and Berkeley.

While there is no standard definition for Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) provided by either HUD or HCD, they are generally considered to be areas with high concentrations of wealthy, non-Hispanic white residents. An article by Edward G. Goetz, et al. published in HUD’s Cityscape journal defines an RCAA as a “census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is White and has a median income of at least $125, 000.” 5 Figure D-10 displays the
locations of RCAAs under this definition ; while there are no RCAAs in the city, there are a number located across the San Francisco Bay in Marin County, including along the Tiburon Peninsula.

While there are no R/ECAPs under the official definition in San Pablo, all of West County could be considered one in context of the region. As noted previously, 76.2 percent of West Contra Costa CCD is comprised of a population considered something other than non-Hispanic white. According to 2019 ACS estimates, about 11.6 percent of the population of this area lives under the poverty line . This is the second highest rate among CCDs in the county —only exceeded by the 15.6 percent seen in the Antioch-Pittsburg CCD —while the entire county experiences an 8.7 percent poverty rate . West County poverty rates are also higher than the average Bay Area poverty rate, which was about 8.5 percent in 2019 for the nine-county region according to ACS estimates.

As a result of West County’s unique status in the Bay Area region, the City has developed several economic development programs to alleviate poverty. The City works in collaboration with t he San Pablo Economic Development Corporation (SPEDC) , whose mission to develop, diversify, and stabilize the local economy through workforce and business education and training. SPEDC offers workshops, trainings, and classes for businesses, entrepreneurs, and individuals. It also acts as a resource center for new businesses with owners located in San Pablo and provides ongoing support to existing businesses. SPEDC offers the Nano Revolving Loan Fund, which is designed to stimulate economic growth in west Contra Cost County through lending small businesses the capital they need.

In addition to support for small businesses, SPEDC also provides workforce development services.

They provide grant funding for qualified city residents to enroll in career training for construction and carpentry, information technology, barbering, and commercial driver’s licensing. In partnership with Contra Costa College, SPEDC awards financial aid covering 50 percent of enrollment fees, books, and

5 Edward G. Goetz, et al. "Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation" (Cityscape, Vol. 21 No. 1, 2019), pp. 99-123.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-26
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
supplies, along with childcare funding, for San Pablo residents enrolled in “Career Technical Education” programs at the College. SPEDC also administers the Removing Barriers Job Readiness program, which is a comprehensive support service aiming to prepare the workforce for careers that pay a progressive wage and benefits. Services under the Removing Barriers program include subsidized childcare, job readiness and financial literacy workshops, free professional clothing, and low -cost tattoo removal.

Further, SPEDC offers support for utilizing the Workforce Initiative Subsidy for Homeownership (WISH) program, offered through the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco. Over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, SPEDC pivoted to include food and housing security, as well as ensuring personal protective equipment and meals reached first responders and essential workers. They also expanded their training to include COVID-19 awareness through the Teamster’s Trust.

D.4 Disparities in Access to Opportunity
To help quantify access to opportunity within a jurisdiction, HCD and TCAC convened in the California Fair Housing Task Force to “provide research, evidence -based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task Force developed a series of Opportunity Maps to determine areas with the highest and lowest resources by census tract. Highest resource tracts are the top 20 percent of cen sus tracts with the highest index scores relative to the region, while high resource tracts are the next 20 percent. The remaining tracts are then evenly divided into the low resource and moderate resource categories. Index scores are compiled by domain, as outlined in Table D-6 below. The economic, environmental and education domains were further aggregated to create a composite index, which determines each tract’s resource level.

Table D-6: Domain and Indicators for HCD/TCAC Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult Education
Employment
Job Proximity
Median Home Value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 indicators
Education Math Proficiency
Reading Proficiency
High School Graduation Rates
Student Poverty Rate
Filter Poverty and Racial Segregation
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map, December 2020

SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 2 41
MILES
City Limits

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Racially/Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP)
Racially Concentrated Areas of
Affluence (RCAA) Locations
Figure D-10: Locations of Racially/
Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
(R/ECAPs) and Racially Concentrated
Areas of Affluence (RCAAs), 2019
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-28
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Understanding disparities in access to opportunity within a community requires an assessment of the regional as well as the local context. The following section provides a summary of regional opportunity and opportunity in San Pablo. Citywide opportunity i s broken down into the distinct categories of educational, economic, and environmental opportunity based on metrics provided by HCD.

REGIONAL CONTEXT
The 2020-2025 AI explores the distribution of five types of opportunity: educational, employment, transportation, access to low poverty neighborhoods, and access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods. Analysis is based on indices provided by the HUD AFFH tool . The higher the index score, the better an area’s access to opportunity. The indices are defined as follows:
• Environmental Health — Summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level.
• Jobs Proximity — Quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). • Labor Market — Provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood.
• Low Poverty — A measure of the degree of poverty in a neighborhood, at the Census tract level.
• Low Transportation Cost — Estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single- parent family with income at 50% of the median income for renters for the region. As shown below on charts D-4 and D-5, the transportation cost index is virtually the same (relatively high) for all racial groups. • School Proficiency — School-level data on the performance of 4th grade students on state exams to describe which neighborhoods have high-performing elementary schools nearby and which are near lower performing schools.
• Transit — Trips taken by a family that meets the following description: a 3 -person single- parent family with income at 50 percent% of the median income for renters.

Chart D-4 below shows index scores based on the July 2020 HUD data release. In Contra Costa County access to opportunity is generally highest for non-Hispanic white residents. Residents who identify as Hispanic or non-Hispanic Black, on the other hand, have the lowest access to opportunity while non- Hispanic Asians and Pacific Islanders as well as non-Hispanic Native Americans live in a wider variety of neighborhoods. The major exception to this is the relatively low transit index scores of non - Hispanic white residents. This trend is like that seen in the wider San Francisco -Oakland-Hayward metropolitan area, although the county typically experiences lower index values. Similar patterns are evident for the total population and those that live below the poverty line, as shown in Chart D-5.

Transportation
The indices are a useful tool to gauge opportunity at regional scale, but they do not identify opportunity by geographic distribution. Based on the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas composite score, as shown in Figure D-11, access to opportunity is lowest in West County and northeastern sections of City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-29
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
the county—including the cities of San Pablo, Richmond, Pittsburg, and Antioch—and highest in the central section of the county—including cities like Walnut Creek and Lafayette. San Pablo is situated within a sub-regional low resource zone of an otherwise moderate to high resource county.

Chart D-4: Opportunity Indices, Total Population
Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-30
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Chart D-5: Opportunity Indices, Population Living Below the Poverty Line Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - HCD & TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis, 2021; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 City Limits

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-11: TCAC Opportunity Areas –
Composite Score, Countywide
Highest Resource
High Resource
Moderate Resource
Low Resource
High Segregation & Poverty
Missing/Insufficient Data
0 5 102.5
MILES
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-32
Revised Draft February 14, 2024

LOCAL CONTEXT
According to the 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas composite score (see Figure D-12), all tracts in San Pablo are classified as low resource. As seen in Figure D-11, this is typical of cities in West County, including the neighboring cities of Richmond, El Sobrante, and Pinole. Higher resources areas are located to the east of San Pablo in central and east county, as well as to the south in El Cerrito and the East Bay cities of Albany and Berkeley.

Economic Opportunity
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas economic score, presented in Figure D-13, summarizes access to economic opportunity in San Pablo. Like the composite score, the city experiences lower economic outcomes than other Bay Area communities, although there is a small portion outside of the City limit but within the City’s sphere of influence with slightly more positive economic outcomes. Low access to economic opportunity is present in other cities that border San Pablo in West County, although some portions of Richmond in the south have slightly more positive outcomes.

San Pablo is a geographically small city with somewhat limited employment options. While most residents travel outside of the city for work, about 1,018 jobs were added in the city between 2010 and 2019 (20.5 percent increase), according to the U.S. Census Bureau Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics program. Economic development is a priority for the City, and there are a number of local strengths to build on. This includes the San Pablo Lytton Casino as well as Contra Costa College.

Further, despite the closure of Doctor’s Medical Center in 2015 —which was previously the city’s top employer—San Pablo remains strong in the healthcare and social services industry. While Casino and hospitality-related jobs are typically low paying and relatively low -skilled, they provide an important source of local employment. Employment with the College and he alth care sector tends to be better paid with relatively high -skilled jobs. Additionally, the city is well located within the Bay Area, with good connections to the r egional road network and relatively easy access to the Richmond Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) station and Richmond Ferry Terminal.

The City of San Pablo Economic Development Department works with other City departments, Local Successor Agency staff, economic development consultants, the SPEDC, the San Pablo Merchants Association, the San Pablo Chamber of Commerce, and other agencies a nd non-profits to develop partnerships and leverage resources to the benefit of San Pablo residents. Ongoing economic development efforts are discussed in detail above in the Section D.3 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence section. Initiatives include small business loans, support for low income entrepreneurs, and workforce development programs. Further, the Rumrill Corridor Plan currently in development will identify economic development strategies that leverage local workforce strengths and market opportunities to nurture and grow small -scale manufacturing, production, and repair - oriented businesses along with workforce housing in the Rumrill PDA.existing Priority Development Areas (PDAs) in the city provide a springboard for future economic development and grant access to additional resources for the city. This includes the San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street corridors, as well as Rumrill Boulevard. Future development in these PDAs will greatly increase access to economic opportunity in San Pablo.

Educational Opportunity
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas education score, which quantifies access to educational opportunity, is provided Figure D -14. Like at the composite score and economic opportunity index, City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-33
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
San Pablo experiences low er levels of educational opportunity throughout the city , as compared to other portions of the Bay Area. This reflects patterns seen in neighboring jurisdictions—less positive educational outcomes in Richmond and other West County cities and more positive educational outcomes in central and eastern Contra Costa County as well as in El Cerrito and the East Bay cities of Albany and Berkeley. Compared to Richmond and Contra Costa County, San Pablo has a smaller share of residents with high levels of educational attainment. According to 2019 ACS estimates, 13.1 percent of San Pablo residents over 25 have a bachelor’s degree or higher (i.e. graduate or professional degree), compared to 28.2 percent of Richmond residents and 42.4 percent of county residents.

The West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) provides public elementary, middle, and high school education to San Pablo residents. The WCCUSD is currently in the process of updating its Long-Range Facilities Master Plan, last approved in 2016. The updated Master Plan is expected to address changes in teaching and learning, District operations, and the implications of COVID-19 for future learning needs. Most San Pablo schools are currently running under capacity. Table D -7 summarizes test score results from the 2018-2019 Smarter Balanced assessments of math and English language arts (ELA), which forms part of the State’s California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). The proportion of students who meet or exceed standards in ELA or math is lower in WCCUSD than in the county or State. However, there is no geographic discrepancy within San Pablo, and WCCUSD is implementing programs such as the Expanded Learning Program, the Parent Efficacy Trainer of Train er (ToT) Model, and English learner programs to improve student performance.

Table D-7: CAASPP Smarter Balanced Test Results, 2018-2019 District/Region Percent Met or Exceeded Standard
English Language Arts Mathematics
State of California 51.10% 39.73%
Contra Costa County 54.64% 44.32%
West Contra Costa Unified School District 35.16% 23.94% Source: California Department of Education, CAASPP, Smarter Balanced Summative Assessments, 2018-2019 The City is also implementing initiatives to help improve scholastic performance for local students and expand on campus support services. In 2011, the City launched the San Pablo Beacon Community Schools Initiative to turn its six schools into community schools. Under the initiative, WCCCUSD, the City, the County, community- based organizations, businesses, families and philanthropists work jointly address the identified needs of students, families and the community in a comprehensive, integrated and accountable way. Community schools provide a range of programs and services, from housing assistance to health screenings, family support, counseling and other services to families while acting as community hubs. In addition to the basic -needs services, the schools host programs, adult classes and tutoring in the evenings and on the weekends. Helms Middle School in San Pablo has a partnership with nonprofit counseling service Bay Area Community Resources to station full -time therapists, social workers and mentors on the campus.

Other initiatives include t he San Pablo Team for Youth (SPTFY) provides funds to public and non - profit agencies for the expansion and/or enhancement of school- based programs and services for children, youth, and families. During the fourth cycle of the program, the City of San Pablo offered City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-34
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
organizations the opportunity to qualify for Lead Agency funds to implement Beacon Community Schools in San Pablo. The San Pablo Scholarship Pilot Program directly targets barriers that may prevent disadvantaged students from pursuing further education by providing scholarships for post - high school education and career technical training to young San Pablo residents. In 2023, the first year of the program, 79 scholarships were awarded to San Pablo high school graduates. Of these awardees, 63 (approximately 80 percent) identified as Hispanic.

Located east of San Pablo Avenue in the northern portion of San Pablo, Contra Costa College provides college-level education and attracts students from all over the county. The campus encompasses 23 buildings on 83 acres of land. In fall 2018, the College enrolled 7,263 students, an increase of 338 students from fall 2014. The College does not have dormitory facilities, and all students arrange their own housing. However, a 1.5-acre site located on a triangle of land surrounded by Rumrill Boulevard, Broadway Avenue, and San Pablo Avenue has been proposed as a mixed-use project with upper floors dedicated to housing for international students at the College. However, no entity currently has a proposal for the development of this site. Recent expansions and upgrades to the College include the opening of a new College Center building in 2016, renovations to the Applied Arts Building in 2018, and the rebuilding of the ca mpus Safety Center in 2018. Currently under construction are a new science building and a remodeled physical education and athletic facilities.

Contra Costa College is also home to Middle College High School, an Early College High School program that offers a nurturing and academically challenging environment for students at risk of not meeting their potential in a traditional high school environm ent. The program gives students with high potential a special opportunity to gain a range of skills that will provide motivation and support for their lifelong personal, academic, and social growth. Middle College students earn a high school diploma while working towards the completion of an Associate Degree or 60 transferable credits in four to five years.

Compared to Richmond and Contra Costa County, San Pablo has a smaller share of residents with high levels of educational attainment. According to 2019 ACS estimates, 13.1 percent of San Pablo residents over 25 have a bachelor’s degree or higher (i.e. graduate or professional degree) , compared to 28.2 percent of Richmond residents and 42.4 percent of county residents.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-12: TCAC Opportunity Areas –
Composite Score, San Pablo
Low Resource
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

> .75 (More Positive Economic Outcomes)*
.50 - .75*
.25 - .50
< 0.25 (Less Positive Economic Outcomes)
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure D-13: TCAC Opportunity Areas
Economic Score, San Pablo
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - HCD & TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis, 2021; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
> .75 (More Positive Education Outcomes)*
.50 - .75*
.25 - .50*
< 0.25 (Less Positive Education Outcomes)
*No census tracts contained in this category.

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-14: TCAC Opportunity Areas,
Education Score, San Pablo
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-38
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Environmental Opportunity
Environmental opportunity quantifies the extent of environmental quality in a neighborhood, which can have a major impact on community health and quality of life. Figure D-15 visualizes access to environmental opportunity in San Pablo based on indicators from CalEnviroScreen 3.0 as compiled by TCAC. Contrary to the trends apparent in other opportunity metrics, San Pablo experiences more positive environmental outcomes. The most positive outcomes are seen in the southern and central portions of the city; however, this does not fully account for actual conditions in the city. For example, while neighborhoods east of I-80 are shown to have lower access to environmental opportunity, this area of the city has the densest tree canopy coverage in San Pablo. Additionally, it is home to home to Brentz Lane Park and two areas of natural open space within the City limit, and just beyond the City limit to the east is Wildcat Regional Park, a 2,789-acre park that extends from the Tilden Nature Area above the Berkeley hills in the south to historic Alvarado Park at the north end in Richmond. Wildcat Canyon is a popular place for hikers, mountain bikers, and equestrians, easily accessible from San Pablo and other East Bay Cities. On the other hand, the central and southern parts of the city are shown as having more positive environmental opportunity scores, but there are fewer parks and tree canopy coverage is lower than in other parts of San Pablo. Large surface parking areas at Helms Middle School and Salesian College Preparatory are also urban heat islands that absorb and re -emit the sun's heat, increasing ambient temperatures in the summer. Northwestern neighborhoods are shown as having less positive environmental opportunity scores than other parts of the city. These n eighborhoods do in fact have fewer parks and less tree canopy coverage than other neighborhoods.

Expanding access to parks and recreational facilities is a priority for San Pablo and the Land Use Element of the General Plan proposes to add six new park locations and create a network of greenways.

In recent years, the City has made important progress in expanding parks. The design of a new pocket park at 17th and Bush in the southwest of the city is complete and in November 2023 the City announced plans to build the “San Pablo Area for Recreation and Community” or S.P.A.R.C., a new full-service park on the former El Portal Elementary School site at 2600 Moraga Road, next to Contra Costa College. The Community Health and Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan incorporates strategies for increasing tree canopy coverage and addressing urban heat throughout the community. It also provides direction for linking park facility improvement priorities to a ranking system keyed to public health and recreational goals, and establishing an incentive system to encourage additional land dedication and park development beyond the minimum City requirements. . In the local areas bordering the city, more positive environmental outcomes are generally located along the borders of East Bay regional parks and protected space, like the Wildcat Canyon Regional Park. In Richmond and other East Bay cities adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, less positive environmental outcomes are evident in tracts located along the waterfront.

Transportation Access
Whereas at the county level, transit access varies significantly by race with White residents having the lowest access score and Black residents having the highest score (see Charts D-4 and D-5 above), that trend is not apparent in San Pablo. The whole of the City is well served by public transit. As shown on Map D-16, there are seven local bus lines that serve the City, including Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) line 72R, which runs at 12 minute headways during weekday peak hours. Local buses provide connections to the regional transportation network, including Bay Area Rapid Transit City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-39
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
(BART) stations in Richmond and El Cerrito, the Amtrak rail station in Richmond, and the Richmond Passenger Ferry Terminal. There is a transit hub on the campus of Contra Costa College. This hub is a “timed transfer stop” which provides synchronized bus-to-bus transfers. Also as shown on Map D- 16, all residential areas of San Pablo are within a 1/2 -mile of transit service and 93.5 percent of all residential parcels in the city (7,570 of 8,095 parcels) are within a 1/4-mile of transit.

D.5 Disproportionate Housing Needs &
Displacement Risk
According to HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo, disproportionate housing need “generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area.” Consistent with HCD guidance, this analysis evaluates disproportionate housing need in San Pablo through the assessment of cost burden, overcrowding, and displacement risk.

At the regional level, according to the 2020-2025 AI, a significant percentage of residents throughout the county experience some form of housing need. This includes relatively high levels of cost burden, overcrowding, and incomplete kitchen or plumbing facilities. Based on that analysis, Hispanic and Black residents are particularly prone to experience severe housing problems, including in San Pablo, Richmond, North Richmond, Hercules, Concord, Pittsburg, Antioch, and Oakley.

COST BURDEN
High rates of cost burden, as discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment Appendix, are prevalent in San Pablo. Nearly half of all households experience some level of cost burden, while lower -income households and renter -occupied households constitute the ma jority of all households experiencing cost burden. As Chart D-6 demonstrates, rates of cost burden are also unevenly distributed by race and ethnicity. Most non -Hispanic Asian/Asian Pacific Islander (API), non -Hispanic white and Hispanic or Latinx househol ds do not experience cost burden, while most non -Hispanic Black or African American, non -Hispanic AIAN, and non -Hispanic other or multiple race households do experience cost burden. Non-Hispanic AIAN households face particularly high levels of cost burden (77.3 percent), and non -Hispanic Black or African American households face the highest levels of severe cost burden (30.1 percent).

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - HCD & TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis, 2021; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
> .75 (More Positive Environmental Outcomes)
.50 - .75
.25 - .50*
< 0.25 (Less Positive Environmental Outcomes)*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-15: TCAC Opportunity Areas,
Environmental Score, San Pablo
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
IIT
IIT
City of
Richmond
Unincorporated
North
Richmond
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
3680.01
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
T yler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel WayArundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell DrMacarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
T renton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield St
Corte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
Westgate Cir
W Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
SanPablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: Kittleson, 2021; US Census, 2020; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 ¼ ½
MILE
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Unincorporated
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENER AL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-16: Transit Access
IIT Public Transit Hubs
Local Transit Routes
376
70 71
72 72R
74 76
Transbay Transit Lines
L
LA
Priority Development Area (PDA)
Residential Areas
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-42
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
In addition to racial/ethnic disparities, cost burden is unevenly distributed by geographic location in the city. Figure D-176 displays the concentration of homeowner cost burden – the highest share of cost burdened owner-occupied households is in the southwestern portion of the city. The area west of San Pablo Avenue, south of Broadway Avenue, and along Rumrill Boulevard also has a relatively high concentration of cost burden. In most of the city, however, the share of cost burdened homeowners is between 20 percent and 40 percent. Figure D -187 shows slightly di fferent patterns for renter cost burden. While the southwestern portion of the city also has higher proportions of cost burdened renters, the central portion of the city also maintains a relatively high share. In both areas, between 60 percent and 80 percent of renters experience cost burden. The lowest shares of renter cost burden are found east of the Interstate 80 (I-80) freeway.

Chart D-6: Cost Burden by Race/Ethnicity in San Pablo
Source: ABAG-MTC Housing Needs Data Workbook (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013-2017 release)

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-17: Homeowner Cost Burden, 2019
> 80%*
60% - 80%
40% - 60%
20% - 40%
< 20%*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-18: Renter Cost Burden, 2019
> 80%*
60% - 80%
40% - 60%
20% - 40%
< 20%*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-45
Revised Draft February 14, 2024

OVERCROWDING
Rates of overcrowding are much higher in the city than in the county or region, are discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment Appendix. While about 17.0 percent of housing units in San Pablo are considered overcrowded, only 5.0 percent of the county’s units and 6.9 percent of the Bay Area’s units are. Groups that experience relatively high rates of overcrowding include renters, both lower-income households and some higher -income households, Hispanic or Latinx households, and other race or multiple race hous eholds. Through the AFFH Data and Mapping Resources tool, HCD has also provided geographic overcrowding data compiled by the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHS). Figure D-198 shows that tracts with an overconcentration of overcrowded housing are located in the area north of Market Avenue and west of 23rd Street, as well as the southwestern corner of the city along Rumrill Boulevard . There is high opportunity for additional housing development in the Rumrill Boulevard and San Pablo Avenue area s, which may help to reduce overcrowding.

The lowest rates of overcrowding are apparent in the area east of the I -80 and the area surrounding Contra Costa College. Further, according to the online survey conducted for the AHS, about 34 .0 percent of San Pablo residents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the statement “My home provides sufficient living space for me and the members of my household.” Factors contributing to the relatively higher rate of overcrowding in San Pablo are primarily cultural and socio-economic. The City has no household size limits and staff observes that multigenerational and non-standard family arrangements are common. Youn ger unrelated and unmarried adults may also share accommodations out of financial necessity. Particularly in new immigrant households, adult children, cousins, other relatives, and friends may live together with a nuclear family. This leads to unpermitted ADU construction, the most common type of code violation in the community. Staff reports that the unpermitted units are typically built to provide accommodations for friends and family, rather than tenants.

DISPLACEMENT RISK
Gentrification pressures, including increased risk of displacement, are a central component of the Bay Area housing market. As the 2020-2025 AI notes, the displacement of residents is a major contributing factor to patterns of segregation both in Contra Co sta County and in the broader Bay Area. Lower - income people of color displaced from other sectors of the Bay Area, like San Francisco and Oakland, are increasingly concentrating in East County communities like Antioch. Despite rising housing costs, much of the county remains relatively affordable and may be less prone to the displacement pressures faced elsewhere in the Bay Area region. West County cities like San Pablo are not experiencing as much of this outmigration but do continue to provide relatively affordable housing for a population that tends to be lower-income and proportionately less non-Hispanic white than elsewhere in the Bay Area.

However, in San Pablo—as discussed in the Housing Needs Assessment Appendix —an affordability gap exists for lower-income homeowners as well as extremely low-income renters. Although housing costs are comparatively low in the city, they have increased treme ndously over the past several years.

In evidence of this, local demand for COVID -era Housing and Rental Assistance program, which provided both mortgage write downs and rental assistance for local Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - CHHS, January 2020; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-19: Overcrowded Households
> 20%

15.01% - 20%

12.01% - 15%

8.2% - 12%
≤ 8.2% (Statewide Average)
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-20: Sensitive Communities
Vulnerable
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-48
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
residents, saw overwhelming demand and staff reported long lines for free food giveaways at the San Pablo Library during the pandemic. As housing costs increase, this gap may expand and subject lower- income households to displacement pressures that have otherwise been absent or relatively low in the city. Communities of color may be particularly impacted by this dynamic. UDP has provided “sensitive communities” typologies to quantify the risk of displacement within a community. Sensitive communities are those with populations vulnerable to disp lacement in the event of increased redevelopment and drastic shifts in housing cost. As is evidenced in Figure D-2019, every tract in the city is considered a sensitive community. The same is true for many of the census tracts in the neighboring city of Richmond.

While the entire city may be considered a sensitive community, this can obscure the specific pressures that may be experienced across different neighborhoods in San Pablo. In addition to the sensitive communities typology, UDP has also produced displacement typologies that more precisely describe the risk of displacement based on 2018 ACS data. As shown in Figure D-210, the area south of Market Avenue and between Rumrill Boulevard and 23rd Street is considered at risk of gentrification, as is the area along San Pablo Avenue from 23rd Street to the I-80. East of the I-80, this area is considered low- income/susceptible to displacement. Much of the northern portion of the city is not classified. None of the city is experiencing ongoing displacement or any of the more advanced forms of gentrification, both of which are consistently seen in other Bay Area cities like Oakland and San Francisco. Table D- 8 below provides the complete range of typologies and their defining criteria.

Further, all multifamily units in San Pablo are protected by the State’s Tenant Protections Act of 2019 (AB 1482), which includes an annual rent cap and just-cause protections. The City does not have any additional local rent stabilization or just-cause eviction policies in place. Counseling and legal tenant services are offered by nonprofit organizations such as Bay Area Legal Aid, which has an office in Richmond.

Please see Appendix B Housing Needs Assessment for additional detail on the housing needs of lower income households and households with special needs, including persons with disabilities, elderly, large households, single parent households, farmworkers, a nd people experiencing homelessness.

Appendix B identifies the disproportionate needs that these groups face in San Pablo. Programs to address the needs of these groups have been incorporated into Chapter 4, the Housing Action Plan.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-49
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Table D-8: Gentrification and Displacement Census Tract Typologies Typology Criteria
Low-Income/Susceptible to
Displacement
• Low- or mixed-income tract in 2018
Ongoing Displacement of
Low-Income Households
• Low- or mixed-income tract in 2018
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
At Risk of Gentrification • Low or mixed-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to low- or mixed-income households in 2018 • Did not gentrify 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
• Marginal Change in housing costs or Zillow home or rental value increases in the 90th percentile between 2012-2018
• Local and nearby increases in rent were greater than the regional median between 2012-2018 or the 2018 rent gap is greater than the regional median rent gap
Early/Ongoing
Gentrification
• Low or mixed-income tract in 2018
• Housing affordable to low- or mixed-income households in 2018 • Increase or rapid increase in housing costs or above regional median change in Zillow home or rental values between 2012-2018 • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Advanced Gentrification • Moderate-, mixed-moderate-, mixed-high-, or high-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to middle-, high-, mixed-moderate-, and mixed-high- income households in 2018
• Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs • Gentrified in 1990-2000 or 2000-2018
Stable Moderate/Mixed
Income
• Moderate-, mixed-moderate-, mixed-high-, or high-income tract in 2018 At Risk of Becoming
Exclusive
• Moderate-, mixed-moderate-, mixed-high-, or high-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to middle-, high-, mixed-moderate-, and mixed-high- income households in 2018
• Marginal change or increase in housing costs
Becoming Exclusive • Moderate-, mixed-moderate-, mixed-high-, or high-income tract in 2018 • Housing affordable to middle-, high-, mixed-moderate-, and mixed-high- income households in 2018
• Rapid increase in housing costs
• Absolute loss of low-income households, 2000-2018
• Declining low-income in-migration rate, 2012-2018
• Median income higher in 2018 than in 2000
Stable/Advanced Exclusive • High-income tract in 2000 and 2018 • Affordable to high- or mixed-high-income households in 2018 • Marginal change, increase, or rapid increase in housing costs Source: UC Berkeley, Urban Displacement Project, 2018
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
SanPablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: Urban Displacement Project, 2018; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement
At Risk of Gentrification
Stable Moderate/Mixed Income
At Risk of Becoming Exclusive
Unavailable or Unreliable Data

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-21: Gentrification and
Displacement Typologies
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-51
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
D.6 Other Relevant Factors
Historical practices and actions such as redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and urban renewal, in addition to more contemporary patterns such as predatory lending/foreclosure and gentrification- induced displacement, have unequivocally shaped the social and physical landscape of American cities, and these harmful events continue to impede fair housing. Although historical redlining maps did not extend to the bou ndaries of San Pablo today, past discriminatory practices have shaped current conditions in the community. In the late 19th Century as the area industrialized, many people of color moved to the area for jobs with the Santa Fe Railroad, and by 1902 over half of the company's workforce was non- White. Santa Fe offered housing for workers with specific areas dedicated to Mexican American, Japanese, and Native American workers. In the decades after World War II, the federal government effectively subsidized suburban neighborhoods on the express condition that they would be White only. The Federal Housing Administration’s 1938 Underwriting Manual stat ed that including a restrictive covenant would make projects more likely to get government loans. As White families moved to new suburban neighborhoods, Latino and Asian families moved in, drawn by some of the most affordable housing prices in the Bay Area. Over time, San Pablo became a majority - minority community.

Lower home values in a community mean there is less tax revenue to fund schools, and lower levels of educational attainment limit job opportunities. Additionally, throughout the 20th Century up until today, people of color face discrimination lending practices which have hampered their ability to purchase a home, the surest means of building generational wealth. Disparities in social determinants of health such as access to quality education, economic opportunities, safe parks, clean air, and other environmental factors are compounded with the very health outcomes they exacerbate such as asthma, obesity, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. As such, achieving fair housing is an integral component of environmental justice and an essential lever to break the feedback loops that perpetuate segregation and racial inequity.

Cities in present-day Contra Costa County had relatively low populations in the 1930s and were therefore not included in the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) redlining maps . However, redlining and similar past practices in East Bay communities have shaped the patterns in race, poverty, educational attainment, and other socioeconomic characteristics (as discussed in above sections ) present in West Contra Costa County and specifically San Pablo today. Figure Map D-22 shows how the areas where federally sanctioned redlining occurred in the region (i.e., in Oakland and San Francisco) generally correspond to areas that experience at least some level of segregation and predominantly communities of color, whereas they typically do not correspond to areas that are either integrated or predominantly white. Segregation patterns in and around San Pablo are similar to those occurring in East Oakland, portions of which were redlined. These spatial trends are largely paralleled by those mapped in the preceding sections (see MapsFigures 3D-8 to D3-21). The enduring legacy of past policies as well as the subregional context (e.g., development/settlement patterns as a result of proximity to industrial jobs in Richmond and Oakland) therefore underline the role and importance of present planning decisions in ensuring a more equitable future.

SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources 2.0 - Othering & Belonging Institute, 2020; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023 0 2.5 51.25
MILES
City Limits
Racial Segregation/Integration in 2020 and
Regional Redlining in the 1930s

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Racial Segregation/Integration (OBI, 2020) - Tract
Racially Integrated
Low-Medium Segregation
High POC Segregation
High White Segregation
Home Owners Loan Corporation Grade (1930s)
Redlined (D, "Hazardous")
Figure D-22: Racial Segregation/Integration
in 2020 and Regional Redlining in the 1930s
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-53
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
The Health Element of the City of San Pablo 2030 General Plan, one of the first in California, incorporates policies related to healthy transportation and physical activity; healthy food access and equity; and access to public services. In parallel with the Housing Element Update, the Health Element, which is being renamed Health and Environmental Justice, is being updated to ensure full compliance with State law (Government Code 65302(h)(1) through (4)) that requires the City to adopt goals and policies to reduce the unique or compounded health risks in disadvantaged communities, promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process, and prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of disadvantaged communities. The Health and Environmental Justice will incorporate:
• Policies to increase tree canopy coverage in residential areas and establish cooling centers to help mitigate the adverse health impacts from the projected increase in extreme heat events and average daily summertime temperatures. These policies address an approximately 30- degree difference projected between the hottest and coolest areas of the City, and localized urban heat islands include Helms Middle School, Lifelong Emergency Medical Clinic, and the industrial/commercial center between Giant Highway and Center Street. • Policies to ensure continued focus on improving air quality through regional collaboration. • Policies to help bridge the "digital divide" in San Pablo, where 12.2 percent of the population either has no computer in their home or has a computer but lacks an internet subscription.

These policies include pursuing partnerships to provide public Wi-Fi in certain parks or public areas, as well as expanding mobile-friendly and non-digital communication with residents.
• A strategy to prioritize investments in DACs, which includes the preparation of a Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard to improve environmental conditions, economic opportunities, and housing choices along a segment of the corridor that runs between Brookside and Costa, designated as a PDA.

D.7 Sites Inventory
State law requires a jurisdiction to identify sites to meet its RHNA obligations throughout the community in a manner that is consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. This includes ensuring that sites are distributed such that they combat housing discrimination, eliminate racial bias, redress historic patterns of segregation, and lift barriers that restrict access . Affirmatively furthering fair housing will help foster inclusive communities so that households at all income levels and of all racial/ethnic makeups can enjoy a more equitable distribution of opportunity and proximity to jobs, transit, a high-quality education, and environmental benefits.

To satisfy this requirement, the extent to which buildout of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element inventory may further entrench or help ameliorate existing patterns of segregation and/or exclusion of protected categories was assessed. As previously discussed, none of the Census tracts wholly or partially within the City of San Pablo’s corporate limits is classified as a R/ECAP or RCAA, but the City is located within a broader context that is notably majority -minority (non -Hispanic white population) with City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-54
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
higher proportions of lower -income households. Though none are designated as High Segregation and Poverty neighborhoods, all Census tracts in San Pablo are classified as Low Resource, indicating that they all rank among the lowest statewide for economic, educational, and environmental opportunities for residents. In the absence of Highest or High Resource areas within the City , this assessment focuses on how buildout of the sites inventory would affect the concentration of lower and moderate income households in San Pablo , approximated based on characteristics such as the proportion of renter-occupied units subsidized by Housing Choice Vouchers (HCVs). The results of the analysis are shown in Table D-9.

As described more fully in Chapter 3: Housing Resources , the inventory identifies 55 sites with a combined capacity for 637 above moderate, 280 moderate, and 319 lower income units. Table D-9 shows the distribution of units from the sites inventory by income category in each Census tract, alongside the existing (2021) socioeconomic characteristics of those tracts based on data made available from HCD. As noted above, Census tracts in the City share many similar characteristics, such as active displacement risk and high proportions of non-White population. On the other hand, t he percentages of low to mode rate income population, rent burdened households, overcrowded households, and rate of HCVs have more variance. Notably, Census tracts 6013368001, 6013369002, 6013369001, and 6013366001 have relatively higher proportions of HCVs, w hereas Census tracts 6013366002 and 6013368002 have the lowest levels. The location of Census tracts within the c ity is shown on Map D-23.

Of the four Census tracts with the highest rates of HCV use, two contain lower-income sites. However, one of these (Census Tract 6013369002, located east of I -80) has the fewest existing households and the lowest concentration of non-White population, as well as a lower proportion of low- to moderate- income population. As such, development of units affordable to lower -income households in this Census tract would not contribute to segregation but rather increase opportunities for racial and economic levels to be more similar to the rest of the City. On the other hand, Census Tract 6013369001 (located south of San Pablo Creek between I -80 and 23rd Street) has the highest number of existing households and highest concentration of low- to moderate-income population, with a proportion of non-White population comparable to the rest of the City. However, this Census tract also contains the greatest share of moderate- and above-moderate-income units in the sites inventory, so the addition of new lower-income units in this tract would help ensure an inclusive mix of housing and reduce risk of displacement for current residents. New housing opportunities for lower-income households in Census Tract 6013367200 along the southern border of the City would likewise serve to further fair housing choice in San Pablo.

As many socioeconomic characteristics are shared by Census tracts citywide, it is difficult to assess the degree to which implementation of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element would help close the gaps in access to opportunity. Nevertheless, the Housing Action Plan (see Chapter 4) and related policies in the General Pl an—such as those in the Environmental Justice Element —are designed to address existing disparities and provide new opportunities to meet the needs and enrich the lives of all San Pablo residents.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-55
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Table D-9: AFFH Housing Element Sites Analysis
Sites Inventory Capacity 2017-2021 ACS Estimates
Displacement Risk
(2022) Tract1
Low
Income
Moderate
Income
Above
Moderate
Income
Existing
Households
Non-
White
Pop.

Low to
Mod.

Income
Pop.

Rent
Burdened
Households
Over-
crowded
Households
HCV
Use2
6013368001 - 48 117 1,323 91% 72% 57% 18% 16% 2 Income Groups Displacement
6013369002 135 17 11 1,010 69% 47% 52% 18% 13% At Risk of Displacement
6013369001 62 135 316 2,536 90% 75% 67% 20% 12% 2 Income Groups Displacement
6013366001 - 2 6 1,209 93% 43% 53% 16% 12% At Risk of
Displacement
6013373000 - 24 53 1,352 95% 67% 39% 27% 10% 2 Income Groups Displacement
6013367200 122 4 10 1,758 96% 53% 48% 11% 10% 2 Income Groups Displacement
6013367100 - - - 2,148 93% 36% 77% 6% 9% At Risk of
Displacement
6013368002 - 34 83 1,137 95% 60% 46% 16% 7% 2 Income Groups Displacement
6013366002 - 16 41 1,730 96% 73% 55% 24% 4% 2 Income Groups Displacement
Notes:

1. All Census tracts within the City of San Pablo are designated as Low Resource according to TCAC Opportunity Area Maps (2023).

2. Calculated as the percentage of renter-occupied units that are subsidized by Housing Choice Vouchers (2021).

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2017-2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates; TCAC/HCD, 2023; HCD/Urban Displacement Project, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.

Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market Ave
Broadway Ave
Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDamRd
El Portal Dr
Rd 20
San Pablo Dam Rd
El Portal Dr
§¨¦80
City of
Richmond
Unincorporated
North
Richmond
Unincorporated
Unincorporated
3680.01
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Emeric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St
Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine Rd
Brook Way
Palmer Ave
T yler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel WayArundell Way
10th St
Devon Way
Marin Ave
Mason St
Wilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Way
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Y uba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell DrMacarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bowhill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
T renton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Ventura Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield St
Corte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
Wyman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clement Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone Way
Westgate Cir
W Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
Wanlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St
Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Dover Ave
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Y uba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner Ave
Rose ArborAv e
Bayview A ve
Bolduc Ct
CapitolHill Ave
W estview Pl
NArlington Blvd
HillcrestRd
MiffinAve
Wanlass
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
Rheem Creek
San Pablo Creek
Wildcat Creek
SanPablo Creek
Wildca t Cr eek
San Pablo Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
3672
3690.01
3690.02
3660.02
3660.01
3680.01
3680.02
3610
3671
3730
SOURCE: US Census, 2020; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa ounty GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
Census Tracts, 2020
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Unincorporated
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads

SAN PABLO GENER AL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-23: Census Tracts
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-57
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
D.6D.8 Summary and Conclusions
State law requires that jurisdictions identify fair housing issues as well as contributing factors and priority levels for each factor. Further, a jurisdiction must identify specific goals and actions it will take to reduce the severity of fair housing issues within that jurisdiction. This section fulfills these requirements based on the assessment provided above, as well as relevant information from the 20 2- 2025 AI. Goals and actions related to AFFH are incorporated into the broader Housing Action Plan contained within Chapter 4 of this Housing Element.

San Pablo is a majority-minority community with a high degree of racial diversity across census tracts.

While the city experiences relatively high rates of poverty, this has been steadily declining in recent years. Further, workforce development programs, offered through the SPEDC, have likely contributed to the city’s significant job increase between 2010 and 2019. San Pablo home sales prices and rents are relatively affordable compared to other communities in the Bay Area; however, housing prices have increased significantly in recent years and the fair housing issues in the community relate to housing cost burden and risk of displacement. While there are no R/ECAPs in the city, San Pablo itself an d West County can be considered one in the context of the wider region. There is also some evidence of racial/ethnic discrimination in lending services, as well as geographic concentrations based on familial status, income, and race/ethnicity.

Based on the findings of this assessment and relevant portions of the 2020 -2025 AI, Table D- 109 presents a summary of existing fair issues and their contributing factors, as well as a description for each. Issues that are primarily related to environmental justice or economic development and do not have a direct bearing on fair housing will be addressed in the respective element of the General Plan update. Priority levels were assigned as follows:
• High – Designates contributing factors that limit or den y fair housing choice (i.e., has the potential to violate the Fair Housing Act).
• Medium – Designates contributing factors which should be addressed in the near term. These issues do not violate the Fair Housing Act but may increase fair housing issues in the city.

These factors may be beyond the City’s immediate capabilities to address. • Low – Designates contributing factors that either do not need to be or cannot be addressed immediately by the City, but should be addressed later on during the eight-year City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Revised Draft February 14, 2024 D-58
Table D-10: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions 2023-2031 Metrics, Timing & Geographic Targeting HIGH Enforcement/Outreach Substandard housing conditions often go unreported.
• Multigenerational and
non-standard family
arrangements are
common, with friends
and extended family living
together.
• Consequent
overcrowding leads to
unpermitted construction
and unsafe housing
conditions, but close
personal ties between
residents and owners and
lack of formal lease
agreements limit leverage
of tenants to request
improvements.
• Continue RH&S Program
(Program 4-F)
• Awareness of Fair Housing
Programs (Program 3-H)
• Inspect 750 rental and owner-occupied
units per year each year of cycle citywide
(Program 4-F)
• Designate an Equal Opportunity Coordinator
within the City responsible for outreach and
referrals to appropriate agencies by Q3 2024
(Program 3-H)
• Host regular "housing clinics" with non-profit
groups offering free legal services in English and
Spanish starting Q1 2025 (Program 3-H)
A disproportionate share (67%) of all
housing discrimination complaints in
San Pablo are filed on the basis of
disability.
• Discriminatory real
estate/rental practices
• Lack of public knowledge
about State and federal
fair housing law
•
• Outreach to People Living
with Developmental
Disabilities in San Pablo
(Program 3-I)

• Just Cause Eviction
Protections (Program 3-G)
• Awareness of Fair Housing
Programs (Program 3-H)

• Launch program in 2024; conduct outreach to
developers and non-profits to identify
development opportunities for housing
accessible to persons with developmental
disabilities (Program 3-I)
• Assist residents of 141 assisted units at risk of
conversion by 2030 (Program 3-G)
• Designate an Equal Opportunity Coordinator
within the City responsible for outreach and
referrals to appropriate agencies by Q3 2024
(Program 3-H)
• Host regular "housing clinics" with non-profit
groups offering free legal services in English and
Spanish starting Q1 2025 (Program 3-H)
Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing
Revised Draft February 14, 2024 D-59
Table D-10: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions 2023-2031 Metrics, Timing & Geographic Targeting Lack of awareness of housing services
among resident population.

• Lack of public knowledge
about affordable housing
programs
• Landlord/Tenant Dispute
Resolution (Program 3-F)
• Just Cause Eviction
Protections (Program 3-G)
• Awareness of Fair Housing
Programs (Program 3-H)

• Outreach to People Living
with Developmental
Disabilities in San Pablo
(Program 3-I)

• Tracking system to record the number of
referrals and document residents’ concerns
(Program 3-F)
• Assist residents of 141 assisted units at risk of
conversion by 2030 (Program 3-G)
• Designate an Equal Opportunity Coordinator
within the City responsible for outreach and
referrals to appropriate agencies by Q3 2024
(Program 3-H)
• Host regular "housing clinics" with non-profit
groups offering free legal services in English and
Spanish starting Q1 2025 (Program 3-H)
• Launch program in 2024; conduct outreach to
developers and non-profits to identify
development opportunities for housing
accessible to persons with developmental
disabilities (Program 3-I)

Higher than average rates of home
loan denial for all people of color.
• Discriminatory lending
patterns
• Loan Assistance for
Sustainable Housing (Program
2-D)

• 16 loans to qualified first-time buyers citywide
by 2031 (Program 2-D)

MEDIUM Segregation/Integration While San Pablo is classified as a Higher Diversity community and
general levels of racial/ethnic
segregation remain low within the city,
the city itself exists in a segregated
sub-region of the county.
• High concentration of
subsidized housing in
southwestern portion of
the city
• High rates of poverty
citywide
• Rumrill Corridor Plan
(Program 1-B)
• Loan Assistance for
Sustainable Housing (Program
2-D)

• 225 new market rate housing units by 2031
(Program 1-B)
• 16 loans to qualified first-time buyers by 2031
(Program 2-D)
HIGH Access to Opportunity San Pablo experiences lower levels of educational opportunity throughout
the city
• Lower levels of
educational attainment
• Socio-economic factors
that interfere with
learning
Program 4-H Continue and
expand efforts to increase
educational opportunity:
• San Pablo Beacon Community
Schools Initiative

• Maintain 6 full-service community schools
citywide through 2031
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Revised Draft February 14, 2024 D-60
Table D-10: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions 2023-2031 Metrics, Timing & Geographic Targeting • Financial ability to pursue
higher education
• San Pablo Team for Youth

• San Pablo Scholarship Pilot
Program
• Increase number of public and non-profit
partners and expand and/or enhance school-
based programs and services for children, youth,
and families citywide
• Provide 300 post-high school scholarships to
disadvantaged local students annually citywide
HIGH Access to Opportunity All areas of San Pablo experience less positive economic outcomes than
other Bay Area communities
• Lower educational
attainment levels and low
income
• Needs for skills
development
• Limited English language
ability
Program 4-I Support SPEDC
Workforce Development
Initiatives

Support EDC in providing the following citywide each
year starting 2023:
• Employment services for 195 individuals;
• Job training for 130 individuals;
• Support services for 75 businesses
HIGH Access to Opportunity Citywide, residents experience more positive environmental outcomes, but
neighborhoods in the northwest have
fewer parks and less tree canopy
coverage, and the central part of the
city is more vulnerable to the effects
of urban heat
Air pollution adversely affects health in
the Richmond-North Richmond-San
Pablo subregion.
• Deficit of park facilities
• Uneven, minimal tree
canopy coverage
• Subregional air quality
related to industrial uses
and freeways
Program 4-J air quality, parks and
urban greening initiatives

• Finalize and implement the Clean Air
Community Emissions Reduction Plan by Q4
2025
• Construct one new park in northwestern
neighborhood by Q4 2030
• Establish an Adopt-a-Tree program by Q2 2026
and plant 50 trees citywide each year after
inception with a focus central and western
neighborhoods
• Target incorporation of one voluntary
CalGreen urban heat mitigation strategy in each
development within PDAs starting Q1 2025
HIGH Disproportionate
Need/Displacement Risk
Higher rates of overcrowding for
renters (20.8%) and homeowners
(11.0%) in San Pablo than county or
Bay Area average, particularly in the
San Pablo Ave and Rumrill PDAs.
• Lack of housing supply
• Lack of housing units
suitable for large families
• Income levels
• Cost burden
• Rumrill Corridor Plan
(Program 1-B)
• Incentives for Affordable and
Special Needs Housing
(Program 2-I)
• Housing for Extremely Low-
Income Households and
• 314 new housing units in Rumrill PDA by 2031
(Program 1-B)
• 273 new lower income and special needs RHNA
units in PDAs by 2031 (Program 2-I)

• 115 extremely low-income units citywide by
2031 (Program 3-A)
Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing
Revised Draft February 14, 2024 D-61
Table D-10: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions 2023-2031 Metrics, Timing & Geographic Targeting Special Needs Groups
(Program 3-A)

HIGH Disproportionate
Need/Displacement Risk
Citywide, the community is sensitive
to displacement pressures as rents
rapidly rise and 57.4% of renter
households are cost burdened.

American Indian (77.3%) and African
American (58.4%) households
experience noticeably higher rates of
cost burden than other groups and
therefore higher risk of displacement.

Lower-income households may be
especially vulnerable to displacement
pressures due to the housing
affordability gap, particularly in the
Rumrill and 23
rd Street PDAs;
however, displacement is not yet
ongoing.
• Cost burden
• Poverty/education levels
• Preponderance of single-
family housing
• Affordability gap for
lower-income households
• Higher costs associated
with property
management companies
• Lack of available HCVs
• Rumrill Corridor Plan
(Program 1-B)
• Community Land Trust
Collaboration (Program 2-A)
• Rental Assistance (Program
2-B)

• Mobile Home Parks (Program
2-F)

• Landlord/Tenant Dispute
Resolution (Program 3-F)

• Just Cause Eviction
Protections (Program 3-G)
• Implement anti-displacement measures in
Rumrill PDA by Q1 2026 (Program 1-B)
• Acquisition of property in in PDAs and single-
family neighborhoods (Program 2-A)
• Assistance for 720 households most at risk of
homelessness annually, with a focus on Rumill
and 23rd Street PDAs (Program 2-B)
• Preservation of 398 mobile homes in Rumrill
PDA by 2031 or access to comparable
affordable units (Program 2-F)
• Tracking system to record the number of
referrals and document residents’ concerns
(Program 3-F)
• Assist residents of 141 assisted units at risk of
conversion by 2030 (Program 3-G)
HIGH Disproportionate
Need/Displacement Risk
Although declining, citywide poverty
rate is high relative to county and
region. Notably higher rates of
poverty for Black (14.6%) and Latino
(61.3%) households than would be
indicated by their share of the
population, 10.8% and 60.8%
respectively.
• Aftereffects of the
foreclosure crisis
• Poverty/education levels
• Relatively higher rate of
female-headed
households
• Housing for Extremely Low-
Income Households and
Special Needs Groups
(Program 3-A)
• Special Needs Housing
(Program 2-I)

Program 4-H Continue and expand
efforts to increase educational
opportunity:
• San Pablo Beacon Community
Schools Initiative
• San Pablo Team for Youth
• San Pablo Scholarship Pilot
Program
• Permits for at least 115 extremely low-income
units citywide by 2031 (Program 3-A)

• 273 new units affordable to lower income
households citywide in the planning period
(Program 2-I)

• Maintain 6 full-service community schools
citywide through 2031
• Increase number of public and non-profit
partners and expand and/or enhance school-
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031
Revised Draft February 14, 2024 D-62
Table D-10: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors Priority
Level
Fair Housing Issue Description Contributing Factor(s) Meaningful Actions 2023-2031 Metrics, Timing & Geographic Targeting

Program 4-I Support SPEDC Workforce
Development Initiatives

based programs and services for children, youth,
and families citywide
• Provide 300 post-high school scholarships to
disadvantaged local students annually citywide

Support EDC in providing the following citywide each
year starting 2023:
• Employment services for 195 individuals;
• Job training for 130 individuals;
• Support services for 75 businesses

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-iv
Revised Draft February 14, 2024

This page intentionally left blank

Charts 3-1 and 3-2 provide an overview of lending patterns in San Pablo when compared to the county.

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
The City’s AHS discusses the role of property management companies in San Pablo’s housing market.

The City of San Pablo must also compliesy with State Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, § 65915.), the Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, § 65589.5.), and the No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, § 65863).

1. NH refers to non-Hispanic.

Figure D-1 shows the concentration of non-Hispanic white residents by CCD.

3 County subdivisions, also referred to as census county divisions (CCDs), are delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau for statistical purposes but have no legal function and are not governmental units.

36.2% - 61.3%

29.9% - 36.1%

23.9% - 29.8%

23.6% - 23.8%
SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2019 ACS Five-Year Estimates (Table B03002); City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-3: San Pablo Diversity Index
> 85 (Higher Diversity)
70 - 85
55 - 70*
40 - 55*
< 40 (Lower Diversity)*
*No census blocks contained in this category.

1. All households with children are considered family households.

4 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B11001. (ABAG Housing Element Data Package 2021).

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
> 40%*
30% - 40%*
20% - 30%*
10% - 20%
< 10%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-5: Percent of Children in Female
Householder Households
> 80%*
61% - 80%*
41% - 60%*
21% - 40%
< 20%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

> 80%*
61% - 80%
41% - 60%
21% - 40%*
< 20%*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

Figure D-6: Percent of Children in
Married-Couple Households
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-21
Revised Draft February 14, 2024

1. People who identify as Hispanic or Latino may be any race.

In 2019, most tracts saw between 10 and 20 percent of their population living below the poverty line while some areas saw between 20 and 30 percent.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
> 51%
25% - 51%
0% - 25%*
*No census blocks contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-8: Poverty Status, 2014
> 40%*
30% - 40%*
20% - 30%
10% - 20%
> 10%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-9: Poverty Status, 2019
> 40%*
30% - 40%*
20% - 30%
10% - 20%
< 10%
*No census tracts contained in this category.

In addition to support for small businesses, SPEDC also provides workforce development services.

5 Edward G. Goetz, et al. "Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence: A Preliminary Investigation" (Cityscape, Vol. 21 No. 1, 2019), pp. 99-123.

SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - ACS, 2015-2019; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 2 41
MILES
City Limits

Chart D-4: Opportunity Indices, Total Population
Source: HUD, AFFHT0006 Table 12, July 2020

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE

> .75 (More Positive Economic Outcomes)*
.50 - .75*
.25 - .50
< 0.25 (Less Positive Economic Outcomes)
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD
SOURCE: HCD AFFH Data and Mapping Resources - HCD & TCAC Opportunity Areas Mapping Analysis, 2021; City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021 0 1,500 3,000750
FEET
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
> .75 (More Positive Environmental Outcomes)
.50 - .75
.25 - .50*
< 0.25 (Less Positive Environmental Outcomes)*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-17: Homeowner Cost Burden, 2019
> 80%*
60% - 80%
40% - 60%
20% - 40%
< 20%*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-18: Renter Cost Burden, 2019
> 80%*
60% - 80%
40% - 60%
20% - 40%
< 20%*
*No census tracts contained in this category.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix D: Assessment of Fair Housing D-45
Revised Draft February 14, 2024

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

SAN PABLO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Figure D-19: Overcrowded Households
> 20%

15.01% - 20%

12.01% - 15%

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

Appendix B identifies the disproportionate needs that these groups face in San Pablo. Programs to address the needs of these groups have been incorporated into Chapter 4, the Housing Action Plan.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

Low to
Mod.

Income
Pop.

1. All Census tracts within the City of San Pablo are designated as Low Resource according to TCAC Opportunity Area Maps (2023).

2. Calculated as the percentage of renter-occupied units that are subsidized by Housing Choice Vouchers (2021).

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2017-2021 ACS 5-Year Estimates; TCAC/HCD, 2023; HCD/Urban Displacement Project, 2022; Dyett & Bhatia, 2023.

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

San Pablo is a majority-minority community with a high degree of racial diversity across census tracts.

• Just Cause Eviction
Protections (Program 3-G)
• Awareness of Fair Housing
Programs (Program 3-H)

• Outreach to People Living
with Developmental
Disabilities in San Pablo
(Program 3-I)

Higher than average rates of home
loan denial for all people of color.
• Discriminatory lending
patterns
• Loan Assistance for
Sustainable Housing (Program
2-D)

• 16 loans to qualified first-time buyers citywide
by 2031 (Program 2-D)

HIGH Disproportionate
Need/Displacement Risk
Citywide, the community is sensitive
to displacement pressures as rents
rapidly rise and 57.4% of renter
households are cost burdened.

American Indian (77.3%) and African
American (58.4%) households
experience noticeably higher rates of
cost burden than other groups and
therefore higher risk of displacement.

• Mobile Home Parks (Program
2-F)

• Landlord/Tenant Dispute
Resolution (Program 3-F)

• 273 new units affordable to lower income
households citywide in the planning period
(Program 2-I)

Program 4-I Support SPEDC Workforce
Development Initiatives

based programs and services for children, youth,
and families citywide
• Provide 300 post-high school scholarships to
disadvantaged local students annually citywide

Support EDC in providing the following citywide each
year starting 2023:
• Employment services for 195 individuals;
• Job training for 130 individuals;
• Support services for 75 businesses

Appendix E
Fifth Cycle Accomplishments
City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031
Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Ta bl e o f C o n t e n t s
Appendix E – Fifth Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments ................................. E-1 E.1 Effectiveness of Programs for Special Housing Needs ...................................... E-1 E.2 Key Actions ................................................................................................................. E-2

City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031
Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-1
Appendix E – Fifth Cycle Housing Element
Accomplishments
This Appendix details the City of San Pablo’s achievements in implementing the goals, policies, and programs from the 2015–2023 Housing Element. The City made significant progress in addressing housing needs through the development of new units, including units affordable to lower-income and special needs households. A summary of accomplishments by goal is provided below and a complete review of the City’s progress in implementing 2015–2023 policies and programs is provided in Table E-1.

E.1 Effectiveness of Programs for Special Housing
Needs
Special needs populations include farmworkers, large families, female -headed single parent households, people experiencing homelessness, persons with disabilities, seniors, households with extremely low incomes. As shown in greater detail in Table E-1, the City made a diligent, consistent effort to achieve its housing goals that address special housing needs through the implementation of policies and programs from the 2015–2023 Housing Element. Following is a summary of the effectiveness of programs for special housing needs:
• Prepared an Affordable Housing Strategy that identifies policies and strategies for the City of San Pablo to conserve and improve existing housing, increase production in compliance with state law, support low -income homeowners and buyers, address special needs populations, and increase funding opportunities and leverage the City's existing Low Income Housing Fund. The Strategy was a dopted by Resolution 2020 -148 on November 16, 2020 and made a part of the Council’s FY2021-23 and FY 2023-25 Priority Work Plan.
• On November 23, 2021, the Planning Commission approved Resolution PC21 -09 allowing the construction of 54 units of permanent supportive housing at 2555 El Portal, a project funded by Contra Costa County. The City supported this project by expediting its planning and construction review and by granting density bonuses and height variance to allow the project to proceed. • In partnership with the San Pablo EDC, the City created the San Pablo Loan Assistance for Sustainable Housing (SPLASH) Program in 2021 The program offers "silent second loans" of up to 20 percent of the home value for a period of 30 years to qualified low -income first-time home buyers, with priority for first-responders, teachers, seniors, and veterans. While not all applicants qualify, the SPLASH Program helps future homebuyers learn about what they need to do to build credit for their first home purchase.
• WISH (Workforce Initiative Subsidy for Homeownership) administered by the San Pablo EDC since 2017, this program offers first-time homebuyers a matching grant of up to $29,000 toward the purchase of a home. As with the SPLASH, this program has the added benefit of preparing future homeowners with their readiness package.

Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments

Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-2
• On March 22, 2022, the Planning Commission approved the Alvarado Gardens mixed-use project.

Located at 13831 San Pablo Avenue on the former Civic Center site owned by the City, this mixed- use residential/retail development consists of commercial retail space on the ground floor and 100 affordable multi-family units with residential services. The City entered into a Disposition and Development Agreement with the developer, contributed successor agency housing funds, expedited its planning and building permit reviews, and supported tax credit applications to allow the project to proceed.
• Inspected 2,468 rental units, equivalent to 352 rental units on average each year from 2015 -2023, excluding 2022 and 2023. Following a pause during COVID-19, the City expanded its staffing and restarted the inspection program in 2022, completing over 750 units in 2022. A similar number can be expected in 2023 and going forward.
• Inspected 1,494 owner-occupied units, equivalent to 213 on average each year from 2015 -2023, excluding 2022 and 2023 , reflective of the reduced real estate activity and program suspension during the COVID-19 pandemic. As of 2022, the program is once again operating at capacity. • Density bonus incentives supported feasibility of 2 major projects approved in 2021. • Adopted a multi-family overlay district on May 18, 2015, to assist in maintaining potential at-risk rental units. The purpose of the multi-family overlay district is to protect existing multi -family development located on parcel(s) with an underlying zoning district that no longer allows multi - family development. Parcel(s) with this overlay designation are recognize d as multi-family in the city’s General Plan land use and Housing Elements, which contribute to the City’s ability to meet regional housing needs by protect existing multifamily development located on parcel(s) with an underlying zoning district that no longer allows multifamily development. • Reduced parking requirements were adopted as part of the Plaza San Pablo mixed use regulating code and have been applied throughout the development. No parking is required for new accessory dwelling units within 1/2 half mile of a bus stop pursuant to recently adopted state law on accessory dwelling units.
• Building permits were issued for 17 larger housing units for families (i.e., three or more bedrooms) throughout 2015-2023.

E.2 Key Actions
Following is a summary of key actions under each 2015–2023 goal. See Table E-1 at the end of this Appendix for more details.

Goal H-1. Implementation Responsibilities. Continue to build local government institutional capacity, provide information to the community, and monitor accomplishments to respond effectively to housing needs.
• Annual review of Housing Element progress and SB341 Successor Funds. • Collaboration with utility providers for review of development applications. • Coordination with Contra Costa County Housing to review available funding opportunities and monitor housing programs.
• Work with lobbyists for changes to state law requirements and housing funds. • Collaborate with San Pablo EDC to promote WISH and SPLASH programs. • Conduct neighborhood meetings and community outreach for Housing and Environmental Justice Element updates.

City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031
Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-3
Goal H-2. Neighborhood Preservation and Enhancement. Preserve and enhance San Pablo’s residential neighborhoods to improve the quality of life for all residents. • Promotion of programs for deferred loans for property improvements and counselling for rehabilitation loans through Contra Costa County is posted on City website and available via City's Residential Health and Safety program.
• Conducted 1,966 inspections of housing units.
• Offer dump voucher program to all residents and provide free dumpsters 6-8 days in the calendar year for City residents.
• Collaboration with Police Department for review of development applications.

Goal H-3. Affordability and the Adequate Provision of Housing. Provide a diversity of housing types to meet the needs of all economic segments and family types in San Pablo. • Provide density bonuses and incentives for affordable and special needs housing. • Secured Senate Bill 2 funding and Local Early Action Plan funding to begin work on General Plan and Housing Element updates.
• Promotion of mixed-use development through the Mixed Use Center, Commercial Mixed Use and Residential Mixed Use areas.
• Continuous support for various housing types, such as accessory dwelling units, single -room occupancy and efficiency units, and manufactures housing units Goal H-4. Housing Accessibility and the Provision of Special Needs Housing. Ensure housing accessibility for all segments of the community. • Offered the COVID-19 Housing Assistance Grant Program to help low-income residents with their rent due to COVID impacts. Continuous promotion of access to fair housing through the Residential Health and Safety Program.
• Created and adopted emergency shelter zoning, Section 17.60.080, Emergency Shelters, reasonable accommodation ordinance, Section 17.18.100, and updated language regarding transitional and supportive housing, as part of the Zoning Ordinance update on May 18, 2015. • Provide referrals to organizations and non-profits such as Bay Area Legal Aid to help our residents with housing and legal complaints.

Goal H-5. Green Building and Energy Conservation. Promote the development of energy efficient homes to help protect the environment and lower the energy costs for San Pablo residents.
• Adopted and currently follows the California Green Building Standards Code , which is implemented for all development applications. The San Pablo Building Division works with customers to facilitate approval or solar permits regularly. • Collaboration with Public Works department for review of development applications, particularly for new developments with environmental sensitive construction practices including the review of technical reports, such geotechnical and soils, as well as arborists reports. • Adopted a Water Efficiency Local Ordinance (WELO) which provides guidelines for water conservation; annually submit WLEO reports to the California Department of Water Resources.

Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments

Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-4
Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of San Pablo Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status/Result of Program Implementation Evaluation Disposition Program H-1.1.1-Establish City
Staff Work Priorities for
Implementing Housing Element
Programs
Identification of annual work
priorities for housing Annually; 2020-2021
Housing Element reviewed annually. The Affordable Housing Strategy plan was completed in 2020. The City of San Pablo secured funding and put together a team to begin the General Plan and Housing Element update in 2021.

Successful. Staff has submitted the Annual Progress
Report to HCD, completed the Affordable Housing
Strategy Plan, the Housing Element Update, and
continues to work on the General Plan Update. The
City Council has Identify housing programs
implementation as a priority within their work plan.

Continue as. Program 6-A: Work Priorities.

Program H-1.1.2-Review the
Housing Element Annually
Review and monitor Housing
Element implementation: submit
Annual Report to HCD.

Annually
Submit APR to HCD and OPR Anually by April 1st of each year.

The SB 341 Annual Report regarding Successor Funds has
been posted in the City's website.

Successful. City of San Pablo has submitted APRs to
both HCD and OPR following City Council review and
recommendation. The SB 341 Annual Report
regarding Successor Funds has been posted in the
City's website annually.

Continue as. Program 6-B. Annual Housing
Element Review
Program H-1.2.1-Adopt Priority
Procedures for Providing Water
and Sewer Service to Affordable
Housing Developments
Comply with Government Code
Section 65589.7. 2015
Complying with Government Code Section 65589.7. East Bay Municipal Utility District and West County Waste Water are the Water and Sewer Service providers for San Pablo. The
Community Development Department collaborates with the
utility providers daily when reviewing new development
applications including Affordable Housing Developments.

Ongoing collaboration with East Bay Municipal Utility
District and West County Waste Water continues
regularly and has been successful to expedite review
processes and timelines for housing developments
including newly approved affordable housing projects
(2812 Chattleton Lane, Block E, 13717 San Pablo
Avenue, Block C, 1820 Rumrill Boulevard, 2364 Road
20, 13831 San Pablo Avenue, 2555 El Portal Dr.).

Continue as. Program 6-C . Water and Sewer
Service to Affordable Housing Developments.

Program H-1.2.2-Housing
Coordination with Contra Costa
County
Maximize annual subsidies
available to San Pablo
residents.

Ongoing
Staff coordinates with Contra Costa County Housing to review available funding opportunities, and monitors programs. On November 23, 2021, the Planning Commission approved
Resolution PC21-09 allowing the construction of 54 units of permanent supportive housing, a project funded by Contra Costa County.

Ongoing. City of San Pablo continues to partner and
collaborate with the county and referring residents to
any subsidies available.

Continue.? I know we deleted some County
programs we though the city was not benefiting
from Policy 6-4 through Program 2-B Rental
Assistance, Program 4-A County Programs for
Home Renovations and Rehabilitation, and
Program 6-D Publicize and Provide Information on
Housing Programs
Program H-1.2.3-Work with
Housing Developers (Non-Profit
and For-Profit) on Housing
Outreach and involvement of
non-profit and for-profit housing
developers
Ongoing
The City works with both non-profit and for-profit developers about development opportunities to create more housing units.

The Planning Commission approved a 100 affordable unit
mixed-use project on March 22, 2022.

Successful. The City continues to work with
developers to create more housing unitshas actively
solicited affordable housing projects and offered
substantial incentives, leading to entitlements for
projects providing 208 affordable units since 2021.

Continue through implementation of Program 2-I
Incentives for Affordable and Special Needs
Housing and Program 3-A Housing for Extremely
Low-Income Households and Special Needs
Groups. Policy 6-5
Program H.1.2.4-Lobby for
Changes to State Law
Requirements and Housing
Funding
Work with other Contra Costa
County jurisdictions and lobby
for modifications to State law.
2020 and as needed The City continuously works with lobbyist for changes to state law requirements and housing funds.

Ongoing. Continue as. Policy 6.6
Program H-1.3.1-Publicize and
Provide Information on Housing
Programs
Distribute educational materials
at public locations and make
public services announcements
through different media at least
two times a year.
2020 and update as
needed
Information on available programs through the County is currently provided in City offices and on the City's website. The San Pablo Economic Development Corporation is promoting WISH - Workforce Initiative Subsidy Homeownership - a
program to assist qualified first-time homebuyers make the transition from renting to owning. A second similar program SPLASH was adopted by City Council on November 16, 2020.

Ongoing. Continue as. Program 6-D: Publicize and Provide Information on Housing Programs.

Program H-1.3.2-Undertake
Community Outreach When
Implementing Housing Element
Programs
Conduct community outreach
and distribute materials
Consistent with program
timeframes
Information provided upon implementing programs. Housing Element and Environmental Justice community outreach efforts will begin in late 2021 and continue in early 2022.

Currently implementing. Public workshops have been
completed and information regarding ongoing progress
of the Housing Element and Environmental Justice
Element will continue.

Continue. Program 6-E: Community Outreach
Housing Element Program Implementation.

Program H-1.3.3-Conduct
Neighborhood Meetings
Early community involvement
and discussion when housing
developments are proposed.

Ongoing
Community Development staff works on community
involvement outreach efforts as developments are proposed.

Planning Commission Public Hearings are held monthly and every new multifamily housing development is required to have a public hearing.

Ongoing. Continue through Program 6-E: Community
Outreach Housing Element Program
Implementation and. Policy 6-7
City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031

Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-5
Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of San Pablo Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status/Result of Program Implementation Evaluation Disposition Program H-2.1.1-Provide Low
Interest Loans for Housing
Rehabilitation through the
Contra Costa County
Neighborhood Preservation
Program.

Rehabilitation of 27 lower
income units by 2023. 2015-2023
Information of the program provided to participants in the City's Residential Health and Safety program and at the City's public counters and website. Loans for housing rehabilitation are provided and administered by Contra Costa County.

Ongoing. Contra Costa funds are limited but staff
continues to implement the Residential Health and
Safety Program.

Continue.?as Program 4- A: County Programs for
Home Renovations and Rehabilitation
Program H-2.1.2-Allow for
Deferred Loans for Property
Improvements
Provision of 10 deferred loans
for property improvements. 2015-2023
Information on programs through Contra Costa County is
provided to the public and through the City's Residential Health and Safety program as available.

Ongoing. Contra Costa funds are limited but staff
continues to implement the Residential Health and
Safety Program
Continue as.? Policy 4-1
Program H-2.1.3-Provide
Technical Assistance and
Counseling for Rehabilitation
Loans
Provision of technical
assistance and referrals Ongoing
Information on programs through Contra Costa County is
provided to the public and through the City's Residential Health and Safety program as available.

Ongoing. Contra Costa funds are limited but staff
continues to implement the Residential Health and
Safety Program, which City staff believes is far more
effective than County grant programs in rehabilitating
local housing stock.

Continue.Combine with Program 4-A: County
Programs for Home Renovations and
Rehabilitation? Policy 4-6
Program H-2.2.1-Implement the
Neighborhood Clean-Up
Program
Reduce trash and improve the
appearance of neighborhoods. Annually
The City provides a dump voucher program, available to all residents, which reduces the cost of dump fees. Additionally, the City provides free dumpsters 6-8 days in the calendar year for use by San Pablo residents.

Successful. The City’s dump voucher and free
dumpster day’s programs are very successful and the
City is also starting a new program called “San Pablo
Shines” which is a community-driven cleanup effort to
encourage cleaner streets and in which community
members will serve as “neighborhood champions” to
raise awareness.
https://www.sanpabloca.gov/2857/Neighborhood-
Champions-Program-Programa-
Continue as. Program 4-B: Implement the
Neighborhood Clean-Up Program.

Program H-2.2.2-Implement the
Motor Vehicle Abatement
Program
650 abandoned vehicles tagged
per year. Ongoing
The City's Code Enforcement and Police Department
implements the program consistently. For 2021, 436
abandoned vehicles were tagged. The number is lower for 2021 due to the safety measures taken during the COVID-19
pandemic.

Successful and Ongoing. Continue as. Porogram 4-C: Implement the Motor Vehicle Abatement Program.

Program H-2.2.3-Monitor
Housing Conditions
Tracking of housing and
neighborhood conditions to
assist in identifying potential
locations for neighborhood
improvements.
2016, 2018, 2020, and
2022
Biannually. Program for 2021 and beyond. The Building
Department and Code Enforcement Division continue to track and monitor housing that is in need of improvements.

Ongoing. Continue. Policy 2.2
Program H-2.2.4-Assist Contra
Costa County with Implementing
the Neighborhood Stabilization
Program
Assistance for 5 lower income
housing units. 2015-2023
Assistance provided to Contra Costa County as needed. The Neighborhoods Stabilization Program is administered by Contra Costa County. City of San Pablo provides resources at public counters and website.

Ongoing. Continue as.? Program 4-D: Neighborhood
Stabilization Program
Program H-2.2.5-Assist CESC
with Healthy Homes Program
Implementation
Healthy Homes improvements
for 5 lower income units. 2015-2023
Assistance provided as needed. The Program is administered by Contra Costa County. City of San Pablo provides resources at public counters and website.

Ongoing. Continue as.? Program 4-E: Healthy Homes
Program Implementation.

Program H-2.2.6-Assist Contra
Costa County with Implementing
Home Repair Programs
Repairs to 20 lower income
homes. 2015-2023
Assistance provided to Contra Costa County as needed. The Program is administered by Contra Costa County. City of San Pablo provides resources at public counters and website.

Ongoing.Success has been limited, City staff believes
RH&S is far more effective than County grant
programs in rehabilitating local housing stock.

Nevertheless, it is important to raise awareness in the community of the funding available through the
County.

Continue as. Program 4-A: County Programs for
Home Renovations and Rehabilitation.?
Program H-2.3.1-Inventory
Potential Historically Significant
Buildings
Mitigate potential impacts on
historically significant buildings. Ongoing Inventory listed in the City's General Plan and updated as needed. Potential impacts monitored.

Ongoing. The City is working on a redeveloping project
for the old City Hall site into Affordable Housing Units and was able to protect a few different structures that are considered to have Historic value.

Continue as. Policy 4-3
Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments

Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-6
Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of San Pablo Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status/Result of Program Implementation Evaluation Disposition Program H-2.3.2-Preserve
Archaeologically Significant
Sites
Preservation of significant
archaeological sites. Ongoing Significant archeological sites continue to get preserved and CEQA guidelines are followed for all new development.

Ongoing. Significant archeological sites have
successfully been identified and protected for new
development sites by following CEQA guidelines and
procedures.

Continue through General Plan policies.

Program H-2.4.1-Inspect Rental
Housing Units.

Inspect about 750 rental units
per year. 2015-2023
Inspections are ongoing through the City's Residential Health and Safety Program. For 2021, the program was placed in a temporary suspension due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Safety measures were implemented and only absolute necessary
inspections were performed. The program is up an running for the 2022 calendar year.

Ongoing. City staff believes the RH&S program is
highly effective in achieving rehabilitation of local
housing stock,
Continue as.. Program 4-F: Residential Health &
Safety Program
Program H-2.4.2-Inspect Owner-
Occupied Housing
Inspect about 400 single-family,
townhome, and condominium
units per year.
2015-2023 Inspections are ongoing through the City's Building Division.

For 2021, there were 1,966 individual inspections.

Successful and ongoing. Inspections through the City’s
Building Division continue at high capacity. City staff believes the RH&S program is highly effective in
achieving rehabilitation of local housing stock,
Continue as. Program 4-F: Residential Health &
Safety Program
Program H-2.5.1-Coordinate
Building Plans with the Police
Department
Police Department review of
development proposals. Ongoing Major development plans and land use applications are routed to the Police Department for review and comment.

Ongoing. The Planning Division routed land use
applications to the Police Department for review and
issuance of safety conditions of approval.

Continue as. Policy 4-7.

Program H-3.1.1-Provide
Density Bonuses and Incentives
for Affordable and Special
Needs Housing.

Incentives for affordable
housing to be built. 2015 and Ongoing
The City provides Density Bonuses per state regulations and the City's adopted ordinance. The entitlement approval of 2 major projects approved in 2021 include density bonus
incentives.

Successful, the City has been able to entitle higher
density project within this current cycle and majority
contain density bonuses.

Continue with Program 2-1: Incentives for
Affordable and Special Needs Housing
Program H-3.1.2-Preserve At
Risk Affordable Rental Units Preserve all at-risk units. Annual Monitoring The City monitors threats to affordable rental units, and has adopted a multi-family overlay district to assist in maintaining potential at-risk rental units.

The majority of the 568 assisted low-income units in
San Pablo are at low risk of conversion to market rate
in the planning period; however, there are 141 units at high risk, which represents a significantly higher share than in the county or the Bay Area as a
whole.Ongoing.

Continue and strengthen by implementing.

Program 2-C: Preservation of Deed Restricted
Housing.

Program H-3.1.3-Promote
Contra Costa County's Mortgage
Credit Certificate Program
Subsidy for 10 first-time
homebuyers. 2015-2023
The City continues to promote County Administered programs including the Contra Costa County Mortgage Credit Certificate Program. Additionally, the City partners with San Pablo Economic Development Corporation to implement the newly established first time homebuyer programs SPLASH and WISH.

Ongoing. The City also promoted EDC’s first-time
homebuyer programs, SPLASH and WISH.Refocus
efforts on local SPLASH and WISH programs.

Modify and implement Program 2-D Loan
Assistance for Sustainable Housing and Program
2-E First-Time Homebuyer Assistance Continue?
Remove County program? Their website stated
that there are currently no funds for this program:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/4768/Mortgage-
Credit-Certificate-Program

Program H-3.1.4-Strive to
Replace Housing
Replacement of affordable
housing units. 2015-2023
The City tracks affordability terms for existing affordable housing projects to ensure no net loss of housing and continue to work with affordable housing developers.

Ongoing. Continue and strengthen by implementing.

Program 6-G: Development and Replacement Unit
Requirements.

Program H-3.1.5-Enact
Inclusionary Housing
Requirements
Construction of affordable
housing units as part of new
development
In 2020
While City has been very successful in recent years in
incentivizing and facilitating affordable housing projects, San Pablo has been challenged to produce market rate housing.

Inclusionary requirements were not enacted out of a concern that they could be a constraint on market rate housing.

However, Tthe City began working with Developers for potential affordable housing projects that will be in construction in the next couple of years. An affordable housing project of 54 units was entitled during this reporting period and a future affordable housing projects will be the redevelopment of the old City Hall site with 100+ unitsSince 2021, the City has entitled projects with a total of 208 affordable units, several of which are currently under construction (see Table 3-2).

The City believes this approach has been Ssuccessful.

The majority of affordable housing projects entitled
during this cycle have obtained building permitsAs
shown in Table 3-2, there are currently 208 affordable
units and 174 market rate units in the development
pipeline.

DisContinue Program H-3.1.5. Program 3-K:

Density Bonus
City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031

Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-7
Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of San Pablo Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status/Result of Program Implementation Evaluation Disposition Program H-3.1.6-Facilitate
Affordable Rental and
Cooperative Family Housing
Opportunities
Provision of affordable housing
with support services. Ongoing
They City of San Pablo supports renters by administrating the Residential Health and Safety Program and providing
information to customers regarding support services.

Ongoing, the RH&S program is very successful. City
staff believes RH&S is far more effective than County
grant programs in rehabilitating local housing stock.

Continue as. Program 4-F: Residential Health &
Safety Program
Program H-3.1.7-Provide
Information and Promote Rental
Assistance Programs
Continued availability of rental
housing vouchers for San Pablo
residents
Annually
The waitlist for Housing Choice Vouchers (the federal Section 8 rental assistance program) in Contra Costa County has been closed since 2008; however, the need continues to grow. With assistance from the federal Coronavirus Relief Fund, the City provided rental assistance to approximately 210 lower income households impacted by COVID-19 through its Housing
Assistance Grant Program to provide relief during the
pandemic. Rental Assistance Programs and housing vouchers are available through Contra Costa County Housing Authority and The City of San Pablo continues to provide information to its residents.

The City will continue its efforts to promote the
development of additional deed restricted rental units
as part of new City sponsored developments and to
support existing subsidized rental projects to extend
their affordability terms. It will also seek to pursue new sources of County, State, and federal funding that
could be available to provide rental assistance
programs. Ongoing.

ContinueReframe as. Program 2-B. Rental
Assistance
Program H-3.2.1-Update the
Zoning Ordinance to Implement
Land-Use Designations
Consistency of the Zoning
Ordinance with the San Pablo
General Plan 2030.

In 2015
An updated Zoning Ordinance was updated and adopted May 18, 2015. Additionally, staff began working on the General Plan and Housing Element updates and secured SB2 funding and LEAP funding to assist with these efforts.

Currently implementing and ongoing. Continue. Program 6-B: Annual Housing Element review
Program H-3.2.2-Promote Mixed
Commercial/Residential
Development
Development of mixed
commercial/residential sites in
the Mixed Use Center,
Commercial Mixed Use and
Residential Mixed Use areas.

In 2016

The City continues to promote residential and mixed use development with a housing component through the various mixed use zoning ordinances and specific plans.

Ongoing, the City has entitled 4 mixed-use projects
within the current 5th cycle and there are numerous
multifamily residential projects currently in the
development pipeline (see Table 3-2), most. 3 of these
projects are within Specific Plan/PDA areas.,
Continue. Policy 1-4.Expand efforts by
implementing Program 1-B Rumrill Corridor Plan,
Program 1-C Repeal or Revise the 23rd Street
Specific Plan, Program 1-D Revise Multifamily
Minimum Parcel Size, Program 1-E Facilitate Lot
Consolidation, Program 1-F Incentives for High
Density Residential Development, Program 1-G
Reduced Parking Standards, Program 1-I
Shopkeeper Housing, Program 1-K Objective
Standards for Ministerial Review.

Program H-3.2.3-Maintain an
Inventory of Available Sites for
Housing.

Listing of potential sites for
housing. Ongoing
The City continues to maintain an inventory of available sites for housing as identified in Appendix A of the 2015-2023 City of San Pablo Housing Element.

Ongoing. Continue as. Program 1-A: Inventory of Available Sites.

Program H.3.2.4-Facilitate Lot
Consolidation
Creation of lot consolidation
opportunities and increased
housing development in support
of the General Plan 2030.

Ongoing The City continues to investigate opportunities to consolidate lots to increase housing development.

Ongoing. Continue and augment by implementing. Program 1-E: Facilitate Lot Consolidation.

Program H-3.2.5-Reduce
Parking Requirements Along
San Pablo Avenue Near Transit
Parking incentives for new
residential development in
support of the General Plan
2030.

Ongoing
Reduced parking requirements are adopted as part of the Plaza San Pablo mixed use regulating code and have been applied throughout the development. No parking is required for new accessory dwelling units within 1/2 half mile of a bus stop pursuant to recently adopted state law on accessory dwelling units.

Successful. Every parcel within Plaza San Pablo has
been entitled and reduces parking requirements have
helped to attract developers.

Continue and augment by implementing. Program
1-G: Reduced Parking Standards.

Program H-3.2.6-Reduce
Parking Standards for Multi-
Family and Mixed-Use Housing
Parking incentives for new
residential development in
support of the General Plan
2030
In 2015
Parking incentives and reductions have been considered and used for high density development approvals in the recent years.

Ongoing, parking reductions as art of density bonuses
have been successful for recent multifamily and
mixed-use housing developments.

Continue .and augment by implementing . Program
1-G: Reduced Parking Standards.

Program H-3.3.1-Promote
Second Units
20 new secondary dwelling
units by 2023 (about 2 per year;
10 extremely low income, 5 very
low income, and 5 low income).
2015-2023
The City continues to support construction of secondary residential units and adopted a new Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance consistent with State legislation. Building permits were issued for 14 units 2021 and 8 in 2022.

Ongoing, ADU applications and permits issued
continue to rise. It is anticipated that ADU permits
issued for 2023 has significantly increased.

Continue and augment by implementing. Program
1-L: Accessory Dwelling Units.

Program H-3.3.2-Promote the
Development of Single Room
Occupancy and Efficiency Units.
10 new SRO extremely low-
income units by 2023. In 2017 Research for future projects. Single-Room Occupancy are regulated by Zoning Ordinance Section 17.60.090.

Ongoing. Continue?Implement through Program 2-G:

Single-Room Occupancy Hotels.

Appendix E: 5th Cycle Housing Element Accomplishments

Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-8
Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of San Pablo Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status/Result of Program Implementation Evaluation Disposition Program H-3.3.3-Encourage
Innovative and "Non-Traditional"
Forms of Housing
Opportunity for innovative
housing types. In 2017 Research for future projects.

Ongoing. Research for future projects. Continue as.? Program 1-M: Innovative and ‘Non- Traditional’ Forms of Housing.

Program H-3.3.4-Facilitate
Home Sharing and Tenant
Matching Opportunities
10 home sharing opportunities
created. 2015-2023
The need has grown with rising housing costs in recent years and the City continues to be open to home sharing
opportunities.

The Ccity continues to find ways to help tenants in San Pablo. A new Rental Registry Program is also
currently being developed to assist tenants and
landlords in the City.

Continue as. Program 2-H: Home Sharing and
Tennant Matching.

Program H-3.3.5-Encourage
Manufactured Housing
20 moderate income
manufactured housing units 2015-2023 The City continues to support manufactured housing and follows State regulations. 5 units for 2020.

Ongoing, the city continues to accept and review
permits for manufactured homes. 5 units were
approved in 2020.

Continue through. Program 1-M: Innovative and
‘Non-Traditional’ Forms of Housing.

Program H-3.3.6-Implement
Employee Housing
Requirements
Compliance with State Health
and Safety Code Section
17021.5.
2015-2023 The City continues to comply with State Health and Safety Code Section 17021.5.

Ongoing. ContinueImplement through. Program 3-C:

Employee Housing
Program H-3.4.1-Promote the
Development of Larger Housing
Units for Families
20 housing units with three or
more bedrooms.
2015-2023 The City continues to support larger housing units for families.

Building permits were issued for 6 units for 2021.

Ongoing. Housing projects for larger housing units for
families continue to receive entitlements and permits.

Continue as. Policy 2-3.

Program H-3.5.1-Facilitate
Mixed-Use Center North Site
Development
New student housing. 2015-2023 The City has designated the Mixed Use Center North within the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan, which promotes high density housing around the Contra Costa College.

No student housing has been proposed yet but the
Mixed-Use Center North designation is still in effect.

Continue as. Policy 1-7.

Program H-4.1.1-Work with
Housing Rights, Inc.

Resolution of conflicts and
disputes between landlords and
tenants, and elimination of all
forms of housing discrimination.

Ongoing The City continues to help renters to have access to fair housing through the Residential Health and Safety Program.

The City offered the COVID incentive program to help residents with their rent due to COVID impacts.

The COVID incentive program was very successful
and it has concluded, however, the City continues to
help renters to have access to fair housing through the Residential Health and Safety Program.

Continue through. Program 3-F: Landlord/Tenant
Dispute Resolution.

Program H-4.1.2-Publicize Fair
Housing Laws and Respond to
Discrimination Complaints
Obtain and distribute materials;
discrimination complaints
referrals.

Ongoing. The City continue to provide referrals to organizations and non- profits such as Bay Area Legal Aid to help our residents with housing and legal complaints.

Ongoing. Continue through?: Program 3-H: Awareness of
Fair Housing Programs, Policy 3-1.

Program H-4.2.1-Create
Emergency Shelter Zoning
Update as part of the Zoning
Ordinance Update.

In 2015 Section 17.60.080, Emergency Shelters, was adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance update in May, 2015.

ImplementedCurrently Implementing. Completed.

Program H-4.2.2-Create
Transitional and Supportive
Housing Zoning
Update as part of the Zoning
Ordinance Update.

In 2015 The Zoning Ordinance was adopted in May, 2015 and included updated language regarding transitional and supportive
housing.

ImplementedCurrently Implementing. Completed.

Program H-4.2.3-Implement
Reasonable Accommodation
Ordinance
Update as part of the Zoning
Ordinance Update.

In 2015 Section 17.18.100, Reasonable Accommodation, was adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance update in May, 2015.

ImplementedCurrently Implementing. Completed.

Program H-4.2.4-Apply
Accessibility Standards
Expand housing opportunities
for persons with disabilities.

Ongoing The City continues to endeavor to expand housing opportunities for persons with disabilities.

Ongoing. Continue as. Policy 3-4.

Program H-4.2.5-Update
Residential Care Facility Zoning
Update as part of the Zoning
Ordinance Update.

In 2015 The Zoning Ordinance was adopted in May, 2015 and included updated language regarding Residential Care Facility Zoning.

Currently Implementing.Implemented Completed.

Program H-4.2.6-Outreach to
People Living with
Developmental Disabilities in
San Pablo
Inform families about housing
and services available for
persons with developmental
disabilities.
ongoing Continue to inform residents about housing services available.

The city also collaborated with a private company to grant approval for a transitional housing project, A&A Health Services.

Ongoing. The City continues to inform residents and
inform them about current projects such as A&A
Health Services and the permanent supportive
housing at 2555 El Portal Dr.

Continue as. Program 3-1: Outreach to People
Living with Developmental Disabilities in San
Pablo.

Program H-5.1.1-Promote Home
Weatherization Programs
Implementation of energy
conservation measures.

Ongoing The City promotes these programs in coordination with Contra Costa County. San Pablo has also fully adopted the CA Green Energy Building Code and implements it for all development applications.

Ongoing. Continue as. Policy 5-2
City of San Pablo | Housing Element 2023-2031

Revised Draft February 14, 2024 E-9

Housing Programs Progress Report
This table describes progress of all programs in the City of San Pablo Fifth Cycle Housing Element, including local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing as identified in the housing element.

1 2 3 4 5 6
Name of Program Objective Timeframe in H.E Status/Result of Program Implementation Evaluation Disposition Program H-5.1.2-Promote Solar
Energy and Other Methods to
Efficiently Heat and Cool Homes
Implementation of energy
conservation measures.

Ongoing The City continues to promote these programs. San Pablo has also fully adopted the CA Green Energy Building Code and implements it for all development applications. The San Pablo Building divisions works with customers to facilitate approval or solar permits regularly.

Ongoing. Solar permits have continued to increase
specially during the last few years.

Continue as. Policy 5.2
Program H-5.1.3-Require
Energy Efficient Design
Implementation of energy
conservation measures.

Ongoing The City continues to require energy efficient design. San Pablo has also fully adopted the CA Green Energy Building Code and implements it for all development applications.

Ongoing. Continue as. Policy 5-2
Program H-5.1.4-Adopt a Green
Building Design Ordinance
Adopt a Green Building Design
Ordinance.

In 2020 The City adopted and currently follows the California Green Building Standards Code.

ImplementedCompleted. Currently Implemented Completed.

Program H-5.1.5-Encourage
Environmentally Sensitive
Construction Practices
Implementation of
environmentally sensitive
construction practices.

Ongoing.

The Planning ang and Building Divisions, in collaboration with Public Works provide detailed plan reviews for new
developments for environmental sensitive construction
practices including the review of technical reports such geotechnical and soils and arborists reports to implement the Tree Protection Ordinance.

Ongoing, the city continues to collaborate with other
divisions to encourage Environmentally Sensitive
Contraction Practices and keep up with regulations
such as Stormwater Control measures.

Continue as. Policy 5.5
Program H-5.1.6-Promote Water
Conservation
Implementation of water
conservation measures Ongoing
The City of San Pablo adopted a Water Efficiency Local
Ordinance which provides guidelines for water conservation.

The Planning Divisions submits annual MWELO reports to the California Department of Water Resources.

Ongoing. MWELO reports submitted Annually. Continue as. Policy 5-3 Appendix F
Public Outreach Materials
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix F: Public Outreach Materials Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Appendix F: Public Outreach Materials
Ta bl e o f C o n t e n t s
Winter 2022 Pop-Up Outreach Summary Memo………………………………..……………….F-3 January 20, 2022 Housing Forum Summary Memo……. ……………………………...…………F-7 San Pablo Community Survey Report………………………….………………………………...F-15 Rumrill Property Owners Forum Summary………………….. ……………………………..…..F-73 Comment Letter on Public Review Housing Element Draft ……………………………………F-75 Environmental Justice Element Outreach Event #1 Summary…………………………………..F-77 Environmental Justice Element Outreach Event #2 Summary…………………………………..F-82 City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix F: Public Outreach Materials Revised Draft February 14, 2024 F-1
Appendix F: Public Outreach Materials
This appendix documents the various public engagements efforts made that have informed the San Pablo Housing Element Update.
• Winter 2022 Pop -Up Outreach Summary Memo. This brief memo presents a summary of the pop-up events held around the community in January and February 2022 at the Las Montañas Grocery Store, the San Pablo Senior Center, and the San Pablo Library. The objective was to raise awareness of the General Plan, Housing Element, and Rumrill Corridor Plan project and to collect initial input on issues and opportunities. Public input received was used to inform programs in Chapter 4, the Housing Action Plan, including programs to high housing costs, displacement pressures, and place-based urban greening strategies that respond to community concerns. • January 20, 2022, Housing Forum Summary Memo. This brief memo presents a summary of the Housing Forum in January 20, 2022, via Zoom with affordable housing developers. The participants included both ownership and rental developers. The goal of the Housing Forum was to learn more about opportunities and challenges, get input on housing needs and constraints, and discuss what the City can do to facilitate the production of affordable housing. Input from these stakeholders also shaped the content of the Housing Action Plan . S pecifically, programs involving parking reductions and revisions to development standards in the 23rd Street S pecific Plan were added to address development constraints raised by forum participants. • San Pablo Community Survey Report. In order to gather community input to inform updates to the General Plan and Housing Element, a citywide survey was conducted from December 28, 2021, to February 21, 2022. The survey provided opportunities for residents, business owners, and people who work or go to school in San Pablo with an opportunity to help identify appropriate locations for housing as needed to satisfy the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as well as to provide input on key policy topic s. This report summarizes the analysis and findings from the survey. The results of the survey guided selection of sites for inclusion on the inventory.

Respondents strongly supported adding new, higher density housing in all seven potential areas identified in the survey, with 100 percent of respondents supporting new apartments and townhomes along the Rumrill Boulevard corridor in the southeastern part of the city and high levels of support for high density housing in the other PDAs. The analysis and findings also served as a reference for City staff and decision -makers in formulating recommendations to guide future development and identify key policies for the General Plan and Housing Element Update. • Rumrill Property Owners Forum Summary. This memo presents a summary of the Rumrill Property Owners forum conducted on November 22, 2022 via Zoom. The goal of the Property Owners Forum was to discuss potential changes to land use and zoning regulations applicable to properties along the corridor, as well as streetscape and infrastructure improvements needed to support redevelopment. Property owners attending all expressed interest in redevelopment of their properties with multifamily housing. This input is reflected in Chapter 3, Housing Resources in City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix F: Public Outreach Materials Revised Draft February 14, 2024 F-2
evidence of the viability of sites identified for redevelopment with housing during the planning period.
• Comment Letter on Public Review Housing Element Draft. The City of San Pablo received two comment letters on the Public Review Housing Element Draft during the 30- day public review period from August 19, 2022 to Sept. 19, 2022 from YIMBY Law (attached) and the East Bay Municipal Utility District. Both letters expressed support for the content of the Draft and no changes were made in response.
• Environmental Justice Element Outreach Event #1 and #2 Summaries. The respective memos summarize the first Environmental Justice outreach event held in -person at the San Pablo Community Center on March 16, 2023, and the second Environmental Justice outreach event held at the Kidd Manor Housing on April 25, 2023. The objectives of the events were to engage residents and learn what current environmental justice needs are present in the community regarding health, housing, and public facilities in order to create policies to minimize pollution and its effects on all neighborhoods. Community input received at these events helped to characterize issues of concern in the community, reinforcing the findings of the Needs Analysis that overcrowding, cost burden, and substandard housing conditions are prevalent issues. This input was used to guide development of programs in the Housing Action Plan, including placed-based programs to support community health and welfare.

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Libby Tyler, Community Development Director, City of San Pablo From: Lauren Pepe, Planner, Dyett & Bhatia
Re: January and February “Pop-up” Outreach
Date: March 18, 2022
Dear Libby:

Dyett & Bhatia (D&B) conducted four “pop-up” outreach events: two on January 11, 2022 at Las Montañas Grocery Store and the San Pablo Senior Center , and two on February 8, 2022 at Las Montañas Grocery Store and the San Pablo Library. The goal of the outreach was to drum up interest in the San Pablo General Plan Update and spread the word about the corresponding Maptionnaire survey , as well as to get general feedback about San Pablo through candid conversations.

To spread the word about the General Plan Update and Maptionnaire survey, D&B staff handed out business cards with a link and QR code to the survey outside Las Montañas, San Pablo Senior Center (during frozen meal pick up) , and the San Pablo Library. Staff engaged community members about San Pablo, particularly what people like about the city and what people would like to change. Answers to these prompts were written on sticky notes and posted to a posterboard. In addition to “pop-up” outreach feedback, comments received via Facebook promotion of the Maptionnaire survey are included.

A staff member talks with community members in front of the posterboard. 1 This document serves as a summary of the insights received through the outreach events.

Eighty-two comments were received . Below, the comments are summarized, first with an overview of recurring themes and points of consensus, followed by the full set of comments grouped by topic. There are some overlapping themes/ideas that relate to multiple topics.

Recurring Themes and Points of General Consensus
• Housing was the most pressing concern across community members, with nearly 20 percent of all comments related to this topic. Senior housing and affordable housing, or a combination of the two, were of primary concern.
• Community services was another key topic , receiving both positive and negative comments. While many appreciate the library and other community services, others felt more services needed to be provided to unhoused individuals. • Many community members called for more parks and trees, and two cited the vacant lot at Bush Street and 17th Street as a potential park location. • Many community members felt that bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements need to be made, including more/safer (protected) bike lanes and ADA -compliant crossings with marked crosswalks, stop signs and stop lights, particularly near schools.
• Litter was a concern for many, and creeks were noted as a target clean-up site. • In terms of the local economy , some residents felt costs were too high, including taxes and the cost of food. Residents appreciate the selection of local businesses but would like to see a Walmart.
• Some residents are satisfied with the community and public safety , while others felt police presence needed to be increased.

Housing
• Two community members noted their appreciation for El Portal Gardens (senior apartments). Another was happy with senior housing options in general. • One community member noted that homelessness has decreased in San Pablo. • One community member commented that home ownership mean s yards are well landscaped and wants to see more home ownership for this reason. • One community member appreciated the affordability of housing in San Pablo, while another felt that the city needs more affordable housing. • One community member noted that the cost of rent was too high. • One community member noted the need for more affordable family-sized housing (i.e. two-bedroom units and larger).
• One community member felt there was enough housing, and it is green spaces that are lacking, but if more housing is built, then it should be affordable housing. • One community member thought there were too many Walgreens and that these should be torn down to build more senior housing ; another person “seconded” this comment.
2 • One community member felt that affordable senior housing should be built, rather than putting money into the casino. Another community member noted that the casino bought the hospital (the former Doctors Medical Center) , and that space should be turned into senior housing.

Community Services
• Four community members felt the library was an excellent resource. Two others appreciated the services/resources provided to the community in general. • One community member appreciated th at San Pablo has a health center for low - income residents.
• One community member felt that there needs to be more programs to help seniors while one noted that the Senior Center is a great resource. • Five community members noted that there needs to be more aid for the unhoused (shelter, food, healthcare) and one found the casino to be at odds with addressing homelessness.

Parks and Recreation
• One community member really appreciates Wanlass Park. • Two community members reques ted a park be built at Bush Ave and 17 th Street (where there is currently a vacant lot).
• Three community members noted the need for more parks and trees. • One community member would like to see more soccer fields. • One community member noted the need for more r ecreational opportunities for children that are easy to get to.
• One community member suggested a monthly bus tour of the Bay Area.

Education
• One community member felt that San Pablo has good schools , while another felt the City’s school system could be improved.

Transportation, Traffic, and Pedestrian/Bicyclist Safety • Two community members were satisfied with public transit in San Pablo, while one felt that transit connections between San Pablo and Richmond could be improved. • Two community members called for more/safer bike lanes, while another called for “better transportation”.
• One community member felt that there needs to be more bike parking. • One community member suggested the intersection of San Pablo Dam Road and I-80 be redesigned as a diverting diamond interchange.
• One community member suggested that all road construction should begin after 8:30am to minimize traffic during rush hour . On a similar topic, one community member noted that many roads needed to be patched and repaired. • One community member requested traffic lanes not be reduced. 3 • Three community members requested pedestrian safety improvements, especially near schools, including more marked, ADA-compliant crosswalks, traffic lights , and stop signs.

Environment and Urban Design
• Littering/cleanliness was the topic of five comments. While one community member described the city as “cleaner” (presumably than in the past) and another found it cleaner than other countries, t hree felt the City ’s cleanliness should be improved , citing “the creek under the bridge” as a target for clean-up efforts. • One community member said they liked the City’s architecture and urban design, citing the Library and City Hall as examples; another community member noted they like the City’s landscape.
• One community member recommended that higher-density development be centralized as spreading it out would over -extend vital community services and destroy natural resources.

Local Economy and Businesses
• One community member felt good entertainment could be found in San Pablo , while another noted that they really like El Sitio Taqueria. Similarly, a third community member felt that a good variety of “real” businesses and stores can be found in San Pablo.
• One community member appreciated that the casino money goes back into the community; another “seconded” this point.
• One community member felt one of the Walgreens should be replaced with a Walmart.
• One community member felt sales taxes in San Pablo are too high, while another felt the cost of food is too high.

Community, Public Safety, and Civic Engagement
• One community member said the City feels safe and friendly. • Two community members appreciated San Pablo’s diversity, while another appreciated the City’s calmness.
• One community member said that civic engagement is not rewarding and they do not feel heard.
• One community member noted that anti-Blackness is an issue in the City. • Two community members called for more police, while a third called for more police funding.
• One community member felt more needs to be done about car theft prevention. 4 MEMOR ANDUM
To: Libby Tyler, Community Development Director, City of San Pablo From: Andrew Hill and Matt Alvarez-Nissen
Re: Housing Forum Summary
Date: February 7, 2022

Dear Libby:

To inform the San Pablo Housing Element Update, Dyett & Bhatia conducted a Housing Forum on January 20, 2022 via Zoom with affordable housing developers. The participants included both ownership and rental developers. The goal of the Housing Forum was to learn more about opportunities and challenges, get input on housing needs and constraints, and discuss what the City can do to facilitate the production of affordable housing.

As a record of the discussion and for use by the project team, this memo provides a recap of the process and summarizes key takeaways from the Housing Forum . D etailed notes organized by discussion question are also provided.

HOUSING FORUM PROCESS
On January 3, 2022 a n invitation to the San Pablo Housing Forum was emailed to 18 affordable housing developers that operate in or around the city. The invitation included a link for participants to mark their availability. Follow up phone calls were conducted with participants that did not respond to the invitation by January 7, 2022. The Housing Forum was set for January 20, 2022 with five confirmed participants. Ultimately, three organizations participated in the Housing Forum, including representatives from Novin Development Corp., Habitat for Humanity East Bay Silicon Valley, and Richmond Neighborhood Housing Serv ice, Inc. A representative from the San Pablo Economic Development Corporation was also present.

The Housing Forum was structured as follows: participant introductions, a presentation on Housing Element background, and a round table discussion based on a set of discussion questions.

Stakeholders were given the discussion questions in advance of the Housing Forum as part of the meeting agenda.

KEY TAKEAWAYS
• With the demise of Redevelopment Agencies, funding for affordable housing is a critical challenge throughout the state. Forum participants note that in Contra Costa County, the challenge is even greater because unlike Alameda County's Measure A, there is no countywide bond measure to fund affordable housing. Given that the pool of affordable housing developers is limited in the Bay Area and the costs to build affordable housing so great, affordable developers tend to go where there is the most funding available. 5 • Construction costs (labor and materials) are the single- largest cost component for a housing project, accounting for even more than land acquisition. There is relatively little the City can do to influence these costs, although technological advances will help to drive them down. Cross laminated timber is now permitted under the California Building Code (CLT allows for taller wood structures than previously possible and wood is cheaper than reinforced concrete) and light gauge steel will also help. Modular construction is becoming more cost competitive now that some manufacturers are vertically integrated with construction in -house. Modular construction works well with double loaded cor ridor designs and may be a good fit for the size and shape of parcels in San Pablo. As part of the Housing Element update, we should confirm that City standards don't inhibit the use of new cost saving materials or techniques such as these.
• The construction labor shortage in the Bay Area means that developers often don't get a sufficient number of bids from construction contractors, which drives up the costs.

Further, prevailing wage requirements applicable to many projects also drive up costs.

Affordable developers report scaling back the unit count of projects so as not to trigger prevailing wage requirements in some cases.
• San Pablo will be particularly challenged on affordable housing projects because of the generally small size of parcels in the city. Affordable projects that seek to take advantage of tax credits need at least 40 units to be feasible and 80-100 is the sweet spot, but that requires a parcel size larger than is generally available in San Pablo. It will be important to identify larger parcels appropriate for affordable housing and to incorporate strategies to facilitate parcel consolidation.
• While smaller parcels may not be attractive to housing developers, they do present a potential opportunity for home- grown local developers and contractors. Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services runs an Emerging Developers Program that provides general contractors or private investors from disadvantages communities with the training and technical skills to develop infill units and single -family homes. Add ing a Housing Element program to partner with RNHS to provide training for San Pablo residents and businesses or to establish a similar initiative is an option to explore. • While the City has relatively little control over construction costs, it has more control over regulations which may add cost for housing development. Parking costs $50 -80k/unit, which adds a considerable amount to the overall project costs. Ensuring that parking requirements are right -sized and that cost- performing configurations are en couraged should be a priority. Additionally, in countywide stormwater regulations add cost to projects so ways to reduce or offset those costs will be an incentive in San Pablo. • Forum participants noted that mixed use zoning that does not allow for constru ction of residential-only projects is an impediment to affordable housing. It is possible to achieve mixed use over an area without requiring that each parcel be developed with a mix of uses.

Exploring potential changes to the Commercial Mixed Use and Residential Mixed Use designations from the 2030 General Plan (which require ground floor retail in certain locations) may be warranted, particularly in view of the decreasing demand for physical retail space with the rise of internet commerce.
• Forum participants also advocated for allowing residential development on commercial properties without the need for a general plan amendment or rezoning. In fact, the recently 6 enacted SB 1385 authorizes residential uses on properties zoned for commercial (office) and retail uses. The law also includes an opt -in assessment district mechanism allowing local governments and housing applicants to enroll projects in assessment districts in lieu of paying upfront development or mitigation fees for infrastructure or services covered by the assessment district. The Housing Element and General Plan Update should consider how best to respond to this new law.
• Forum participants believe that City of San Pablo fees are not excessive as compared to other jurisdictions in the county and the surrounding area. One way the City can help is by devoting staff time to shepherding projects through the approval process, or even expediting. In general - and not in San Pablo specifically - the length of time it takes to get housing approved in California adds cost for developers. • Another way participants suggested the City can add value for affordable housing developers is by preparing well-structured RFPs for affordable projects. This should involve careful due diligence to document whether a site is truly underutilized (ex: a storage facility may have a low assessed value ratio but may be generating a good income stream that means it is not a good candidate for redevelopment) and whether the site is well suited for use of tax credits.
• Forum par ticipants indicated a regional housing need for seniors and youth, especially youth aging out of the foster care system and unhoused youth living with their families.

Single parents and large families are other significant need groups. Any program geared towards special needs groups should be provided in multiple languages, including Spanish.

Some participants provided programing for families and youth, including homework help, afterschool programs (including meals/snacks), a computer lab, housing counseling, and first-time homebuyer education.

DETAILED NOTES BY DISCUSSION QUESTION
Question #1 – What do you think are the major challenges facing San Pablo, in terms of housing production?
• Lack of available land, including larger parcels.
• Difficult for affordable developers to purchase land at market- rate prices, prefer City - owned surplus land or otherwise subsidized land
• Lack of available local funding, including county bond measures for affordable housing.

Alameda and Santa Clara Counties both have such bonds, while Contra Costa County does not. Since San Pablo does not have a robust affordable housing fund, developers are forced to rely on limited State funding or funding the project independently. • State funding is typically reserved for higher density housing, but San Pablo is not a high - density jurisdiction.
• The City needs to figure out how to provide funding for lower-density and smaller affordable projects, like duplexes, small lot developments, etc. • A representative from San Pablo Economic Development Corporation noted that land and funding is also an issue they notice – when they work with low- to moderate-income home 7 buyers to get them ready for purchase, the largest challenge is housing supply due to a competitive market. Further, down payment assistance funding is underutilized since there are not enough homes available . Once people are ready to purchase, they typically buy outside San Pablo.
• The City needs to determine an internal strategy to locate resources – including locating vacant parcels, an affordable housing bond, and identifying a network of developers invested in San Pablo.
• The City needs to offer other incentives to entice developers, since there is a lack of local funding. Incentives need to maximize smaller parcel sizes. • The City lacks a strong housing department to administer funding and resources to interested developers.
• Even with lower development costs, rents in San Pablo make it difficult for projects to pencil out, especially for higher-income projects.
• The City should prioritize larger sites that have a capacity for 200 or more units in ideal locations (i.e., near transit, other amenities) that may be attractive to larger development groups that can provide mixed-income housing.
• Lack of developers in Contra Costa County, funding is typically available elsewhere. • The City has an opportunity to be proactive in supporting grassroots affordable housing providers and developers, and can focus on local public -private partnerships to empower local growth among people who are best connected to the community. • The City should focus its priorities on rehabilitation in addition to new construction, and look at alternative funding mechanisms at the State level.

Question #2 – What current trends in housing development have or could have the greatest impact - positive or negative?
• Prevailing wage requirements can significantly drive- up costs on a project, for one participant up to 30 or 40 percent. This can make certain projects infeasible, especially those larger than 11 units. One participant remarked that prevailing wage requirements force them to build smaller projects. If the State reduces the unit threshold for prevailing wage, developers will likely decrease the size of their projects. • In addition to prevailing wage, “skilled and trained” workforce requirements will increase costs. There need to be increased job and skill training, especially at the State level, to meet increased housing needs as costs rise. Developers will need to start planning for these requirements and working them into project costs.
• One participant, who often works on smaller infill projects, noted that San Pablo would lend itself well to those project types. However, higher density projects do provide higher returns for the time invested.
• Developers do not take a holistic approach to housing – funding tends to get focused on a particular needs group, while others receive less attention. For example, projects related to populations experiencing homelessness are receiving significant funding while other needs 8 groups may not. This influences the focus and ability of developers to provide housing for all housing needs groups.
• There are not sufficient local resources to meet State policy objectives, including State redevelopment and housing production goals.
• Innovation in building materials and methods may help reduce costs, especially methods that are less labor intensive. This includes modular and panelized construction, as well as new technological innovations in the housing and con struction industry. Alternative building materials, like cross -laminated timber (CLT), are becoming more popular. One participant noted that as new technology is offered, it is necessary to first validate its use in existing projects to manage expectations.

Question #3 – What types of housing/construction types work best for your business model and how do conditions in San Pablo align with that? • One participant was an infill developer looking for ownership opportunities. They remarked that this type of housing does not tend to be part of the initial affordable housing conversation, especially for moderate- income housing. As affordable and market rate housing both cost the same to build, there is always going to be a price gap for ownership models. They also noted that without unencumbered funds, it is almost impossible to develop. The City needs to figure out how to provide such funding for small sites to encourage such development.
• One participant remarked that it depended on the parcel – smaller parcels pose challenges for developers that rely on tax credits as funding source. Above 40 units, or close to 80 or 100 units, is ideal for tax credit affordable housing to achieve efficiency of scale. Projects are soft cost intensive, and this allows developers to spread the costs over more units.

Smaller parcels do not allow such large projects.
• One participant noted that d ouble-loaded corridor with stacked units is most efficient development type, and they try to find sites that could allow for that – including modular development.
• Smaller infill sites may make modular development more challenging, and developers may need to rely on stick frame.
• On larger parcels, parking can be very expensive. Reduced parking requirements and less expensive configurations help reduce the costs of a project. • Some concerns about modular housing were raised, but one participant noted that it is still a fairly new industry with more competitors entering the space. As developers become vertically integrated and bear construction costs in-house, this may help reduce costs. • Modular construction is limited – factory construction for anything less than 20 units is not realistic and does not result in cost savings. There are also limitations on the aesthetics of the product, which can be problematic from a design standpoint. This can pose a problem for ownership units, especially on smaller lots, while it is less problematic for larger rental projects.
• One developer relies on a volunteer construction model, which helps keep production costs relatively low. They rely mostly on stick -built construction. They noted that if they can 9 develop at least four units on land sold at a modest price, and the City helps them through the permitting process, they are able to provide the end product.

Question #4 – Some of the best opportunities for housing are along San Pablo’s major corridors- San Pablo Avenue, 23rd Street, and Rumrill Boulevard – and in and around older shopping centers. What do you see as potential obstacles to housing production in those locations and how can the City facilitate housing there, through regulatory levers or other means?
• One participant noted that mixed-use projects do not work for them, since they are not a landlord and only do ownership production up to moderate-income homes. They can build a commercial space, but cannot be a landlord for it. The City should permit 100 percent residential projects in a mixed-use zone, and not require mixed-uses in all projects. • Extremely-low-income units are almost impossible for some developers to pencil out.

Very-low-income units are also difficult, but at least one participant noted that they were able to include some units of that type in a recent project in Bay Point. The same participant remarked that they try to include as much low -income housing with some moderate- income housing.
• Zoning can be a major barrier to the redevelopment of older shopping centers, especially when there are CC&R issues to work through. However, participants noted such centers have good redevelopment potential as commercial shifts away from brick -and-mortar stores and towards the internet. One participant generally encourages cities to implement a conditional use permit processes or an affordable housing overlay to convert land from commercial to residential use, and not require a general plan amendment. This can be a major help, especially with State legislation that permits CEQA exemptions with affordability. Cities should mirror State legislation and take it further. The same participant noted Walnut Creek as a good example, as they permit commercially zoned land to be developed with multifamily residential.
• If infill development does not work in corridors then cities should not focus on infill. Cities should focus on the types of development that make sense in particular places.

Question #5 – What can the City do to promote affordable housing? • The City needs to determine if there is a will or skill issue. If will – need to create connections with community advocacy and development groups. If skill – need to internally identify specific needs and meet them.
• The City needs to take a look at available City-owned properties in the area, and single out what is truly excess land acceptable for housing development. A detailed list with those sites, as well as a NOFA, should be posted to see what developers might be interested in. • For privately -owned sites affordable housing development is more difficult. Affordable developers cannot pay market rate for land, as it creates major financing issues. Existing excess public land in the region is sufficient to keep them busy. Further, CC&Rs can be difficult to overcome on commercial properties. A lack of expertise in the private brokerage market as it relates to affordable housing is also a major issue. 10 • The City should incentive mixed -income approaches where the market rate component can help to provide a subsidy or pay for land , and still provide a significant amount of affordable housing. A tax-exempt bond can allow for such mixed-income development. • With enough market rate and affordable units, developers can rely on density bonus to make land costs pencil out. The City should provide enhanced density bonuses for mixed- income projects.
• The City should be realistic with its RHNA opportunity site list, including site -specific conditions. HCD’s realistic capacity requirement has spurred lots of innovation, including in Oak Grove which scores properties based on suitability for different types of funding, SB 35 processing, etc. The City should engage in such a next level feasibility assessment and provide actual real time parcel analysis.
• The City needs to monitor the results of implemented programs, and not just provide funding. The City needs to see how the proposed solutions will translate to existing conditions.

Question #6 – How does San Pablo compare with adjacent or other similar communities where your organization is active, in terms of: Fees and exactions, Development process (length, complexity, convenience), Zoning and development standards, On- and off-site improvement requirements, Other issues?
• Fees in San Pablo are lower compared to neighboring jurisdictions, and this has not been an issue.
• Permit processing is similar in San Pablo and neighboring jurisdictions. Developers are focused on delivery – and the City should assist in making sure projects get entitlements, permits, etc. – this helps all developers, both rental and ownership. San Pablo is not a bad city to work in, but projects can take three to four years to get entitled and start construction. Anything the City can do to prioritize affordable housing projects is welcome.
• Parking can be a major obstacle, as it limits density and reduces the ability of a jurisdiction to meet their RHNA. In affordable developments especially, cities should limit parking to one space per unit. Even at-grade parking can be phenomenally expensive. • In the region, utilities can be expensive due to PG&E policies. • In the region, one participant noted difficulties with Contra Costa County regarding stormwater and water delivery on larger projects, although this has not been an issue on smaller projects.
• One participant with an early stage project on Rumrill Boulevard noted that working with the City has been a good experience so far. San Pablo faces the same issues as the rest of the county – a lack of county bond funding for housing, and general lack of funding for affordable housing.
• Cities should provide well -structured and prepared RFPs. Affordable housing developers are inundated with State surplus land or other available land. This provides an opportunity cost question due to limited project management. If the City does the groundwork in the 11 RFP to explain whether a site is good for development, this makes it more attractive and helps to streamline the development process.

Question #7 – Are there any other constraints or obstacles to building housing in San Pablo?
• Due to time constraints, this question was not asked. Participants were invited to direct further comments to Dyett and Bhatia.

Question #8 – The Housing Element focuses in particular on special needs groups (seniors, youth, large families, single-parents, persons with disabilities, homeless, persons in crisis situations). Which special needs groups have the greatest unmet need in San Pablo? How can their needs be better met? • A need for senior and youth housing was identified in the region, especially youth aging out of the foster care system and unhoused youth living with their families. • Large family housing units, including two- and three-bedroom units. • Single parents is a major needs group, and a representative from the San Pablo E conomic Development Center noted that they get frequent inquiries from that needs group. • One participant noted that at least one special needs unit is provided on each of their projects.

Question #9 – What kinds of programs or services do your clients/target groups take advantage of? Are they well served? Are there other supportive programs/services that would be helpful?
• One participant noted that their organization acted as a landlord and are always looking to expand, as most of their tenants are long-term. They are also a housing counseling agency that prepare people for homeownership.
• One project in San Pablo being developed by a participant is focused on large family housing (two- and three-bedroom units), since a need for such housing was identified in the area. Services to large families include afterschool homework help, meals/snacks, a computer lab, and first-time homebuyer education.
• Education programs should be provided in multiple languages, including Spanish in San Pablo.
• One participant noted that they provide multiple language counseling and help with financial literacy, but do not provide on -site support since their projects are ownership developments rather than rental.

Question #10 – Are there any other ideas or concerns that we have not asked about?
• Due to time constraints, this question was not asked. Participants were invited to direct further comments to Dyett and Bhatia.
12 Community Survey Report
March 2022
Prepared for the City of San Pablo
Prepared by
13 Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 2 Overview and Objectives................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5 PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 5 ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY .......................................................................................................... 5 Analysis of Survey Responses ................................ ................................ ................................ . 7 DEMOGRAPHICS ................................................................................................................................ 7 HOUSING AND LAND USE .................................................................................................................. 9 CITYWIDE POLICY PRIORITIES .......................................................................................................... 14 Appendix: Survey Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ . 22 HOUSING AND LAND USE QUESTIONS ............................................................................................ 23 CITYWIDE QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 24 TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF .............................................................................................................. 25 Appendix: Open-Ended Responses ................................ ................................ ....................... 27 HOUSING AND LAND USE ................................................................................................................ 27 CITYWIDE QUESTIONS ..................................................................................................................... 40 14 San Pablo Community Survey Report
1 List of Figures
Figure 1: “What is your age?” ....................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 2: “What gender do you identify as?”................................................................................................ 6 Figure 3: “Do you work/attend school/own a home/rent a home in San Pablo?” ...................................... 6 Figure 4: “Which neighborhood do you live in?” .......................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Example Map-Based Question ....................................................................................................... 8 Figure 6: Percent of Respondents Supporting New Housing in Focus Areas................................................ 8 Figure 7: Housing Types That Should Be Built in Each Focus Area ............................................................... 9 Figure 8: Locations Where Respondents Would Like to See Changes ........................................................ 12 Figure 9: Ranking of Local Economy and Business Priorities (All Respondents)......................................... 13 Figure 10: Ranking of Local Economy and Business Priorities by Residency .............................................. 14 Figure 11: Ranking of Community Wellness and Services Priorities (All Respondents) ............................. 15 Figure 12: Priority Ranking for San Pablo’s Look and Character (All Respondents) ................................... 17 Figure 13: Priority Ranking for San Pablo’s Look and Character by Respondent Age ................................ 17 Figure 14: Priority Ranking for San Pablo’s Look and Character by Residency........................................... 18 Figure 15: First Priority ................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 16: Second Priority ........................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 17: Third Priority .............................................................................................................................. 20 15 San Pablo Community Survey Report
2 Executive Summary
In order to gather community input to inform updates to the General Plan and Housing Element, a citywide survey was conducted from December 28, 2021 to February 21, 2022.

The Survey provided opportunities for residents, business owners, and people who work or go to school in San Pablo with an opportunity to help identify appropriate locations for housing as needed to satisfy the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) as well as to provide input on key policy topics. To promote survey participation, four “pop -up” outreach events were held at Las Montañas Grocery Store (two events), the San Pablo Senior Center, and the San Pablo Library; the survey was also promoted through the City’s project website, email blasts to community members, local newspapers El Portal and The Richmond Standard, and Facebook. Participants were offered the chance to win one of three $100 Visa gift cards for participating. I n total, 262 people participated and 173 unique responses were collected.

Survey Organization and Content
The survey was organized into three distinct sections. The first section presented a map of seven areas of San Pablo that can potentially accommodate new residential development to satisfy the City’s RHNA based on the preva lence of underused and vacant parcels in these areas. Questions probed whether respondents supported housing in these areas, what type of housing they felt would be appropriate, and their vision for future land uses, activities and amenities in each area . An additional question allowed respondents to drop a pin anywhere on the map of San Pablo and write in what they would like to see there. The second section consisted of four questions related to citywide topic s surrounding the local economy and businesses , community wellness and services, the look and character of San Pablo, and overall priorities. The third section included demographic questions to understand respondents’ age, gender, relationship to San Pablo (i.e. live, work, attend school), and residential neighborhood.

Summary of Key Findings
Housing and Land Use
• Respondents strongly supported adding new, higher density housing in all seven areas with 100 percent of respondents supporting new apartments and townhomes along the Rumrill Boulevard corridor in the southeastern part of the city. • The Southeast Area (near the Casino and San Pablo Towne Center) received the second- highest support for adding more housing, particularly multifamily housing.

Respondents suggested a redesign of San Pablo Towne Center with ground floor retail 16 San Pablo Community Survey Report
3 and residential above. A number of respondents also envisioned more entertainment - oriented uses in the area, such as a roller rink or amusement park. • East Area (east of the freeway along San Pablo Dam Road) was also a location where respondents strongly favored adding housing, although the preference is more for townhomes and smaller scale multifamily housing than for apartments and condominiums.
• Interestingly, while the 23 rd Street Corridor also received solid support for adding higher density housing, support was noticeably lower than for the other 6 areas.

Respondents tended to see the area as primarily commercial in character and 16 percent of respondents did not think that this location was appropriate for new housing, a much higher share than for other focus areas. Comments noted concern for increased traffic, limited parking, and subpar sidewalks . Action will need to be taken to address these concerns in planning to accommodate new higher density housing in this area. • While write-in comments indicated the need for denser housing, the Giant Road North area received the most support for single -family housing. Respondents also felt the area could benefit from improved public transit, entertainment options (pool, amusem ent park) and parks.
• Across all seven areas, respondents envisioned pedestrian-friendly communities where stores and services are within walking distance of homes. • 19th Street and Miner Ave was identified as another site for adding multifamily housing Citywide Policy Priorities
• Housing affordability is the most pressing concern across all respondents and many respondents underscored that all new housing that is developed must include units affordable to working class residents . Several respondents emphasized the need to provide services for the unhoused in the write-in comments. • Respondents would like to see more parks, recreation, and entertainment options, including more libraries, parks, public plazas, roller rinks, amusement parks. Spanish language responses repeatedly highlig hted the need for new parks and pedestrian pathways, signaling that these respondents value this type of amenity even more highly than English speaking respondents.
• A recurring theme in the write -in comments has to do with interest in improving public safety and security. This involves several different facets, with residents recommending a variety of potential solutions:
o Installing streetlights to heighten sense of security, particularly on Broadway and El Portal;
o Adding housing in employment -oriented areas as a way of enhancing levels of activity and promoting vitality throughout the day to increase sense of security;
o Installing traffic control measures, stop signs, crosswalks, signage, and other interventions that improve walkability and bikeability in th e area and slow traffic. Road 20 was often cited as a corridor in need of traffic calming; o Some respondents expressed interest in increased security without an increased police presence.
• Respondents signaled the need for transportation safety improvements throughout the city to improve mobility and increase sense of safety, including fixing pothole s, 17 San Pablo Community Survey Report
4 installing four -way stop signs and traffic lights, widening sidewalks and adding protected bike lanes were of paramount concern across the community. • Many respondents emphasized the importance of reliable transit connections to central areas of San Pablo and to the BART, recognizing the need to couple new housing development with strategies to promote frequent, reliable bus services. Interestingly, non-resident respondents place a higher priority on transit than residents and overall younger respondents valued transit more highly than middle-aged respondents. • More parks and trees are desired throughout the City, as well as improvements to Davis Park. The need for urban greening was emphasized particularly in the Rumrill Corridor and San Pablo Avenue North areas.
• Increasing the number of well -paid jobs, home ownership opportunities, and job training opportunities in the City were among top local economy and business concerns.

Results indicate that while important , respondents tended to rank this as slightly lower priority than housing and safety concerns.
• Residents consistently emphasized c ommunity wellness and services concerns, particularly the need for childcare, community services, and cleaner air and water .

Numerous respondents cited the need for local health clinics and/or a hospital. • Code enforcement and litter clean-up was also emphasized consistently in responses, linked to San Pablo’s look and character.
• Incorporating taller buildings and a mix of uses was more of a priority for non - residents. Write-in responses noted that taller buildings might change the character of the City, highlighting the importance of neighborhood preservation and anti - gentrification measures should the City adopt a modern, mixed -use design appealing to potential new residents.

18 San Pablo Community Survey Report
5 Overview and Objectives

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The San Pablo Targeted General Plan Update project involves a tune up of several 2030 General Plan Elements (including land use, safety, and environmental justice) , a comprehensive update to the Housing Element to accommodate the City's share of the 2023-31 Regional Housing Need s Assessment (RHNA), and preparation of a Corridor Plan for Rumrill Boulevard. Key project objectives include stimulating housing production, including higher density infill development, “missing middle” housing options, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in single-family areas, and addressing emerging trends and new State law. Community engagement is an integral part of the planning process and the City recognizes that it is essential to ensure that residents, businesses, and other community members have ample opportunities to provide input through a variety of media and venues so that the resulting strategies reflect community values and priorities. In addition to this online survey, other outreach efforts include pop-up events, listening sessions, stakeholder interviews, community workshops, and meetings with the Planning Commission and City Council.

ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY
An online , interactive map -based community survey was undertaken from December 28, 2021 through February 21, 2022, focused on identifying community priorities regarding the major components of the Targeted General Plan Update—housing, land use, safety, and environmental justice —for San Pablo . The results will inform updates to the General Plan Land Use Map, the Housing Opportunity Sites Map in the Housing Element, and general policy direction. The survey was open to residents, business owners, and people who work or study in San Pablo. The surv ey was accessible from the project page of the City’s website and promoted through email blasts to community members, publicity in El Portal , The Richmond Standard, and Facebook as well as at four “pop-up” outreach events in San Pablo.

The survey included map-based questions focusing on seven areas in San Pablo with redevelopment potential, priority ranking questions for a series of community-wide topics, and open-ended questions that encouraged participants to communicate other priorities if not listed. Th is report summarizes the analysis and findings from the survey. The survey was not a scientific survey; therefore, conclusions and findings are not based on standards typically followed in a scientific survey. The analysis and findings are meant to serve a s a reference for City staff and decision -makers in formulating recommendations to guide future development and identify key policies for the General Plan and Housing Element Update.
19 San Pablo Community Survey Report
6 The survey , conducted through the online, map -based survey service Maptionnaire, was accessed by 262 participants, yielding 173 unique responses. It was available in Spanish and English. A total of 13 respondents took the survey in Spanish, while the other 160 took the survey in English. Respondents were asked to provide some basic demographic details, which included age, gender, whether they rent; own; work; or attend school in San Pablo, and which neighborhood they live/work/attend school in. This report makes use of these details to help characterize nuances in the information received. 20 San Pablo Community Survey Report
7 Analysis of Survey Responses

DEMOGRAPHICS
As shown in Figure 3 -1, below, 67 percent of respondents were between 18 and 64 years old, and nearly half were 25 -44. This reflect s the age distribution of the City , in which 65 percent of residents are 18-64 years old.

More respondents identified as female (55 percent) than male (26 percent) , while 18 percent did not specify a gender (Figure 2). There is approximately equal distribution of males and females living in the City, which means males were underrepresented in the survey sample.

Figure 1: “What is your age?”
2%
16%
24% 24%
13%
6% 5%
10%
Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 and
older
No
response
21 San Pablo Community Survey Report
8 Figure 2: “What gender do you identify as?”

Respondents were asked to indicate whether they work, attend school, own a home, or rent a home in San Pablo. They were instructed to choose as many desc riptors as applicable, so the total adds to slightly more than 100 percent. A third of the respondents own a home, and 28 percent rent . While the percent age of respondent who own closely reflects the percentage of owner -occupied units in San Pablo (38.1 percent), renters may be underrepresented in the survey sample. Nearly one third of the respondents work in San Pablo. (Figure 3)
Figure 3: “Do you work/attend school/own a home/rent a home in San Pablo?” 55%
26%
15%
3%
Female Male No response Prefer not to say Non-Binary
31%
10%
33%
28%
Work Attend School Own a Home Rent a Home
22 San Pablo Community Survey Report
9 Finally, responden ts were asked to select which neighborhood they live in. The largest response category was no response at all (19 percent) , followed by “I do not live in San Pablo” at 16 percent. Of the participants who do live in San Pablo , the results indicate a fairly even geographic distribution of responses across the City. (Figure 4).

Figure 4: “Which neighborhood do you live in?”

HOUSING AND LAND USE
San Pablo’s Sixth Cycle RHNA is 746 units, but the sites identified in the 2015-2023 Housing Sites Inventory can only support 265 more units, thus requiring the City to identify new sites for at least 481 units. As a largely built out city with established single -family neighborhoods, San Pablo has relatively little vacant land available and r edevelopment of existing areas will be needed to accommodate RHNA, particularly higher density rental housing which is more likely to be affordable to lower income households . Seven areas with clusters of underused properties (capable of being developed at a higher density /intensity) and vacant parcels, some of which are currently not zoned for residential uses but could be rezoned, were identified as possible sites to fulfill State RHNA requirements. Descriptions of each area can be found within the full survey text in the Appendix. Respondents were asked to weigh in on whether they supported housing in these seven areas, what types of housing would be most appropriate if so , and their vision for the area /what uses, activities or amenities they might like to see there (such as a community center or park).

An interactive map with the seven areas outlined and shaded was presented to respondents in the survey. When a shaded area on the map was clicked, a pop-up window appeared with the questions listed above. Images and descriptions of each area were provided, as well as 23 San Pablo Community Survey Report
10 images of each type of housing. Figure 5 features a question pop-up window from one of the areas.

Figure 5: Example Map-Based Question

Each area -specific question se t received 31 -42 responses . Residents supported housing in all areas and overwhelmingly in Rumrill Bou levard South . The Southeast Area was the second most supported area for new housing at 91 percent. (Figure 6) Figure 6: Percent of Respondents Supporting New Housing in the Seven Areas 100%
82% 83%
66%
74%
91%
81%
Rumrill Blvd
South
Giant Road
North
San Pablo
Ave North
23rd Street San Pablo
Ave Central
Southeast
Area
East Area
24 San Pablo Community Survey Report
11 Figure 7 breaks down respondents’ support for different housing types for each area.

Across all areas , there was a preference for multifamily housing, whether apartments, townhomes, or fourplexes/triple xes/duplexes. Support for higher density, multifamily housing in each area was echoed in the write -in comments. Totals add up to more than 100 percent as respondents were allowed to select as many housing types as they wanted.

Respondents’ housing type preferences and visions for each area are described below. Many respondents who had skipped the area -specific questions wrote about these seven areas in the drop -a-pin question (to be described next); all drop -a-pin comments relevant to the seven areas are included in the area descriptions below.

Figure 7: Housing Types That Should Be Built in Each Area

Rumrill Boulevard South received a lot of support for higher density housing, particularly apartments. Housing support was echoed in the drop -a-pin comments. Many respondents felt this area needed to be “cleaned up” first, with litter removal and roadway ( including pothole) repair. Respondents also noted that they would like to see parks, gardens, and more trees here. Other respondents envisioned a basketball court and a library.

Giant Road North had almost equal support for all housing types, except Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs); of all areas, this one had the most support for small -lot single family homes. However, all write-in comments regarding housing specified a need for high-density, particularly affordable, housing. Respondents called for public transit improvements to this area and envisioned entertainment and community venues (football stadium, theme park, pool, dog park).
74%
55%
60%
44%
66%
57%
48%
56%
48%
43%
34%
44%
49%
58%
47%
52%
31%
34%
25%
40%
39%
35%
45%
24%
6%
9%
37%
36%
24%
21%
29%
31%
38%
29%
27%
6%
7%
16%
13%
6%
12%
Rumrill Blvd South
Giant Road North
San Pablo Ave North
23rd Street
San Pablo Ave Central
Southeast Area
East Area
Apartments Townhomes
Fourplexes, triplexes or duplexes Single-family homes on small lots Accessory Dwelling Units to single family homes None
25 San Pablo Community Survey Report
12 San Pablo Avenue North received a lot of support for higher density housing, especially apartments. Some respondents noted that student and/or teacher housing would also make sense here. Respondents called for more trees and parks here , suggesting art and music - centric parks. Respondents noted that biking on this road is unsafe and that it needs a protected bike lane. One respondent said that this area could use a redesign to make it look more like a downtown.
23rd Street received the least support of all areas for any type of housing, particularly small-lot single -family housing (six percent); respondents mos t preferred apartments.

Respondents were concerned that adding housing to 23rd Street would increase already heavy vehicle traffic and demand for parking spots . Many comments suggested the need for a complete streets approach with better curbside management (deliveries interfere with parking), wider sidewalks, and protected bike lanes. Respondents also noted that the area could benefit from a better selection of businesses, such as coffee shops and coworking spaces.

San Pablo Avenue Central received a lot of support for higher -density housing, with apartments as the most preferred option; the area received very little support for small -lot single family homes. Write-in comments suggested mixed-use residential with ground-floor retail. A few respond ents suggested repurposing City buildings into parks, housing or businesses. Respondents also called for more retail and restaurants and noted that wider sidewalks and protected bike lanes might make the neighborhood more pleasant as it currently has a lot of vehicle traffic.

The Southeast Area received more support for multifamily housing types than single - family housing, with the most support for apartments. This area additionally received a lot of write-in support for housing, particularly affordable, as well as entertainment and social venues such as amusement park s, roller rinks , and parks geared towards youth.

Respondents emphasized the need for litter cleanup, roadway redesign at the major intersections, and suggested remodeling San Pablo Towne Center into a more modern mixed-use housing and retail destination. One respondent also noted that an emergency room is needed in the area.

The East Area had a similar housing preference profile as the Southeast Area, but with the strongest support for townhomes . Write-in comments suggested higher density housing, noting the area would be ideal for high-density, mixed-use housing with retail. Recreational fields and a theater were also suggested. Respondents also noted the need for sidewalks in this area as San Pablo Dam Road is currently missing sidewalks on both sides.

Across all areas, respondents envisioned more stores, parks, and other amenities within walking distance of residences, and safer roads with bike lanes and wider sidewalks . All housing comments were in favor of increasing residential density and providing affordable units; only two write-in comments (one for the Southeast Area and one for the East Area) called for more single -family housing. The full set of responses can be found in the Appendix.

26 San Pablo Community Survey Report
13 Vision for Other Areas
Respondents were prompted to drop a pin on a map and note changes they would like to see there. One-hundred twenty-three respondents dropped 183 pins. A list of coordinates with write-in responses for what people would like to see is included in the Appendix. Not all respondents who dropped pins noted what they would like to see. Figure 8 is a heat map showing where pins were dropped, with the large red centers being the most popular locations for pin drops . Most comments pertained to the seven areas above and drop -a-pin comments were included in the above summaries, but comments for other popular areas are summarized by topic below.
• Housing
o Build apartments on the site of the v acant lot at 19 th Street and Miner Ave (east of the Giant Road North area)
• Parks
o Build a park for families east of the San Pab lo Avenue North area (on the Contra Costa College campus)
o Build a park for children (Rollingwood)
o Clean up litter, install a fountain, and provide services for the unhoused at Davis Park
• Roadway Improvements
o Install a four-way stop sign at the Road 20/El Portal Drive intersection • Economy
o Improve the Hilltop Mall (outside of City limits) or convert it to a tech center or multi-family housing

27 San Pablo Community Survey Report
14 Figure 8: Locations Where Respondents Would Like to See Changes

CITYWIDE POLICY PRIORITIES
Question 1: Tell us about your priorities for the local economy and businesses. Use the slider to show how important each statement is to you. I would like to see … Respondents were presented with a list of potential priorities , each with a slider that respondents moved to indicate where the priorities fell on a spectrum from lowest importance (1) to highest importance (5). Respondents did not need to prioritize statements relative to each other; in other words, all statements could be ranked of highest importance. There was also a space for participants to write in any other priorities for the local economy and businesses.

Figure 9 shows the average importance ranking for each statement. All topics were ranked with high importance. While not all write-in comments pertained to the local economy and 28 San Pablo Community Survey Report
15 businesses, respondents mentioned the importance of maintaining inviting storefronts and tidy (litter -free) streets/sidewalks around businesses. Other comments highlighted the importance for home ownership opportunities for the working class.

Responses to this question were further analyzed with regard to age and whether the respondent lived in San Pablo. The 35 -44 year -old demographic ranked “more frequent transit service to my job/school” as a lowe r priority than all other age groups , with an average score of 3.47 while the other age groups ’ average priority scores were all in the high range (>4.0), perhaps implying that more respondents in this demographic have access to a car than the older and younger adult demographics . This same statement was a source of difference between San Pablo residents versus non -residents, with non-residents putting greater importance on transit service, which suggests that these respondents may commute into the City via public transit for work or school, or would be more likely to if service were more frequent (Figure 10).

Figure 9: Ranking of Local Economy and Business Priorities (All Respondents)

4.49 3.98

4.44 4.42

4.26 4.39

4.44 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
More well paid jobs in San Pablo.

More frequent transit service to my job/school.

More job training opportunities, especially for
youth.

Faster/more reliable internet access.

More affordable childcare.

More variety and types of local businesses.

More new home ownership opportunities.
29 San Pablo Community Survey Report
16 Figure 10: Ranking of Local Economy and Business Priorities by Residency

Question 2: Tell us about your priorities for community wellness and services. Use the slider to show how important each concern is to you. I would like … While all statements were ranked with high importance, the two hig hest-ranked were “higher levels of community safety and protection ”, and “cleaner air and water” (Figure 11).

Additional priorities to consider from the write-in comments included more services for the unhoused population , offering courses in first aid/accident prevention in schools, and expanding sidewalks and trail networks (and making trails safer) to increase walking and bicycling. Opinions are mixed in terms of how to address public safety (particularly whether police should be involved).

Responses to this question were further analyzed with regard to age and whether the respondent lived in San Pablo. All age groups and residents and non-residents alike ranked all statements with high priority (>4.0).

4.51 3.84

4.43 4.41

4.23 4.44

4.41 4.36

4.55 4.50

4.50 4.50

4.06 4.63

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
More well paid jobs in San Pablo.

More frequent transit service to my job/school.

More job training opportunities, especially for
youth.

Faster/more reliable internet access.

More affordable childcare.

More variety and types of local businesses.

More new home ownership opportunities.

Non-residents Residents
30 San Pablo Community Survey Report
17 Figure 11: Ranking of Community Wellness and Services Priorities (All Respondents)

Question 3: Tell us about your priorities for the look and character of San Pablo? Use the slider to show how important each concern is to you. I would like … As shown in Figure 12, respondents ranked all statements with medium to high importance. “Less litter, graffiti and over grown weeds”, “More walkable areas in San Pablo that you can get to easily from home, work or school ” and “Improved streets with wider sidewalks, benches, trees, and bicycle lanes” were all very highly ranked . Write-in comments underscored the need for both clean-up of litter and illegal dumping and increased pedestrian safety. “Taller buildings with a mix of housing, offices, shops and neighborhood services along major streets ” was ranked lowest of the statements , at a level of medium importance. Write-in responses noted that taller buildings might change the character of the City , highlighting the importance of considering neighborhood preservation and anti - gentrification measures should the City adopt a modern, mixed-use design.

Also emphasized in the write-in comments were concerns about public safety and the unhoused population. While public safety was addressed in the previous question, this underscores its importance as a policy issue. None of the Citywide Policy questions inquired about the unhouse d population ; its salience in the write-in responses emphasizes the importance of this issue.

Responses to this question were further analyzed with regard to age and whether the respondent lived in San Pablo. Figure 13 shows the differences in rankings bas ed on age .

Those aged 55 and older ranked “t aller buildings with a mix of housing, offices, shops and neighborhood services along major streets ” much lower than the rest of the age groups .

4.44 4.35

4.47 4.35

4.28 4.70

4.69 4.33

1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
More recreational facilities and programs.

More fresh fruit/vegetable stands, community
gardens or farmers’ markets in my neighborhood.

More open space, trees, and greenery to provide
shade in the summer.

More health clinics and social services.

More bicycle lanes, crosswalks, and slower speeds,
especially near schools.

Cleaner air and water.

Higher levels of community safety and protection.

More emergency and disaster preparedness
training.
31 San Pablo Community Survey Report
18 This might suggest older respondents are more interested in retaini ng the existing character of the City than seeing the City grow and change. The youngest demographic put less importance on cleaning up litter and increasing the number of employment-oriented buildings than the other groups, but greater importance on pedestrian and bicycle improvements. This suggests the younger demographic might be more likely to walk or bike for transportation than older respondents.

When examining preferences by residency, non -residents (average score: 4.21) assigned much greater importa nce than residents (average score: 3.22) on including taller buildings and mixed -use neighborhoods in the City. This might mean that non -residents are less concerned with retaining the City’s character and more interested in seeing the City expand .

Perhaps these changes would encourage respondents currently commuting to San Pablo for work or school to relocate to the City. (Figure 14)

Figure 12: Priority Ranking for San Pablo’s Look and Character (All Respondents)

3.36 4.35

4.55 3.89

3.79 4.51

4.60 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
Taller buildings with a mix of housing, offices, shops
and neighborhood services along major streets.

Upgraded shopping centers with new signs, improved
facades, trees, landscaping, and public art.

More walkable areas in San Pablo that you can get to
easily from home, work or school.

More small-scale multi-family housing in our
neighborhoods (duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes).

More employment-oriented buildings (ex: offices,
warehouses, etc).

Improved streets with wider sidewalks, benches,
trees, and bicycle lanes.

Less litter, graffiti, and overgrown weeds.
32 San Pablo Community Survey Report
19 Figure 13: Priority Ranking for San Pablo’s Look and Character by Respondent Age

Figure 14: Priority Ranking for San Pablo’s Look and Character by Residency

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Taller buildings with a mix of housing, offices, shops
and neighborhood services along major streets.

Upgraded shopping centers with new signs, improved
facades, trees, landscaping, and public art.

More walkable areas in San Pablo that you can get to
easily from home, work or school.

More small-scale multi-family housing in our
neighborhoods (duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes).

More employment-oriented buildings (ex: offices,
warehouses, etc).

Improved streets with wider sidewalks, benches, trees,
and bicycle lanes.

Less litter, graffiti, and overgrown weeds.
55 and up 45-54 35-44 25-34 24 and under
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Taller buildings with a mix of housing, offices,
shops and neighborhood services along…
Upgraded shopping centers with new signs,
improved facades, trees, landscaping, and…
More walkable areas in San Pablo that you
can get to easily from home, work or school.

More small-scale multi-family housing in our
neighborhoods (duplexes, triplexes, or…
More employment-oriented buildings (ex:
offices, warehouses, etc).

Improved streets with wider sidewalks,
benches, trees, and bicycle lanes.

Less litter, graffiti, and overgrown weeds.

Non-Residents Residents
33 San Pablo Community Survey Report
20 Question 4: What are the top 3 priorities you think the City should focus on in the next 10 years?
Here respondents wrote in their top priorities. A w ord cloud generator w as used to visualize common priorities across respondents in addition to a frequency counter to assess the frequency of phrases missed by the word cloud generator . Affordable housing was the most common concern as a first priority, mentioned in nearly a quarter of all responses (Figure 15). Affordable housing came up again as a common second priority, along with improved sidewalks (Figure 16). As a third priority, affordable housing and better access to stores were tied for most common ; increased job opportunities and training was also common concern (Figure 17). The full set of responses can be found in the Appendix.

Figure 15: First Priority

34 San Pablo Community Survey Report
21 Figure 16: Second Priority
Figure 17: Third Priority

35 San Pablo Community Survey Report
22 Appendix: Survey Questions
Descriptions of Seven Focus Areas
Rumrill Boulevard South : This area includes Rumrill Boulevard from Wildcat Creek to Costa Avenue, and part of Market Avenue. The area has a mix of industrial properties, auto - related uses, churches, restaurants, and commercial services together with single -family and multifamily housing. The Rumrill Sports Complex is a popular destination here. AC Transit buses run on Rumrill, providing connections to the Richmond BART station and Ferry Terminal. There are several vacant and underused properties along the corridor, including a number of large parcels on the west side of the street.

Giant Road North: This area includes Giant Road from Palmer Avenue to just north of Lake Street. It is bounded by the railroad/city limits on the west and 11 th Street on the east. It is mostly industrial but includes a small singl e-family residential area and some multifamily housing west of 11th Street. AC Transit buses run along 11 th Street, providing connections to the Richmond BART Station and Contra Costa College.

San Pablo Avenue North : This area includes San Pablo Avenue fr om Lake Street to Road

20. It is bounded by Contra Costa College on the east and 22 nd Street on the west, and includes part of Broadway Avenue. The area is mostly commercial services (for example:
restaurants, grocery stores, and pharmacies) with a small a mount of single- and multifamily housing. The College Center shopping mall is a main landmark. The area is served by multiple AC Transit routes that connect to the Richmond BART and Richmond Ferry Terminal. There are vacant and underused parcels throughout the area, primarily along San Pablo Avenue.
23rd Street: This area includes 23 rd Street from Brookside Drive to the City of San Pablo boundary at Costa Avenue. This area is mostly commercial (for example: restaurants, retail and auto services) with some churches, offices, and single - and multifamily housing.

Richmond High School is ad jacent to the area on 23 rd Street. This area is served by AC Transit buses on 23 rd Street and Market Avenue that connect to the Richmond BART and Richmond Ferry Terminal. There are some vacant and underused parcels throughout on 23rd Street.

San Pablo Av enue Central : This area is located on San Pablo Avenue from Road 20 to Church Lane. It includes the San Pablo Police Department and a variety of commercial services and offices. There is also a small mobile home community. This area is served by AC Transit buses that connect to the El Cerrito del Norte BART station and San Francisco.

There are a few underused parcels on San Pablo Avenue.
36 San Pablo Community Survey Report
23 Southeast Area: This area includes San Pablo Dam Road between I -80 and San Pablo Avenue. This area is mostly commercial a nd includes the San Pablo Towne Center shopping plaza. It also includes single - and multifamily housing, gas stations, and churches. This area is served by AC Transit buses that connect it to the Richmond and El Cerrito del Norte BART stations as well as S an Francisco. Most of the area is comprised of large, underused parcels, plus a few vacant parcels.

East Area : This area includes San Pablo Dam Road between Morrow Drive and El Portal Drive. It is mostly commercial, including the Princeton Plaza shopping center, but also features open space, industrial uses, a gas station, and some single - and multifamily housing. This area is served by AC Transit bus lines that connect to the Richmond and El Cerrito del Norte BART stations and San Francisco. The area incl udes both vacant and underused parcels.

HOUSING AND LAND USE QUESTIONS
1 Do you support adding new housing in this area?
• Yes
• No

2. If housing is built here, what types of housing do you think should be built? Check all that apply.
• Apartments
• Townhomes
• Fourplexes, triplexes or duplexes
• Single family homes on small lots
• Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) to single family homes • None

3. Describe your vision for the future of this area. What else would you like to see here? For example: “This area should have a mix of housing and shops, with a plaza for socializing and listening to live music.” Or “I’d like to see a crosswalk and street trees added on Rumrill.” Or “I’d like a park and community center here.”

4. Outside of the 7 colored areas on the map, are there other locations where you'd like to see changes? Place a pin on the map to show where and describe what you'd like to see there.

37 San Pablo Community Survey Report
24 CITYWIDE QUESTIONS

1. Tell us about your priorities for the local economy and businesses . Use the slider to show how important each statement is to you. I would like to see …. • More well paid jobs in San Pablo.
• More frequent transit service to my job/school.
• More job training opportunities, especially for youth. • Faster/more reliable internet access.
• More affordable childcare.
• More variety and types of local businesses.
• More new home ownership opportunities
• Other: _____________________________________________________ (fill in blanks)

2. Tell us about your priorities for community wellness and services. Use the slider to show how important each concern is to you. I would like ….. • More recreational facilities and programs.
• More fresh fruit/vegetable stands, community gardens or farmers’ markets in my neighborhood.
• More open space, trees, and greenery to provide shade in the summer. • More health clinics and social services.
• More bicycle lanes, crosswalks, and slower speeds, especially near schools. • Cleaner air and water.
• Higher levels of community safety and protection.
• More emergency and disaster preparedness training.
• Other: ___________________________________________________

3. Tell us about your priorities for the look and character of San Pablo . Use the slider to show how important each concern is to you. I would like …. • Taller buildings with a mix of housing, offices, shops and neighborhood services along major streets
• Upgraded shopping centers with new signs, improved facades, trees, landscaping, and public art
38 San Pablo Community Survey Report
25 • More walkable areas in San Pablo that you can get to easily from home, work or school
• More small-scale multi-family housing in our neighborhoods (duplexes, triplexes, or townhomes)
• More employment-oriented buildings (ex: offices, warehouses, etc). • Improved streets with wider sidewalks, benches, trees, and bicycle lanes • Less litter, graffiti, and overgrown weeds.
• Other: _______________________________________________________

4. What are the top 3 priorities you think the City should focus on in the next 10 years (for example: improved sidewalks, more affordable housing, better access to stores)? First Priority
______________________________________________________________________________ Second Priority
_____________________________________________________________________________ Third Priority
_____________________________________________________________________________

TELL US ABOUT YOURSELF
What is your age?
• Under 18
• 18-24
• 25-34
• 35-44
• 45-54
• 55-64
• 65 and older
What gender do you identify as?
39 San Pablo Community Survey Report
26 • Female
• Male
• Non-binary
• Prefer not to say
Do you __________ in San Pablo? Check all that apply.
• Work
• Attend school
• Rent a home
• Own a home
Which neighborhood do you live/work/go to school in?
• Rivers St/San Pablo Ave
• Giant Rd/Road 20
• Brookside Dr/23rd St
• Market Ave/23rd St
• Rollingwood
• City Center
• El Portal Drive/San Pablo Dam Road
• I do not live/work/go to school in San Pablo.

40 San Pablo Community Survey Report
27 Appendix: Open-Ended Responses

HOUSING AND LAND USE
Describe your vision for the future of this area. What else would you like to see here? Rumrill Boulevard South

1. Bike lanes!

2. Apartments would go well in this area. I cannot see single family homes or other structures here. Lots of industrial and small businesses going through Rumrill.

3. This area just needs a lot of work. It would be nice to see some grocery stores in this area.

4. Another library, more greenery

5. More high-density affordable housing with robust public transit to the denser parts of the city

6. This area seems like a good place for apartments since it has shops and public transportation close by.

7. Mix of housing, shops and parks that encourage a sense of community. Like it if things are accessible by foot and bike.

8. I’d like to see the trailer park changed to low-income housing with a child safe play area.

9. This area is unpleasant to be in both due to a dirty environment as well as excessively large roads and heavy vehicle traffic. Cleaning up litter would be beneficial, as well as reducing the size of roads to make more room for pedestrian traffic and protected bike lanes. This will reduce travel time by giving viable alternatives to driving, thus reducing traffic on the road.

10. I live on 14 & Sutter, and would love to see more stores around here, more housing available, clean streets and better roads as well.

11. Cleaner store fronts.

12. Build a retirement home

13. Take advantage of large vacant lots and plan for multi-unit dwellings.

Giant Road North

1. There is a definite need for low-income housing in the area. I don't think town homes would be viable. Our community's incomes need to be a strong incentive for 41 San Pablo Community Survey Report
28 lower cost housing.

2. This area should have affordable housing, healthy stores, gas stations, and restaurants.

3. Area is a bit affected by the loud train which i think might keep people from living there. I think using the area for employment with quality jobs is important, as many of the older Spanish-speaking immigrants in the area go all the way to SF to have decent wage jobs and generous benefits given limited education and the language barrier. More frequent bus routes to BART. More lights in the streets on Broadway Ave please! I have to use a flashlight to take a night stroll in the winter.

4. apartments or townhouses would be good

5. More high-density affordable housing with robust public transit to the denser parts of the city

6. This area looks like it needs more housing, so it looks more inviting

7. Would be nice to see housing, a park and grocery available within walking distance.

Close to elementary school so could be geared towards families.

8. Dog park, and community center, pool

9. The roads in this area are in disrepair and in desperate need of repaving. Sidewalks and protected bike lanes are necessary in this area to reduce car traffic and make it more accessible to those who cannot afford cars.

10. Parque y vía para caminar

11. Wanted to build a football stadium

12. Build a theme park

13. Mixture of houses and shops and small restaurants

San Pablo Avenue North

1. This area needs a lot of fixtures, first of all and importantly a stop sign on intersection Broadway avenue and 19th street. Cars drive by doing 50 mph on a 25 mph. My sister almost got ruined over 2 years ago because some imbecile driver was going 45 mph (and do not get me started on how many car accidents happen on that intersection) that's why a stop sign is very important. Also this area needs more light posts. Specially on El Portal Dr by Contra Costa College.

2. We need to have a mix of housing but also include walkable neighborhoods to grocery stores, drug stores and other neighborhood serving amenities.

3. Protected bike lanes and bus lanes

4. This area also needs more grocery stores and restaurants.

5. Make the plaza a but more pedestrian friendly, maybe a park or playground in the middle or something. I miss having the library closer but the new one is gorgeous so I’m not complaining. Protected bike lanes. A BART station here would be crazy amazing but not sure how feasible that is. But it might reduce the reliance on cars for younger people who like to go to say Berkeley or Oakland every now and then.

More greenery!

6. This area should be used as commercial space due to the lack of parking, highly transited area and lack of pedestrian signage.
42 San Pablo Community Survey Report
29 7. I want to see apartment for affordable housing

8. I'd like to see more high-density urban areas where shops and public areas (libraries, parks, etc.) are within walking distance of residences

9. This area seems like a good area for apartments because of all the shops close by.

10. This area could definitely use a face-lift. I feel like because it is close to CCC and some shopping there is potential for housing and new shops. Would really love to see the defunct buildings and vacant lots cleaned up. Close to hilltop mall if they ever redevelop that area.

11. Student housing especially for single parents or people on track to enter service jobs like teaching or nursing.

12. Heavy vehicle traffic makes this area unpleasant to be in outside of a car. Central roads should be smaller and lined with larger sidewalks and protected bike paths.

This would make the area more livable, as well as getting more people around faster by making walking and cycling a viable alternative to driving, thus reducing car traffic on the road.

13. I hope to see a music park with modern art atmosphere

14. I want to build a library

15. Build a theme park

16. Multi-unit buildings would be great for this area as transportation runs on 23rd St and the proximity to the shopping plaza allows people without cars to buy necessities without additional burden.

23rd Street

1. Bike lanes!

2. Protected bike lanes.

3. It is far too busy for housing. Parking would be horrible and inaccessible.

4. I'd like to see more high-density urban areas where shops and public areas (libraries, parks, etc.) are within walking distance of residences

5. I don’t think more housing is appropriate for this specific area because of the high school.

6. I wonder if adding housing here may increase traffic to much.

7. This area is unpleasant to be in both due to a dirty environment as well as excessively large roads and heavy vehicle traffic. Cleaning up litter would be beneficial, as well as reducing the size of roads to make more room for pedestrian traffic and protected bike lanes. This will reduce travel time by giving viable alternatives to driving, thus reducing traffic on the road.

8. Area could use more retail business

9. I hope to build a library

10. Mixture of housing, shops such as groceries and pharmacies, but no more liquor stores

11. I understand, from an investor POV, they would prefer to build multi-unit building with a percentage being allocated as affordable housing. City needs to make sure a 43 San Pablo Community Survey Report
30 greater percentage of units are affordable or else problem is only somewhat being addressed. With limited space we can't keep building units working class cannot afford. Need to keep in mind that there are a lot of working families, so need affordable housing that contains at multiple bedrooms. Encourage homeowners to build ADUs.

San Pablo Avenue Central

1. Bike lanes!

2. Protected bike lanes and bus lanes

3. This area should have more restaurants and shopping centers. Also affordable housing.

4. It is already heavily congested here

5. I'd like to see more high-density urban areas where shops and public areas (libraries, parks, etc.) are within walking distance of people's houses

6. This area seems better for businesses since it’s a busy street

7. Close to college and grocery so can be good for housing.

8. Heavy vehicle traffic makes this area unpleasant to be in outside of a car. Central roads should be smaller and lined with larger sidewalks and protected bike paths.

This would make the area more livable, as well as getting more people around faster by making walking and cycling a viable alternative to driving, thus reducing car traffic on the road.

More housing is always needed, but single-family homes are too low-density and more should not be built.

9. Un parque

10. Keep the mobile home community, otherwise we will have more homeless, perhaps expand on that

11. Due to the number of dwellings needed, need to build multi-unit buildings. Area is near grocery stores and transportation and can handle added traffic. Ideally building would include underground parking in order not to overshadow already existing buildings.

Southeast Area

1. Single family homes or fourplexes would be good in this area...hopefully affordable housing. The area in general could really use some beautifying.

2. Protected bike lanes and bus lanes

3. Fix up the shopping area. It's very run down and not well kept.

4. Housing, shops and restaurants

5. I'd like to see more high-density urban areas where shops and public areas (libraries, parks, etc.) are within walking distance of people's houses

6. This area is close to the freeway and businesses so I can see more houses maybe 44 San Pablo Community Survey Report
31 parks, more family friendly since there’s shopping center and schools close by

7. Like to see housing plus park added. It would be good if people could walk to shops and grocery stores.

8. This is a terribly congested traffic area that needs redesign.

9. As with the rest of the city, this area is excessively car-dependent and filled with single-family housing. Smaller roads, larger sidewalks, protected bike lanes, as well as more multi-unit and less single-unit housing will dramatically increase quality of life for everyone living here.

10. I’d like to see a park for the kids and teenagers to socialize, make friends and make it a warm neighborhood

11. Build a roller rink

12. Hoping to build an amusement park

13. Build a statue

14. Build a theme park

15. All further housing should include some below market rate family housing

East Area

1. Not much room to build in this area and the hillside is sliding so that would be a deterrent.

2. This area needs more shopping and restaurants. Not just any shopping or restaurants but well known or chain restaurants.

3. This area could really use more density, but density should be paired with some commercial development as well (think mixed use)

4. I would like to see more pedestrian friendly signage (cross walks, more stops and/or speed bumps) as well as a recreational space (park)

5. Hillcrest Rd would need investment in making it bigger because of increased traffic. please don’t do apartments as you will ruin the community near this area. we don’t want to increase crime

6. I'd like to see more high-density urban areas where shops and public areas (libraries, parks, etc) are within walking distance of people's houses

7. I think the best would be single family homes because it’s close to everything families need.

8. Good place for commuter young families. Add a greenbelt to El Sobrante for biking walking, nature along the creek

9. Almost all housing in this area is single-family homes, which are far too low-density to meet the housing needs of the Bay Area. Single-family homes should be replaced by any other type of housing that has multiple units, ideally as densely as possible.

This will increase housing stock and make housing more affordable for everyone.

10. I would like to see a park as well as the sidewalk that could really amaze the area.

11. I want to build a national gym

12. These should have a number of below market rate housing

45 San Pablo Community Survey Report
32 Outside of the 7 colored areas on the map, are there other locations where you'd like to see changes? Place a pin on the map to show where and describe what you'd like to see there.

Geographic
Coordinate
s
Describe what you would like to see in this area.

37.960194,-
122.340898
Housing

37.968058,-
122.343625
Commercial properties for businesses

37.961652,-
122.356048
Housing

37.959053,-
122.348559
More light on the street is too dark at night.

37.954349,-
122.337406
Vale is very noisy. The people here drive through for nearby neighborhood access and park here blasting stereos etc with no respect for the condos. Noise ordinance and maybe consider doing th ings to lessen this as an access point for people going to their Richmond home. Also amp up the shopping are and make it more entertainment.

37.964384,-
122.345306
This are needs to look more like a downtown. More restaurants and needs to look attractive.

37.956044,-
122.339864
This is not a highlighted area but you should not develop anything in front of city hall, make it a park with open space for community events. San Pablo lacks good spaces for community/citywide festivals.

37.965525,-
122.329521
Our children need space for playing and we, adults, need i t for our peace of mind.

37.955158,-
122.347752
Coffee shops, study rooms

37.961921,-
122.350016
Fix up this park and created housing/mental health support for the transient/community that lives in this area. It currently feels unsafe and has so much potential.

37.955988,-
122.364312
Homes and stores
46 San Pablo Community Survey Report
33 37.974034,-
122.351364
More police, less vagrants and trash

37.954904,-
122.333317
less homeless more services.

I hate walking around the area a there are so many homeless and mentally ill harassing people

37.958596,-
122.356673
More housing and commercial spaces.

37.95509,-
122.347258
More focus on the businesses in this area.

37.956239,-
122.347363
2 lane each way. You needs need to relieve us from stress not give us more stress.

37.957164,-
122.339679
Parque con juegos para niños estaría muy bien porque esta el caminador

37.97142,-
122.353115
Give the school more funding for better faculty pay. Put more lights in the area where some students walk to and from Lake school.

37.962504,-
122.324158
Recreation. Something like more open fields or courts for sports

37.955347,-
122.332756
Develop a more modern shopping center. That’ll invoke more commercial spending but also work for San Pablo residents to have

37.964881,-
122.344913
I would like better and more walkable sidewalks here. especially since there are 2 schools in this area. Also more room dedicated to agriculture and green spaces

37.955304,-
122.347216
More sidewalk. Less hazardous roads. There are much too many hazards bo th on the sidewalk and in the road. confusing lights and crosswalks. unenforced parking situations that make it hard to drive and walk down 23rd

37.993608,-
122.334023
Implementing a bridge with a walkway would help decrease the traffic on Richmond Pkwy an d San Pablo. From Rachel Rd to Atlas Rd. As well it would add another entrance/exit in the Montalvin community since there is only two.

Lastly would it can help the community have better walking access to the point Pinole park.

37.999049,-
122.329497
To cr eate a more welcoming and safe environment. Fixing the roads and walkways. As well increase security.

37.968511,- A vocational school for recent high school students and adults. Or a larger middle college campus to have more students in the comm unity be in the 47 San Pablo Community Survey Report
34 122.338104 school.

37.966706,-
122.343341
More job opportunities, better stores for everyone in the community to stop by and shop. Also TO BE SAFE

37.986139,-
122.35198
The roads are dangerous and very bumpy

37.980424,-
122.327935
A better mall, people have to travel 30 min to go to a close mall.

37.965948,-
122.352542
Pedestrian lights/signs

37.980433,-
122.328448
Dense housing.

37.975202,-
122.345759
More housing

37.975289,-
122.343534
More housing

37.976422,-
122.344234
More housing

37.968548,-
122.344257
Less homeless encampments

37.965897,-
122.330001
Park for children

37.955473,-
122.330428
Beautification of this section. This is a major entrance/exit of San Pablo. It should be better maintained. I want to be proud when I come home off the 80fwy and know I'm in San Pablo.

37.959086,-
122.341272
The old city offices and museums turn into a park

37.958691,-
122.342504
Continuation of Wildcat Creek Trail from Chattleton Lane to Davis Park with the Creek bed in this section kept clean of debris.

37.963021,-
122.337386
Traffic on El Portal Drive is a mess…blocked up all day. New entrances and exits have made things worse.

37.956944,-
122.347025
This street is a mess and unpleasant to walk on with businesses with unfriendly facades and no parking. The mix of businesses do not invite a 48 San Pablo Community Survey Report
35 pleasant shopping experience.

37.955114,-
122.332448
This shopping area is difficult to enter and exit and often difficult to move around. Once the major shopping area with a large farmers market and other programs now totally neglected by EDC and the City.

37.953258,-
122.32972
A hardware store. There used to be three or more hardware stores in San Pablo now we need to go to El Sobrante or a Chain store in Richmond or Hercules to buy basic hardware needs.

37.95559,-
122.357064
The city built a park next to the Rumrill Soccer fields and then closed it to use by the community because the developer didn’t want people using it. Why did the City agree to this after getting the residents of this area to agree to the Sports fields by promising spark and picnic Area.

37.95877,-
122.337632
street cameras to stop the horrific illegal dumping

37.958362,-
122.346904
would be nice if there was on side no parking I get trapped there all the time a one or two delivery trucks block both lanes. If I did that, I would get a ticket

37.957304,-
122.341772
Traffic light/ easier way of crossing from Dover Ave onto church ln

37.962772,-
122.350193
Continuous bike path leading to Point Pinole

37.964159,-
122.348279
Road 20 between San Pablo Ave and Rumrill has become increasingly dangerous for elderly and young children people speed through and on several occasions I have almost been struck
We need stop signs or even better crosswalks

37.957531,-
122.350484
More community events on this street. It is highly trafficked but not cared for much. Also near elementary school and a couple blocks away from Davis Park

37.963035,-
122.351582
Clean up the homeless at Kennedy plaza! the bridge the city needs to rebuild it well the walk way! Homeless are shooting up drugs down there and urinating every where

37.965354,-
122.372288
Wider bicycle lanes

37.975663,-
122.352726
Food or minimart

37.960243,- San Pablo CA need more retail stores. There is plenty of housing but no retail shopping stores Clothing, gift shops etc. Everyth ing is moving to Pinole and 49 San Pablo Community Survey Report
36 122.343216 they are receding the revenue from San Pablo citizens. Ross is ok but we need other retail stores w affordable leasing/rent so they can stay here in our city.

Make things affordable. COLA is not being raised in our checks but in the prices of items and especially food. More affordable shopping centers in San Pablo

37.955429,-
122.332518
More housing with ground floor retail.

37.952215,-
122.331715
More housing with ground floor retail.

37.950529,-
122.331121
More housing with ground floor commercial.

37.954187,-
122.334751
More housing and hotel with ground floor retail.

37.959337,-
122.340327
More housing with ground floor commercial.

37.957052,-
122.346884
More housing with ground floor commercial.

37.956386,-
122.330116
BART or Bus Rapid Transit Station.

37.953598,-
122.333873
Light Rail or Bus Rapid Transit Station.

37.968449,-
122.344353
Student and teacher housing with ground floor commercial.

37.961614,-
122.346589
Housing with ground floor commercial.

37.961988,-
122.326125
Housing with ground floor commercial.

37.961647,-
122.328631
High rise housing with ground floor commercial.

37.963456,-
122.319968
High rise housing with ground floor commercial.

37.980724,- Restore shopping stores or convert it to tech center. Can't let this space go 50 San Pablo Community Survey Report
37 122.328547 waste or use by Amazon for its delivery service.

37.968499,-
122.343521
It seems like this area is under used and could have town house or four plex with courtyard green areas for families if area was cleaned up.

37.961597,-
122.35623
There should be a shelter for women and children as well a drug rehabilitation center there should be some place where our youth can be helped with some type of positive program to promote safety and encourage unity and diversity.

37.973614,-
122.342912
Please put a protected bike lane on San Pablo Avenue; it's so unpleasant to ride here. There's no shoulder and it's incredibly dangerous due to high speed traffic. I have to take different routes because I don't want to get run over, but the other streets are hardly better and a more circuitous route is time - consuming. A painted bicycle gutter isn't enough; there needs to be a protected bike lane separate from the main road to keep cyclists safe.

37.959025,-
122.355468
Better roads, more stores around and clean streets.

37.954463,-
122.331821
The amount of trash & dumpster trash is horrible. All in that area seen lots of areas that probably could be focused for sanitation & clear clean streets.

37.966199,-
122.340136
parks for families and playgrounds for kids

37.966076,-
122.340905
running tracks and playgrounds for family

37.965659,-
122.35322
Signals lights, stops.

37.964394,-
122.33749
A four way stop light on the intersection of El Portal and Road 20.

37.957143,-
122.357027
Pot holes fixed . Garbage cleaned up and more plants and trees

37.976149,-
122.352874
Clean up the homeless problem. Make them a place to help them with mental health issues, addiction treatment, counseling, free medical & dental, job training, give a tax break to those companies who will hire homeless. Make a place for them to live as a transition place 6 -12 to get their life back on track.

Ive noticed more homeless people getting dropped off in 94806 than ever before. As a long time citizen of San Pablo this place has changed for the worst.

Traffic! Illegal builds, people ever

37.958993,- Más limpieza en las calles
51 San Pablo Community Survey Report
38 122.34036

37.961525,-
122.350451
Improvements of this park

37.969561,-
122.313425
I would like to see the Tiny home community

37.968556,-
122.343644
Dog park

37.975515,-
122.335715
I would like to see a shooting range or gallery house.

37.974984,-
122.345618
Perhaps addition of few apartments would make the place admirable.

37.946304,-
122.353098
A football field for recreation pu rpose especially to the kids near the area fur mostly the Belding school kids.

37.954369,-
122.357889
Housing

37.964897,-
122.344944
Shopping area

37.961387,-
122.353139
Fountain in the park

37.955017,-
122.357404
I want a big square

37.963088,-
122.3564
Wanted to build a basketball court

37.961031,-
122.356551
I want to build a library

37.960437,-
122.326644
Build a grand theater

37.953474,-
122.347268
Hoping to build an amusement park

37.962613,-
122.3563
Hoping to build an amusement park
52 San Pablo Community Survey Report
39 37.952185,-
122.330682
More shopping center, food, clothing, Small business.

37.967673,-
122.344569
Parques

37.970029,-
122.343502
Parques

37.958803,-
122.340861
Parques

37.960595,-
122.346013
Build a church

37.958934,-
122.346967
Build a theme park

37.955729,-
122.357705
Build a theme park

37.954265,-
122.347418
Build a theme park

37.975114,-
122.352888
Build a theme park

37.96354,-
122.33369
This section of the street needs a speed bump.

37.961694,-
122.324696
Residential buildings

37.962161,-
122.360263
PARK

37.963368,-
122.356522
female

37.955814,-
122.35758
Trees

37.964993,-
122.344792
The road

37.960132,-
122.341115
community
53 San Pablo Community Survey Report
40 37.958908,-
122.340912
New use for the old city hall. Businesses and possibly housing.

37.97525,-
122.345681
Dog park.

37.960353,-
122.324209
Low income housing.

37.957655,-
122.328636
Low income housing.

37.955701,-
122.32686
Mixed use residential
commercial.

37.952435,-
122.334411
Mixed use residential/commercial.

37.953823,-
122.330922
Un hospital para emergencia

37.95592,-
122.336466
Un comedor (cosina) donde les den comida caliente a los indigentes O personas de bajos recursos.

37.96852,-
122.343841
Que planten más árboles y flores (jardines bonitos

37.961549,-
122.356764
Más árboles y jardines

37.956235,-
122.357116
Más árboles y jardines ⚘️

37.959305,-
122.346858
Más árboles y jardines ⚘️

CITYWIDE QUESTIONS
Question 1: Other priorities for the local economy and businesses

1. More high-quality restaurants and storefronts need to look more attractive. Also code enforcement and helping ensure properties look maintained. Especially businesses.

2. The load cars is an issue and currently disrupts the peace of many neighborhoods.

Cracking down on illegal car exhaust pipe adjustments would be ideal. 54 San Pablo Community Survey Report
41 3. Oportunidad de abrir pequeños negocios a personas de bajos ingresos

4. Que alla control de renta

5. Green options like solar

6. Recreational activities for adults. Not just children or seniors.

7. Road maintenance, street cleaning, shrubs maintained in medians

8. Davis park used to be so beautiful now you go over there graffiti dirty needles homeless people in the creek it’s not safe for the kids to have baseball games or anything there

9. Improve education in public school.

10. More high rise, mid-rise, and townhouses.

11. Apoyo en el área laboral para padres y madres solteras, viudas y personas de la 3 edad.

12. Would love to see city cleaned up. There is a lot of trash and dirty empty lots. When these areas are clean it boots morale. There needs to be services for the homeless or opportunities for them to get jobs and housing. Would love more green space

13. More frequent public transit will give people a better alternative to driving, which will get them out of their cars. This reduces traffic and pollution while making people healthier because they're walking more.

14. Más seguridad con el control de trafico

15. Illegal builds in single family homes have turned quite neighborhoods into parking lots. Garbage dumping needs to be addressed in meetings! Our town has turned into a shit show! So sad. It disgusting to see.

16. Make businesses more welcoming and safe. In other words do something about the loitering outside of stores like grocery outlet and 7-11.

17. Affordable hospitals for those in need & minimize crime in the neighborhood.

18. Trash picking services for illegal dumping and restrictions on how businesses use flashing, color lights year-round.

19. Some way to control illegal dumping, camping, street side shows, loud speeding cars, and fireworks. In other words the police department should be fully funded and supported with ancillary mental health services, but not replaced by them.

20. An emergency room, it’s hard getting all the way to Martinez in an emergency.

21. Need a way to create home owning opportunities for working class (incl. non- citizens) that are already renting in San Pablo. Allow residents opportunity to own new dwellings before non-residents can bid on them.

22. More mixed-use commercial/residential along major thoroughfares.

Question 2: Other priorities for community wellness and services

1. There is a lot of crime in multiple patches throughout the 7 zones and the crime in Brookside Drive is believed to be higher due to the transient community and lack of resources for them.
55 San Pablo Community Survey Report
42 2. Muy importante control de talar árboles en las banquetas por los dueños de las propiedades, ya q a veces lo hacen sin informar a la ciudad. Y ellos son vitales para darnos oxígeno.

3. Nesecitamos más policia en las calles

4. Hesitant about community safety because that usually means cops and our communities are already heavily policed in our schools, streets, and spaces.

5. More access to public health clinics and distribution of personal protection gear for covid-19 related items.

6. Services provided to the homeless population, there has been an increase in homelessness in my neighborhood along with trespassing, theft, drug consumption/selling, loitering, illegal dumping and encampments.

7. Less priority on what developers want and more attention to residents of the city want.

8. Get rid of the homeless

9. Would love to walk to parks and shops while feeling safe.

10. Smaller roads and more space dedicated to pedestrians and bikes will encourage people to not drive, thus making everyone healthier overall.

11. Cursos en las escuelas de primeros auxilios o prevención de accidente

12. Please consider organizing a team volunteer or paid in neighborhoods that are bad to watch & fine illegal garbage dumping. You have done a great job with fireworks this year. Parking is horrible problem in our neighborhoods never addressed.

13. Earthquake preparedness.

14. Disaster training for wildfires, earthquakes, tsunami would be very helpful.

15. Don't make traffic on 23rd or san pablo ave worst. Reality, most people that live here commute for work therefore impacts to travel time should be kept in mind when balancing bike routes/lanes.

16. Regionally integrated designed safe bike trails and the no parking enforcement needed to make them usable and available for recreational use (ex.: Giant Rd to Pinole Point) and transit (ex.: San Pablo to Richmond Bart and Ferry).

Question 3: Other priorities for the look and character of San Pablo

1. I think San Pablo can use Emeryville as a good example in how it has being developed. I personally love the Bay Street concept except those are for rent and I think condos to own would be a better option.

2. También tener más control de la basura en las calles, tal vez tener más días de recaudación de basura gratis.

3. Yes to public art!

4. Better roads and increase night visibility with lights

5. Creek erosion control on city owned areas, maintaining sidewalks, and streets

6. Need People to slow down on Road 20

7. Safety is a big concern. Bigger buildings might cause more chaos for this small city.

Please take this into consideration if building up is an option. 56 San Pablo Community Survey Report
43 8. I’ve lived here all my life I cannot believe the garbage all around by the can foodstore. On road 20 on the weekends they use that as a race track

9. More retail shopping centers clothing and specialty shops

10. This city could definitely use a cleanup and become more walkable. Would like to see more thriving business but do like more mom-and-pop shops rather than big name stores.

11. Mixed-use areas, where shops, jobs, and housing are close together, make walking easier and driving less necessary, which makes everyone healthier. More multi- family housing is crucial to increase the Bay Area's housing stock.

12. Focus on areas where homeless camp to somehow focus on keeping those areas from getting worse with dumpster items for example bed mattresses. Bus stops that homeless camp on by the casino.

13. It’s a shame we have Richmond BART but it’s too dangerous to use. Make more corporations offers to move to SP to give us better opportunities & jobs within our city. Offer our students & families more free education & job training in all languages.

14. We are unable to walk in our own neighborhoods due to homeless encampments and drug usage in parks and other public areas.

15. Fully funded and supported police force, bicycle units, community activities

16. I think education housing is the most important for the development of new cities

17. Prevent building tall buildings next single-family dwellings.

18. More preservation of historical landmarks and buildings.

Question 4a: First Priority the City Should Focus on in the Next 10 Years These unique responses are aggregated in the Word clouds included previously in this report.

1. Housing

2. Homelessness

3. Affordable healthcare/ healthcare offices/ services

4. more jobs

5. Affordable rent

6. Affordable housing

7. More well-paid jobs

8. Más viviendas asequibles

9. Housing

10. Jobs

11. Green space and parks

12. Affordable housing

13. Cleanliness and Greenery - general character of the city needs to improve 57 San Pablo Community Survey Report
44 14. More job opportunities for youth

15. Crime/Safety/Noise Pollution

16. Lower income housing

17. Affordable housing

18. Affordable housing

19. Reduce crime, vandalism and trash

20. Upgraded shopping centers with less trash and better landscaping

21. Improve the street to walk and drive bicycles

22. Housing for the working poor

23. More Care for the homeless population

24. A safer neighborhood

25. Better schools. The scores are really bad and will force me to move at some point.

26. Viviendas asequibles y control de renta

27. More jobs that don’t required a degree.

28. Vivienda asequibles

29. Affordable housing

30. Affordable housing

31. Job training

32. Dense Housing

33. Safety

34. Viviendas más asequibles

35. Better variety of stores and restaurants

36. Better jobs

37. Recreation for Youth and sports

38. Public safety

39. affordable housing

40. more art around the city

41. improve sidewalks

42. Cleaner air and water

43. affordable housing

44. The pay should be higher the economy is getting expensive

45. Improved streets

46. Housing

47. More Affordable Housing

48. More affordable housing

49. Affordable housing and rent control for the city

50. More affordable Housing. More funding for housing vouchers

51. Better paying jobs
58 San Pablo Community Survey Report
45 52. crime control

53. Other: adult recreation

54. More housing at all levels near services

55. Safe community

56. Affordable housing

57. New opportunity for home ownership within city limits.

58. Community safety (i.e. addressing fireworks, reckless drivers)

59. Parking enforcement-maybe parking permit programs similar to other cities

60. Improve sidewalks

61. Affordable housing

62. Putting Residents ahead of the needs developers and City staff.

63. housing

64. Cleaner streets

65. Affordable housing,

66. better housing

67. Safety and security

68. Higher levels of community safety

69. access on roads as we have too much traffic congestion

70. Affordable housing

71. Stop signs on Road 20

72. Better access to fresh foods (help small businesses rather than contracts with big companies)

73. Crime

74. Affordable housing

75. Recreational facilities and programs for youth

76. Wider Bicycle lanes

77. Remove all Covid restrictions

78. Education

79. Get rid of the homeless

80. More business like retail stores that are affordable

81. Affordable housing

82. less homelessness especially on the Dam Road

83. More housing.

84. Viviendas asequibles

85. More job training opportunities, especially for youth. Especially hiring within the community.

86. Affordable housing

87. More variety in stores and walkable areas

88. Smoother roads
59 San Pablo Community Survey Report
46 89. Clean up and safety

90. Available resources to help people keep their jobs.

91. More affordable housing

92. Housing

93. Mixed use projects

94. More affordable housing

95. Reduce road size and convert the space to pedestrian and bicycle lanes

96. More greenery

97. More social services

98. Cleaning or try to control the amount of dumpster left in the streets with household items such as bed mattresses etc..

99. Keep the streets clean
100. safety
101. Homeless
102. Seguridad publica
103. Mejorar el sueldo mínimo
104. Safe city
105. Less litter/Less harm to the environment
106. Faster internet
107. Affordable housing
108. Mental health facilities, addiction, homelessness
109. Limpieza de calles,
110. Viviendas. Asequibles
111. Clean
112. Safety
113. Seguridad
114. Safe shopping areas
115. More outstanding Healthcare facilities.
116. Homelessness
117. Affordable housing
118. Improved roads/sidewalks
119. Más vivienda asequible
120. more affordable housing,
121. more affordable housing
122. Las calles en mejores condiciones
123. better access to stores
124. improved sidewalks
125. more affordable housing
60 San Pablo Community Survey Report
47 126. improved sidewalks
127. improved sidewalks
128. Less garbage in the street, better look of the city, no graffiti. Painted buildings 129. Affordable housing
130. Affordable housing
131. better access to stores
132. improved sidewalks
133. more affordable housing
134. more affordable housing
135. more affordable housing
136. Police and safety
137. Menos basura más zonas públicas limpias
138. Community safety and improved (increased) police presence. 139. Better paying jobs
140. Affordable housing
141. Quality of life issues, homeless, fireworks, loud and speeding cars 142. Affordable housing
143. Infrastructure, transportation, environment
144. Modernizar las fachadas de las tiendas
145. Increase employment
146. Create an emergency room hospital
147. affordable housing
148. More protection
149. Home improvements
150. more affordable housing
151. improved sidewalks
152. I think the first item is housing
153. Affordable housing
154. Street improvement
155. More affordable housing #1
156. Improve facade of stores
157. Mas vivendas viviendas accesible para los contribuyentes que trabajan y gananvel sueldo mínimo.
158. Affordable housing for already existing residents
159. Reduction of littering along major thoroughfares and in residential neighborhoods through aggressive enforcement of existing anti-littering ordinances. 160. Housing

61 San Pablo Community Survey Report
48 Question 4b: Second Priority the City Should Focus on in the Next 10 Years

1. Improved look of businesses

2. Jobs

3. Healthy eating restaurants

4. better walking places

5. More Jobs

6. More affordable childcare

7. Trabajos pagados mejor

8. Safety

9. Housing

10. More mixed use for a livable/walkable city

11. Career and computer skills free to young and old

12. Noise pollution from the train

13. Streets and parks children can play in and walk to and feel safe

14. Better schools (not such low ratings)

15. Informational programs that are all inclusive...not just for certain incomes.

16. Livable wages

17. More youth opportunities

18. Higher police presence to discourage drug sale/use

19. Improved streets with trees and bicycle lanes

20. Job training for youth

21. Diverse Police force

22. Affordable housing

23. Streets improvement

24. More street lights.

25. Más árboles en la ciudad en las banquetas

26. More lights on san pablo ave and hilltop going towards tarahills

27. Mejora de las aceras

28. Protected bike lanes

29. Job opportunities

30. Employment

31. Create a real downtown

32. Community engagement

33. Acceso a las tiendas

34. Affordable housing

35. More transit accessibility

36. Larger emphasis on public transport

37. Less homeless
62 San Pablo Community Survey Report
49 38. food accessibility (fresh produce, larger grocery stores, etc.)

39. helping the homeless

40. less homelessness

41. Better paying jobs

42. accessible opportunities for all

43. More housing

44. Affordable housing

45. Transit

46. Community/Crime Safety & Cleaner Community

47. Combat illegal dumping

48. Well paid jobs and trainings

49. More things to do in the city

50. Job training resources

51. landscaping

52. Wider, cleaner sidewalks to walk around

53. Improved pedestrian safety (including protected bike lanes/bike corridors)

54. Job opportunities

55. Improved sidewalk

56. Better upkeep of sidewalks/center divides and streets. Many San Pablo corridors look neglected or half done.

57. Less litter, enforce parking so street sweeping can be effective

58. Cleaning up the streets and creeks- a lot of dumping on sidewalks and streets

59. Homelessness/encampments

60. Preserving and building the cultural and historical assets of the city.

61. medical assistance

62. Improved schools

63. Cleanliness. streets...

64. more affordable housing

65. More Traffic lights and stop signs

66. Slower speeds in residential streets

67. shopping

68. Local farms

69. Crosswalk and sidewalks on Road 20

70. Affordable housing…. There is no rent control in San Pablo and people of color that have resided in these community are being displaced.. my family included.

71. Homeless

72. Increasing urban density

73. Improved sidewalks

74. Wider sidewalks
63 San Pablo Community Survey Report
50 75. Fund the police

76. Housing

77. Clean up the trash

78. Keep the streets clean .. ALL OF THEM INCLUDING SIDE STREETS

79. less loitering at certain local businesses

80. Walkable communities.

81. Mejora de aceras y carreteras

82. More recreational facilities and programs.

83. Less trash and illegal dumping

84. Community buildings

85. Clean the local creeks from litter

86. Affordable houses

87. Keeping the city clean

88. Better job opportunities

89. Safety

90. Walkable neighborhoods

91. Local jobs

92. Replace single-family housing with multi-family housing

93. Better roads

94. Improved sidewalks

95. Making side walks & cross walks safer for all ages maybe increase side walk lights or signals in more areas.

96. Affordable housing

97. family orientated parks

98. Blight

99. Seguridad en la escuela para alumnos
100. La seguridad
101. Police work for the community.
102. Cleaner air and water
103. Community safety
104. Affordable childcare
105. Jobs, education, free job training, scholarships for college 106. Hacer que cada inquilino tenga limpia su vivienda
107. Tener más limpias las calles , en general la ciuda 108. Green
109. Vivienda asequible
110. Better selection of restaurants
111. More access to every part of the city along side improved sidewalks. 64 San Pablo Community Survey Report
51 112. Less Housing
113. Good education for kids
114. Affordable housing
115. Mejora de las aceras
116. improved sidewalks
117. better access to stores
118. Mejor acceso a las tiendas
119. more affordable housing
120. better access to stores
121. better access to stores
122. more affordable housing
123. more affordable housing
124. Better access to stores
125. Affordable childcare
126. Better access to stores
127. improved sidewalks
128. better access to stores
129. improved sidewalks
130. improved sidewalks
131. improved sidewalks
132. Drug use and homeless
133. Oportunidades de trabajo para jovenes
134. Blight abatement in neighborhoods, public spaces, and shopping districts. (Graffiti, weeds, unkempt personal properties.)
135. More trees planted
136. Clean air
137. More greenery along streets, merchants encouraged improve the look of their storefronts
138. Improved and cleaner sidewalks
139. more affordable housing,
140. Mayo
141. Better living conditions
142. More nature, trees, flowers.
143. Taking care of our land; clean up, recycling
144. Better pay
145. Beefing up security personnel
146. improved sidewalks
147. more affordable housing
148. I think the second item is education
65 San Pablo Community Survey Report
52 149. Street appearance
150. Education
151. More art. This city is boring
152. Youth programs and job
153. Reparación de calles, aceras peatonales y señales de tráficos y de estacionamiento etc.
154. Infrastructure
155. Reduction of noise pollution through aggressive enforcement of existing DMV regulations on modified exhaust systems and reckless driving. 156. Cleaning

Question 4c: Third Priority the City Should Focus on in the Next 10 Years

1. More jobs

2. Roads

3. Dumping

4. better social services

5. Cleaner areas

6. Cleaner air and water

7. Más seguridad para la comunidad y una ciudad más limpia

8. Job

9. Food desert

10. Noise ordinance on vale

11. Promote worker-owned business.

12. More diversity of restaurants, coffee shops, and walkable neighborhoods

13. More affordable housing

14. Grants for homeowners to build ADUs to support with housing with an income restriction that is $250k or less as year.

15. More youth empowerment programs

16. Cleaner parks

17. Home ownership

18. More employment-oriented building with internships and training programs

19. More recreational programs

20. activities for youth

21. Emergency room care; more healthcare options

22. More small business

23. Affordable housing

24. Seguro médico general para personas de bajos recursos y sin documentos

25. Less traffic
66 San Pablo Community Survey Report
53 26. Centro comercial

27. Better crosswalks

28. More Medical facilities other thank Kaiser

29. Higher salaries

30. Give people a reason to visit - nightlife please

31. More businesses

32. Transporte

33. Cleaned up and upgraded shopping centers

34. Affordable housing

35. Increased variety in businesses

36. More jobs

37. public transportation

38. More youth focused centers

39. clean air

40. Affordable healthcare

41. improved walking spaces

42. More stores, supporting local businesses

43. Safety

44. Pedestrian and bicycle access

45. Wider Diversity of Business/Employment Opportunities

46. Small business development

47. Higher levels of community safety and protection.

48. Free wifi

49. Less graffiti

50. More access to open space/parks

51. Public parks with sports club in more locations

52. Parks

53. More police presence. maybe motor cops or on bicycles. More approachable, mostly just see them in their vehicles driving thru town.

54. Revitalize shopping areas

55. Educating families and youth about resources available to them and how to improve the city

56. Affordable housing

57. Building a hospital in conjunction with other West County Comminities.

58. getting the homeless out of the bushes

59. Social services

60. Employment...with livable wages

61. better sidewalks

62. Wider and cleaner sidewalk
67 San Pablo Community Survey Report
54 63. safety

64. Higher paying jobs

65. Help with homelessness

66. Improved streets in general. The pipeline project is taking too long. The projection finish date passed long ago and our streets are uglier than before.

67. Cleaning up the creeks they lay under the bridge and throw stuff at traffic

68. More convenient public transit

69. Job training opportunities for all

70. Remove CRT from all schools

71. Job opportunities

72. Fix the parking issues

73. Outlaw fireworks and gun shooting on holidays PERIOD

74. cleaner appearance of residence front yards

75. Traffic Calming.

76. Accesar las tiendas

77. More affordable housing.

78. More Job opportunities

79. Affordable housing

80. More community events

81. Less homeless

82. Bringing Activities to the city: Bringing the community together

83. Community engagement

84. Diverse opportunities for all

85. More recreational parks and easy bike/walk access

86. Youth program

87. Convert single-use development to mixed-use development

88. More out door nice benches for views with green grass

89. Better access to stores!

90. Have more community events that can help families with teaching healthy eatings maybe more farmers markets for low and income families.

91. Jobs

92. all inclusive playground

93. Education

94. Más cursos de prevención para desastres

95. La limpieza

96. Employment opportunities.

97. More greenery

98. Access to stores

99. Homelessness
68 San Pablo Community Survey Report
55 100. Housing. Affordable housing for lower income individuals. We need to control rents that investors & landlords overcharge people. We need to help our community support themselves. We need to be the first in our county to design a program for people to rise above poverty. A program that address their specific needs and gets them to a better place. For example: A low income family. We should offer them job training, counseling on how to develop a successful livelihood, affordable housing, with medical care. Same goes for homeless person with mental health & addiction issues. Help them be successful. I feel as if society forgets to care for the less fortunate. Please make a difference.
101. Más seguridad
102. Tener mayor seguridad
103. Safe
104. Más actividades familiares
105. Homeless
106. More access to social services in the town.
107. City Beautification
108. Minimize crimes
109. More food, shopping, entertainment
110. Mejor acceso a las tiendas
111. better access to stores
112. improved sidewalks
113. Mantener la ciudad limpia
114. improved sidewalks
115. more affordable housing
116. improved sidewalks
117. better access to stores
118. better access to stores
119. More community centers, areas for youth
120. More healthcare centers
121. Safety
122. more affordable housing
123. more affordable housing
124. better access to stores
125. better access to stores
126. better access to stores
127. Illegal garbage dumping and speed bumps
128. Oportunidades de formación
129. Install roundabouts, and other deterents to unsafe driver activities, and illegal slideshows. Enforce stopping at ignored stop signs in neighborhoods. The sign on my street is on average around 75% ignored.
69 San Pablo Community Survey Report
56 130. More constant roadwork
131. More well paid jobs
132. More below market housing
133. Increase transit frequency
134. better access to stores
135. Environmental governance
136. Create a hospital with emergency room
137. Health; mental health/ nutrition
138. More community activities
139. To develop the economy
140. better access to stores
141. better access to stores
142. I think the Third Street building
143. Health clinics
144. Job training
145. Jobs that people can live off of
146. Dump or garbage on sidewalk
147. Cuando la ciudad haga mandatorios, que de verdad que los haga cumplir tales como: estacionar ensima de aceras peatonales, jardines y basura tirada en frente de las casas.
148. Create more foot traffic for small businesses
149. More commercial and business development to broaden the economic base and move away from Casino, i.e. Casino.
150. Stores

70 Rumrill Property Owners Forum – San Pablo
NOVEMBER 22, 2022

ATTENDEES
City Staff
• Libby Tyler
• Griffen Dempsey
• Sandra Marquez
• Sugey Mojica
• Laura Santillan
• Elizabeth Lopez
• Greg Dwyer
• Sara Kolarik
• Mel Mackson
• Jimmy Zhou
Consulting Team
• Andrew Hill
• Claire Villegas
Property Owners
• Kiran Yiramada – 1303 Fillmore Avenue (vacant lot 1 block away from Rumrill) - Owner for 6 years
- Currently commercial zoned, existing zoning is a barrier - Leaving it vacant has led to homeless encampments behind lots - Has other properties in Richmond -
- Does not live in San Pablo
- Does not want to incorporate garage spaces or parking lots, prefers to build similar to existing four-plexes in the area
- 5000 sq. ft.
- Would want to give car space behind, but does not want garages or parking lots 71 - 2 -
- Excited about new property builds on Rumrill, mainly seeking help with his own lot - Sees residential and commercial in the future, potentially mixed- use properties on the main corridor
- Concerns re: flooding and sidewalk building around W. Sanford Ave. § North side lacks sidewalks
§ Important to look at stormwater issues before implementing sidewalks • Dr. Robert Adams Jr. and Chris Adams – 1210 & 1200 Rumrill Blvd, 1310 Regina Ave - Partial property
- Eager to build apartment units on the property
- Land in the back is 85x150
- Lives adjacent to the property, restaurant across the street - 50 years ownership
- Believes community would benefit from improved housing and commercial business - Want to redevelop the house 1210 and the property
- Interested in working in partnership with other developers - Hopes the area can address housing shortages in the larger surrounding areas which can spur economic development in the area, especially small business - Seeking drainage around property
- Help property owners navigate development process

72 Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org
The City of San Pablo
Via email: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
September 19, 2022
Re: San Pablo’s Draft Housing Element
To the City of San Pablo:

YIMBY Law thanks the City for its clear and sincere housing element. We credit the City for studying housing-element law, and for working in good faith to comply with it.

Let’s turn, then, to how San Pablo can produce housing, not just a housing element.

California’s “serious housing crisis” is a failure of imagination. In 1961, Jane Jacobs published her “attack on current city planning and rebuilding,” where she lambasted utopian planning rules for ignoring real-world community growth and harmfully prescribing top-down categories and quanti
ﬁcations instead. Yet most cities, including
San Pablo, still maintain these utopian practices today.

Consider San Pablo’s program to amend its zoning ordinance so as to allow 12 “shopkeeper units” in the City by 2031. (Draft, p.4-5.) The City makes a point of “contrast[ing]” these “shopkeeper units” against “live-work units” on the grounds that the former “are dwelling units that are physically separated from a commercial space used for a business operated by the occupant” whereas the latter “are a commercial use that allows residential occupancy.” (Ibid.) Really? Is drawing this distinction a legitimate or even enjoyable use of anyone’s time, let alone the government’s legal monopoly on force? With so many Californians living in tents, vans, and sheds (🙋), why does the City care if and where it allows resident-entrepreneurs? 73 The point is that the City is not really “2.2% vacant,” as the City claims. (See id. p.3-6.) To believe that ﬁgure requires one to accept that the polygons the law draws across City territory constitute forever-ﬁxed boundaries of unit-equivalent lots, and that any building anywhere on any of those lots renders the lot nonvacant. In reality, 78 percent of 45 percent of the City’s geographical territory “is developed with single-family homes,” and City ordinance prohibits those homes from occupying more than 45% of the lots on which they are built. (Id., pp.3-6, C-15.) The City’s own lot-coverage ordinance for single-family districts thus mandates, all by itself, that at least 15.8% of City territory is vacant.

Don’t complain, then, that San Pablo is “largely built out.” (Id. p.3-6.) If you want to build the housing that will determine which cities attract this generation’s workforce, abolish your design requirements. (Contra Draft, p.4-21). Doing so could free up attention for your equity programs, many of which we support.

We look forward to the City’s next draft. Please contact me with questions.

Sincerely,
Keith Diggs
Housing Elements Advocacy Manager, YIMBY Law
[email protected]
Campaign for Fair Housing Elements
fairhousingelements.org 2
74 San Pablo Environmental Justice Element Outreach Event #1

LOCATION
• San Pablo Community Center
• March 16, 2023, 6pm

ATTENDEES
Staff
• Sandy Marquez (City)
• Mel Mackson (City)
• Karen Chavez (Dyett & Bhatia, D&B)
• Claire Villegas (D&B)
• TOD Outreach Consultant Group
Participants
• Approximately 25 community members and 15 kids

SUMMARY
D&B was stationed near the entrance of the community center. Two tables with the three environmental justice sheets laid side -by-side so participants could easily see the questions.

Participants were greeted upon arrival and offered food and drinks, followed by an introduction to the General Plan and the event’s activity. Overall, participants were very receptive of the activity and felt comfortable answering questions about housing, health, and public facilities.

Most people did not agree that people trying to rent/buy a home are discriminated against ; instead, they felt that many people in San Pablo can’t afford or don’t qualify to buy a new home because of how expensive housing is. As a result of the price, participants agreed that too many people live together in one home, room, or unit.

Health and environmental concerns that participants expressed was the proximity to the Chevron Richmond refinery. Many participants acknowledged the lack of clinics and hospitals in the area; one participant noting that the closest, affordable location to receive healthcare was in Oakland.

Additionally, participants noted that there aren’t enough grocery stores to buy health, fresh food (City has many food desserts), and there are a lot of convenience stores that sell processed and easy -to- grab food that may not be the most nutritional.

Lastly, participants expressed the enthusiasm for the new creek trail in the community that serves as outdoor recreation and the new library. Many participants agreed that there are decent facilities in San Pablo, but more outreach can be done to promote programs and activities at the community learning centers. Daycares/community centers are often not a ffordable, so community members have to go outside San Pablo to find affordable care. Many participants expressed interest in free health clinics as there is no hospital in San Pablo, and the closest place to get care is Kaiser Richmond. 75 NOTES
• Near Richmond High School a lot of people park on the sidewalks, people with strollers and bicycles can’t get through
• More outreach for community learning centers, programs exist but a lot of people don’t know about them
• Many people in San Pablo can’t afford or don’t qualify to buy a home • People can find rentals quickly, but they are expensive – prices are dramatically higher today
• Many people rent or sublease single rooms, overcrowding issues, might even convert garages
• Participants noted that some areas of the city have limited access to grocery stores • New creek trail has been a great outlet for outdoor recreation, high use • Environmental health concerns/pollution with proximity to Richmond refinery, illegal dumping and other hazardous materials
• A lot of low-income residents and few public health clinics, no hospital in San Pablo • Even at the closest hospital – Kaiser Richmond – it is very difficult to get an appointment, people have had to go all the way to Oakland
• Great new library
• Daycare/community centers are not often affordable or people don’t know about them, often have to go outside the city
• No cooling or
heating centers in San Pablo
• People do feel like they experience discrimination on housing prices or selection • Shortage of teachers in the area
76 77

78 79
San Pablo Environmental Justice Element Outreach Event #2

LOCATION
• Kidd Manor Senior & Disabled Housing
• April 25, 2023; 6pm-7pm

ATTENDEES
Staff
• Sandy Marquez (City)
• Mel Mackson (City)
• Karen Chavez (D&B)
• Claire Villegas (D&B)
Participants
• 8 residents from Kidd Manor and the adjacent housing complex

SUMMARY
D&B was stationed near the entrance of the Kidd Manor lobby. D&B had three boards set on easels and propped on a table so that participants could read the questions. Participants were greeted upon arrival and offered food and drinks. Staff from the City of San Pablo introduced the topics of their boards and D&B gave a brief overview of the Environmental Justice element to all participants.

Participants were encouraged to interact with the different “stations” based on their interest. 6 out of the 8 attendees participated in our board’s activity.

Most residents spoke to their positive housing experiences living at Kidd Manor, but offered perspectives on housing issues in the City. 5 of the 6 residents we spoke to lived at Kidd Manor for 5 years or longer. While participants agreed discrimination is not a major issue, they believe affordability is for both renting or wanting to buy a home. Even though resources exist to support low-income residents, one participant noted that it is difficult to identify these resources. They also noted Kidd Manor does not face any landlord issues, but agreed many properties in San Pablo are rundown.

The main health issue participants spoke to was the lack of healthy food options near them. Two participants made comparisons to the stark differences in grocery options between Piedmont and San Leandro and San Pablo. They also expressed an interest in an increase in local farmer’s markets that are open outside of normal business hours. Participants also spoke to the need for more walking trails and outdoor opportunities.

Kidd Manor offers proximity to the Contra Costa College library, which many residents enjoy. One participant expressed that service and bus stops are sufficient, but there is insufficient connectivity to transit between adjacent cities. Finally, there was consensus that greater effort or more creative ideas to bring different parts of the community together through events or learning centers would be beneficial to senior residents at Kidd Manor.
80 NOTES
• There is not necessarily discrimination in housing, but there are not enough resources for people who need help finding housing or renting
• More walking trails are needed
• At Kidd Manor, the Housing Authority takes good care of maintaining the property, but there are a lot of run down properties across San Pablo, for example mold problems • Walking-distance proximity to the library from Kidd Manor is very convenient and most residents we spoke to seemed to take advantage of that community facility • The community needs more of all of the public facilities listed on the board- • There is a greater need for affordable childcare, one idea could be to merge community facilities eg. Use the senior center or Kidd Manor lobby as a childcare center, more focus on creative solutions and brining community groups together would be of value • Need more spaces for children like play structure and swings • Restoring sidewalks should be a priority
• Housing is expensive and a lot of people don’t have sufficient resources right now (in this economy), buying a home is difficult
• Many people can’t afford to live on their own
• Not as many homeless people in San Pablo, more in Richmond/Oakland • Drugs and illegal dumping in the area surrounding Kidd Manor is a problem • More police patrol may increase feelings of safety for residents, though it used to be worse • Compared to Piedmont, there are barely any markets that sell produce • Very limited farmer’s markets for working people, the times never work or aren’t in convenient proximity
• Coming from San Leandro, there were more options for healthy food • More recreation opportunities would be beneficial for younger people • More bike lines and lighting would improve feelings of safety • Very difficult to see doctors at Kaiser
• Don’t necessarily need more bus stops, but integrating transit between one city to the next should be a priority
• More community learning centers and spaces for people to convene would help improve feelings of community, reduce isolation
81 82

83 84
Appendix G
Additional Information in
Support of Housing Projections
City of San Pablo | Housing Element Update 2023-2031 Appendix G Revised Draft February 14, 2024
Ta bl e o f C o n t e n t s
Precedent Housing Projects in Contra Costa County ...................................................................................... G-1 Recent Development Trends ................................................................................................................................ G-20 San Pablo Housing Element
Precedents Housing Projects in Contra Costa County

APPENDIX
High Density Housing Projects in Contra Costa County
Summary Table
Name Location Zoning Status Density (du/ac)
Nevin Homes Residential Project Richmond High Density Residential & Commercial Built 169 Hana Gardens Senior Apartments El Cerrito Mixed-Use & Transit-Oriented Built 67.4 San Pablo Apartments El Cerrito Mixed-Use & Transit-Oriented Built 119 The Exchange Hercules Historic Town Center Built 78
The Grand Hercules Historic Town Center Built 77
Vista Woods Pinole High Density Residential & Commercial Under Construction 89 Playland II El Cerrito Midtown Transit Oriented Mixed-Use Under Construction 173 SAHA Development Pinole Commercial Mixed-Use Approved 54 Average Density 103.3
Richmond
Address:2100 & 2200 Nevin Ave.Prior Use:Vacant Office / Parking LotUnits Developed:289Very-low Income29Low-Income258Status:BuiltSite Area (Acres)1.71 acres (74,812 SF)Height of Buildings:67’ (6 stories)Zone:Multifamily High Density Residential (MFR-3); General Commercial (C-2)Project Density:169 du/ac Open Space: 39,340*On-site Parking: 194
Project Description: A 289-unit multifamily residential development consisting of two adjacent parcels. The project demolished the existing parking lot and vacant office building to construct the building that includes a mix of studios, one-, two-, three-, and four-bedrooms. The total residential area is 172,520 SF. Onsite Amenities: On-site management, community room with kitchen, fitness center, laundry, playground, BBQ/picnic area, controlled access and parking garage Site Location: beforeSite Location: after
* Includes private patio open space and common open space in interior courtyard

COMPLETE

Richmond (continued)
Building Rendering Outdoor Courtyard
Site Elevation

El Cerrito
Address:10860 San Pablo AvenuePrior Use:Industrial, Office and Mixed-UseUnits Developed (senior):62Status:BuiltSite Area (Acres)0.92 acre (40,075 SF)Height of Buildings:65’ (5 stories)Zone:Mixed Use Commercial / Transit-Oriented Mixed Use (TOM) Project Density:67.4 du/acOpen Space: 12,133 SF Parking: 35 Project Description: A high-quality affordable senior housing with 1,906 SF of social services and 1,156 SF of commercial uses on the ground floor. A beautiful Japanese Heritage Garden and public plaza are also included. Construction of the project began at the end of January, 2017 and completed in December of 2018. Onsite Amenities: Clinic, central open space, walkways, sitting areas, community gardens, and a picnic area Site Location Site Plan

COMPLETE

El Cerrito (continued)
Existing Building Existing Building Elevation
Accessibility for Residents Community Area

El Cerrito
Address:10963 San Pablo AvePrior Use:RetailUnits Developed:50Status:BuiltSite Area (Acres)0.42 acres (18,281 SF) Height of Buildings:55’ (5 stories)Zone:Transit-Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed Use (TOMIMU)Project Density:119 du/ac Open Space: 7,100 SFParking: 34 Project Description: A 5-story building with 3,000 SF of ground floor commercial use and 50 residential units on the upper four floors. The previous one-story commercial building was occupied by three businesses and was demolished prior to redevelopment. Onsite Amenities: Private roof decks, rooftop area, bicycle parking, outdoor balconies, courtyard space, fitness studio Site Location Site Plan

COMPLETE

El Cerrito (continued)
Rendering Completed Building
Roof Decks Façade Articulation

Hercules
Address:2525 Bayfront BlvdPrior Use:VacantUnits Developed:172Status:BuiltSite Area (Acres)2.2 acre (95,832 SF)Height of Buildings:64’-6” (5 stories) Zone:Historic Town CenterProject Density:78 du/ac Project Description: A first phase of The Hercules Bayfront Master Plan, The Exchange is a podium project that sits on 2.2 acres and rises four-stories. The project includes 172 market-rate residential units including lofts and townhomes as well as 13,767 SF of ground level retail. Onsite Amenities: Clubhouse, outdoor courtyard, BBQ station, rooftop decks, fitness center, package lockers, bike storage, dog spa Site Location Site Plan

COMPLETE
Parking: 288Covered Parking Spaces224Street64

Hercules (continued)
Exterior Building
Exterior Building
Rooftop Open Space and Courtyard
Hercules
Address:2200 John Muir ParkwayPrior Use:VacantUnits Developed:232Affordable15Status:BuiltSite Area (Acres)3.0 acre (130,680 SF)Height of Buildings:60’ (4 stories) Zone:Historic Town CenterProject Density:77 du/ac Project Description: A second phase of The Hercules Bayfront Master Plan, The Grand is also a podium project that sits on 3.0 acres and rises four-stories over a single level parking garage at grade level and one half-level parking situated above grade. There is no retail. Onsite Amenities: Sports bar lounge, courtyard lounge with fire pits, fitness center, dog spa, bike storage, storage units, EV chargers Site Location Site Plan

COMPLETE
Parking: 311Resident Spaces282Public Access Spaces29

Hercules (continued)
Exterior Building Bird’s-Eye View
Building in Context Open Space and Courtyard

Pinole
Address:600 Roble AvePrior Use:VacantUnits Developed:179Status:Under ConstructionSite Area (Acres)2.01 acre (87,555 SF)Height of Buildings:60’-7” (4 stories + parking) Zone:High Density Residential & Commercial Mixed Use (R4 & CMU)Project Density:89 du/ac Project Description: Construction of 179 unit affordable building complex for senior citizens on three parcels which total to 2.01 acres. The project site is combination of three parcels which were vacant with an abandoned commercial building. Onsite Amenities: Community gathering spaces, fitness room, laundry, offices for on-site management, outdoor recreation spaces, underground parking Site Location Site Plan
Open Space63,510 SFParking: 88

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Pinole (continued)
Project Rendering
Project Rendering
Project Rendering in Context
Project Rendering
El Cerrito
Address:10919 San Pablo AvePrior Use:Industrial, retail, commercial and residential Units Developed:90Status:Under ConstructionSite Area (Acres)0.52 acre (22,804 SF)Height of Buildings:58’-1” (5 stories) Zone:Midtown Transit-Oriented Mid-Intensity Mixed Use (TOMIMU)Project Density:173 du/ac Project Description: A 5-story, mixed-use building with 90 residential units and two ground floor commercial spaces of 2,998 SF. The project provides public open space in the form of two small public plazas in front of the building. Onsite Amenities: Rooftop, central firepit, play area, outdoor furniture, grilling area, Motorcycle parking, lobby, electrical room, bike storage Site Location Site Plan
Open Space8,785 SFParking: 68

UNDER CONSTRUCTION

El Cerrito (continued)
Project Rendering
Project Rendering
Project Rendering in Context
Project Rendering in Context
Pinole
Address:811 San Pablo AvePrior Use:Vacant LotAffordable Units:33Status:ApprovedSite Area (Acres)0.61 acre (26,690 SF)Height of Buildings:50’ (4 stories) Zone:Commercial Mixed-Use (CMU)Project Density:54 du/ac Site Location Site Plan
Open Space:5,700 SFParking: 16

APPROVED
Project Description: Construction of a 33-unit affordable housing complex on a 0.61 acresite. The project was approved July 7, 2021and will begin construction in 2023. Onsite Amenities: Mailboxes, community room with kitchen, computer station, management offices, resident services, bike storage and a courtyard with community garden and children’s playground

Pinole (continued)
Building Rendering: Bird’s-Eye View
Building Rendering
Building Rendering
Elevations
Table G-2 Representative High Density Projects in Contra Costa County Comparison of Land Use Characteristics
Name
Nevin Homes
Residential
Project
Hana Gardens
Senior
Apartments
Cerrito Vista /
San Pablo
Apartments
The Exchange The Grand Vista Woods Playland II SAHA
Development
Average
Value
Location Richmond El Cerrito El Cerrito Hercules Hercules Pinole El Cerrito Pinole Address 2100 & 2200
Nevin Ave
10860 San Pablo
Avenue
10963 San Pablo
Ave 2525 Bayfront Blvd 2200 John Muir
Parkway 600 Roble Ave 10919 San Pablo
Ave 811 San Pablo Ave
Parcel 514-090-018; 013 503-010-003; 014 509-110-017-1; 509-110-015-5 404-730-004 404-730-005 402-023-007; 003; 002 509-120-015 402-166-030
Status Built Built Built Built Built Under Construction Under Construction Approved Existing/Prior Use Vacant Office &
Parking Lot
Warehouse, office,
commercial-
residential mixed-
use (Vacant and
Government-
owned)
Retail & Parking Vacant Lot Vacant Lot
Vacant Lot with
abandoned storage
and garage
Industrial, retail,
commercial and
residential
Vacant Lot
Zoning
Multifamily High
Density Residential
(MFR-3); General
Commercial (C-2)
Mixed-Use
Commercial/Transit
-Oriented Mixed-
Use
Transit-Oritned
Mid-Intensity
Mixed Use
(TOMIMU)
Historic Town
Center
Historic Town
Center
High Density
Residential &
Commercial Mixed
Use
Midtown Transit-
Oritned Mid-
Intensity Mixed
Use (TOMIMU)
Commercial Mixed
Use (CMU)
Density (du/ac) 169 67.4 119 78 77 89 173 54 103.3
Prior Land value $ 534,128.00 $ 1,989,000.00 $ 342,309.00 $ 106,244.00 $ 465,999.00 $ 3,564,600.00 $ 1,910,173.00 $ 4,592,163.00 Prior
Improvement
Value
$ 274,872.00 $ 1,071,000.00 $ 497,161.00 $ - $ - $ 25,400.00 $ 84,896.00 $ - Prior AV Ratio 0.51 0.54 1.45 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.32 Site Area (SF) 74,812 40,075 18,281 95,832 130,680 87,555 22,804 26,690 62,091 Site Area
(acres) 1.72 0.92 0.42 2.20 3.00 2.01 0.52 0.61 1.43
Prior Building
Area (SF) 18,750 37,728 9,360 0 0 6,854 7,938 0 Redeveloped
Buliding Area (SF) 350,000 55,608 64,269 293,474 368,293 184,349 65,836 30,680 Prior FAR 0.25 0.94 0.51 - - 0.08 0.35 - 0.27 New FAR 4.68 1.39 3.52 3.06 2.82 2.11 2.89 1.15 Year Built 2021 2017 2019 2020 2019 N/A N/A N/A
Year Built Prior 1964 1959/1923 1902 N/A N/A 1984/1948 1930/1928 N/A *Note: land value and improvement value are extracted from 2014 and 2021 Contra Costa County Assessor Data Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
Giant Rd
Rd 20
Rumrill Blvd
Market AveBroadway Ave Rd 20
Brookside Dr
Church Ln
11th St
Stanton Ave
San Pablo Ave
Rumrill Blvd
Rumrill Blvd
Church Ln
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Ave
San Pablo Dam Rd
SanPabloDam
Rd
ElPortalDr
Rd 20
Sa
ElPortalDr
§¨¦
80 City of
Richmond
City of
Richmond
21st St
11th St
San Pablo Ave
17th St
Vale Rd
Dover Ave
20th St
Stanton Ave
Pine Ave
Miner Ave
19th St
16th St
15th St
Amador St
Rivers St
Sutter Ave
Em
eric Ave
12th St
14th St
Hillcrest Rd
Rollingwood Dr
13th St Sanford Ave
Lake St
Ridge Rd
California Ave
22nd St
18th St
Bush Ave
John Ave
Willow Rd
Alpine R
d
Brook W
ay
Palm
er Ave
Tyler St
Espanola Ct
Van Ness St
Powell St
Arundel W
ay
Arundell W
ay
10th St
Devon W
ay
Marin Ave
Mason St
W
ilcox Ave
Standard St
Post Ave
Chevy Wa
y
Alfreda Blvd
Stone St
Bayo Vista Ave
Kelley Ave
Fordham St
Greenwood Dr
Manor Dr
Yuba Ave
Manchester Ave
Pullman St
Folsom Ave
Mission Ave
Avon Ln
Villa Dr
Mission Bell Dr
Macarthur Ave
Morrow Dr
Beau Rivage
Bow
hill Ln
Douglas St
Miflin Ave
Trenton Blvd
Bonita Rd
Merritt Ave
Glenlock St
Del Camino Dr
Fillmore St
Pablo Vista Ave
Lovegrove Ave
Glenn Ave
Colin St
Acapulco Dr
Marelia Ct
Bancroft Ln
Montoya Ave
Abella Cir
Clare St
Joel Ct
Gerald Ave
Evens Ave
Manzanilla Dr
Carlfield St
Corte St
Ohare Ave
Contra Costa Ave
Casino Ave
Rumrill Rd
Crucero Ave
W
yman St
Riverside Ave
Regina Ave
Barranca St
Humboldt St
E Victoria Ct
Shasta Ave
Harborview Ave
Clem
ent Ave
Baywood Ln
Connecticut Ave
Chattleton Ln
University Ave
Barbara Ln
Kirk Ln
Jean Ct
Madrone W
ay
Westgate Cir
W Victoria Ct
Frieda Ct
Brookside Ave
Regello Ct
Monte Buena St
Dodson St
Judith Ct
W
anlass Ave
Drake Way
Larchmont Ln
18th St
19th St
20th St
19th St
Bush Ave
15th St
15th St
21st St
18th St
Shasta Ave
Glenn Ave
17th St Merritt Ave
Riverside Ave
14th St
18th St
Do
ver Av
e
19th St
22nd St
Mason St
15th St
16th St
17th St
17th St
Post Ave
Lake St
20th St
21st St
Rivers St
Lake St
Yuba Ave
19th St
22nd St
16th St
17th St
Glenn Ave
Miner A
ve
RoseArborAve
Bayview
A
ve
BolducCt
Capitol Hill
Ave
W
estview
Pl
NArlingtonBlvd
Hillcrest Rd
MiffinAve
Wa nla ss
Park
City
Hall
Contra Costa
College
John
Herbert
Davis Park
San Pablo
Lytton
Casino
St. Joseph
Cemetery &
Funeral Center
ek
SanPabloCre
ek
WildcatCreek
SanPabloCreek
W
ildcatCreek
Creek

BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE RR

UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD
¬«13¬«
12 ¬«
24 ¬«
31 ¬«
9 ¬«
7 ¬«
1 ¬«
6 ¬«
4 ¬«
22 ¬«
15 ¬«
29¬«
27 ¬«
25 ¬«
26 ¬«
17 ¬«
14 ¬«
10 ¬«
8 ¬«
19 ¬«
18 ¬«
16 ¬«
20 ¬«
30 ¬«
11 ¬«
3 ¬«
2 ¬«
28¬«
21 ¬«
5 ¬«
23 Priority Development Area (PDA)
City Limits
Sphere of Influence
Major Highway
Major Roads
Railroads
San Pablo Projects Inside/Outside
of PDAs

SAN PABLO HOUSING ELEMENT
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
Mobile Home
Commercial
Industrial
Public
Date: 12/5/2023
SOURCE: City of San Pablo, 2021; Contra Costa County GIS, 2021; Dyett & Bhatia, 2021
0 1,000 2,000500
FEET
List of Projects
1605 Pine Ave
2200 Pine Ave
2232 Wilcox Ave
2525 Market Ave
13831 San Pablo Ave
13751 San Pablo Ave
13717 San Pablo Ave
2812 Chattleton, Block E
13691 San Pablo Ave
1000 Gateway Ave
26 Gateway Ave
2885 Willow Rd
¬«17
¬«18
¬«19
¬«20
¬«21
¬«22
¬«23
¬«24
¬«25
¬«26
¬«27
¬«28
13352 San Pablo Ave¬«29
2652 Vale Rd¬«30
1354 Marin Ave¬«31
2846 12th St
2804 11th St
2679 Kelley Ave
2555 El Portal Dr
2432-2442 22nd (APN 412240057)
2432-2442 22nd (APN 412240058)
2364 Road 20
1999 18th St
2036 21st St
1923 16th St
1933 22nd St
1820 Rumrill Blvd
1331 Market Ave
1716 Post Ave
¬«1
¬«2
¬«3
¬«4
¬«5
¬«6
¬«7
¬«8
¬«9
¬«10
¬«11
¬«12
¬«13
¬«14
2314 Bush Ave¬«16
1621 Rumrill Blvd¬«15
ID Address APN PROJECT TYPE Site Size GPLU ZONE SQFT UNITS STATUS 1 2846 12Th St 412120024 Multifamily Residential 0.12 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Approved 2 2804 11Th St 412090002 Single Family Residential 0.06 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 2.00 Constructed 3 2679 Kelley Ave 412344013 Single Family Residential 0.12 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 4 2555 El Portal Dr 416140047 Multifamily Residential 1.86 Neighborhood Commercial NC - Neighborhood Commercial District - 54.00 Approved, Under Construction 5 2432-2442 22nd 412240057 Multifamily Residential 0.10 Residential Mixed Use SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan - 4.00 PC Approved 6 2432-2442 22nd 412240058 Multifamily Residential 0.11 Residential Mixed Use SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan - 4.00 PC Approved 7 2364 Road 20 416120029 Multifamily Residential 1.03 High Density Residential SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan - 64.00 Approved 8 1999 18Th St 411221001 Single Family Residential 0.10 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 9 2036 21St St 411202040 Single Family Residential 0.11 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Approved 10 1923 16Th St 411242007 Single Family Residential 0.10 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 11 1933 22Nd St 411202020 Single Family Residential 0.07 Medium Density Residential R-3 Multifamily Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 12 1820 Rumrill Blvd 411041009 Multifamily Residential 0.50 Commercial Mixed Use CMU - Commercial Mixed-Use District - 40.00 Approved 13 1331 Market Ave 411041004 Single Family Residential 0.09 Commercial Mixed Use CMU - Commercial Mixed-Use District - 1.00 Approved 14 1716 Post Ave 410272017 Single Family Residential 0.11 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 15 1621 Rumrill Blvd 410012012 Industrial 1.16 Industrial Mixed Use IMU - Industrial Mixed-Use District 14,736.00 - Constructed 16 2314 Bush Ave 527031008 Single Family Residential 0.08 Commercial Mixed Use SP1 - 23rd Street Specific Plan - 1.00 Constructed 17 1605 Pine Ave 410240005 Single Family Residential 0.08 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 2.00 Constructed 18 2200 Pine Ave 410180017 Single Family Residential 0.07 Medium Density Residential R-3 Multifamily Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 19 2232 Wilcox Ave 410080011 Single Family Residential 0.13 Medium Density Residential R-3 Multifamily Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 20 2525 Market Ave 411130032 Single Family Residential 0.08 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 21 13831 San Pablo Ave 411330039 Multifamily Residential 3.29 Mixed Use Center SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan - 100.00 Approved, Under Construction 22 13751 San Pablo Ave 417130035 Public 0.93 Mixed Use Center SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan 22,000.00 - Constructed 23 13717 San Pablo Ave 417310003 Multifamily Residential 0.78 Mixed Use Center SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan - 91.00 CC Approved 24 2812 Chattleton, Block E 417310004 Public 0.96 Mixed Use Center SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan - 20.00 Approved, Under Construction 25 13691 San Pablo Ave 417310002 Commercial 1.37 Mixed Use Center SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan 15,004.00 - Constructed 26 1000 Gateway Ave 417310013 Public 2.67 Mixed Use Center SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan 42,000.00 - Constructed 27 26 Gateway Ave 417310008 Public 3.78 Mixed Use Center SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan 7,500.00 - Constructed 28 2885 Willow Rd 417090019 Mobile Home 2.13 Medium Density Residential R-3 Multifamily Residential District - 6.00 Constructed 29 13352 San Pablo Ave 417280016 Commercial 0.65 Regional Commercial SP2 - San Pablo Ave Specific Plan 13,591.00 - Constructed 30 2652 Vale Rd 417080007 Single Family Residential 0.58 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Constructed 31 1354 Marin Ave 418022007 Single Family Residential 0.43 Low Density Residential R-1 Single-Family Residential District - 1.00 Approved 401.00
Inside PDAs 114,831.00 341.00
Outside - 22.00
San Pablo Projects Inside/Outside PDAs

San Pablo City CouncilMarch 18, 2024

San Pablo City Council
March 18, 2024