Southern
San
Ramon
9260
Alcosta Dr
210260
058 0.9
Parking Lot MU MU-SH MU
Mixed
Use/
Senior
Housing
20 30 40 0 21 15 2 4 Private
Yes, 4th
and 5th
Yes 0.04
Limited
to senior
housing
Yes 100%
South San Ramon Offices: Capacity
estimate based on redeveloping entire
site 40/60 commercial/residential at
max residential density.
Developer and previous property owner
interest. The Housing Opportunity Site
is comprised of three parcels (out of
five existing parcels with four office
buildings and parking lot areas). The
existing buildings/parking was
constructed in the 1960s/1970s and
currently include a mix of professional
offices and learning studios.
Redevelopment anticipated due to the
old age of the development and the low
Improvement to Land Ratio. The site is
located along a major arterial roadway
(Alcosta Boulevard) and is adjacent to
the Sunny Glen Senior Community
area. Redevelopment in near term due
to the age of the development and the
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 235 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.D-37 2023-2031 Housing Element
Planning
Subarea
Site Address APN
Gross
Acres
Current Use GP Zoning
Proposed
GP
Proposed
Zoning
Min
Density
(du/ac)
Max
Density
(du/ac)
Realistic
Density
(du/ac)
Existing
Units
Realistic
Zoned
Capacity
Income Distribution
Ownership
Included
in
Previous
Cycle HE
Infrastructure
Improvement to
Land
Ratio
Constraints
Property
Owner
Interest
Percent
of
Property
Notes
Lower Moderate
AboveModerate
low Improvement to Land Ratio. The
site is located along a major arterial
roadway (Alcosta Boulevard) and is
adjacent to the Sunny Glen Senior
Community area. The site is within
walking distance to neighborhoodserving businesses, bus transit, and the senior center. HE Update will facilitate
redevelopment with an increased
density range between 20 to 40 du/ac
and anticipates a mixed use
development pattern that would allow
existing uses to remain if desired,
incorporating shared parking with the
adjacent existing uses. Opportunity to
combine with adjacent parcels for
redevelopment.
Dougherty
Valley
Bollinger
Canyon Rd.
222270
059 6.6
Vacant MU
MU/
DVSP -
MU
MU DVSP 20 40 40 0 120 18 42 60 Private
Yes, 4th
and 5th
Yes -
Current
0.00 Yes 100%
Requires DV SP plan amendment to
add more units after Deer creek south
is completed.
Property owner has expressed interest
and requested to be a HOS in 6th
cycle. Owner is currently exploring site
design to incorporate a mix of
residential and commercial uses.
Vacant parcel.
Dougherty
Valley
Bollinger
Canyon Rd.
222270
060 6.8
Vacant MU
MU
DVSP -
MU
MU DVSP 20 40 40 0 120 18 42 60 Private
Yes, 4th
and 5th
Yes -
Current
0.00 Yes 100%
Requires DV SP plan amendment to
add more units after Deer creek south
is completed.
Property owner has expressed interest
and requested to be a HOS in 6th
cycle. Owner is currently exploring site
design to incorporate a mix of
residential and commercial uses.
Vacant parcel.
BMU = Business Mixed Use
CC = Community Commercial
CMU – Commercial Mixed Use
CR = Commercial Recreation
C/SC = Commercial/Service Commercial
DRMU = Destination Retail Mixed Use
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 236 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.D
-38 2023-2031 Housing Element
DVSP = Dougherty Valley Specific Plan
MU = Mixed Use
MU-C = Mixed Use– Commercial
MU-SH = Mixed Use – Senior Housing Overlay
NCRSP = North Camino Ramon Specific Plan
OA = Administrative Office
OA-H = Administrative Office - Height Limit Overlay
PD = Planned Development
PS = Public and Semipublic
SRVSP = San Ramon Village Specific Plan
TCMU = The Commons Mixed Use
WSP = Westside Specific Plan
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 237 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-1 2023-2031 Housing Element
Appendix 11-E
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
(AFFH)
11-E.1 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF AB 686
Assembly Bill 686 passed in 2017 requires the inclusion in the Housing Element an analysis of barriers that restrict access to opportunity1and a commitment to specific meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing.2 AB 686 mandates that local governments identify meaningful goals to address the impacts of systemic issues such as residential segregation, housing cost burden, and unequal educational or employment opportunities to the extent these issues create and/or perpetuate discrimination against protected classes.3In addition, AB 686:
Requires the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities to administer their programs and activities related to housing and community development in a way that affirmatively furthers fair housing;
• Prohibits the state, cities, counties, and public housing authorities from taking actions materially inconsistent with their AFFH obligation;
• Requires that the AFFH obligation be interpreted consistent with HUD’s 2015 regulation, regardless of federal action regarding the regulation;
• Adds an AFFH analysis to the Housing Element (an existing planning process that California cities and counties must complete) for plans that are due beginning in 2021; and • Includes in the Housing Element’s AFFH analysis a required examination of issues such as segregation and resident displacement, as well as the required identification of fair housing goals.
The Bill added an assessment of fair housing to 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 1 While Californian’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) do not provide a definition of opportunity, opportunity usually related to the access to resources and improve quality of life. HCD and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) have created Opportunity Maps to visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. 2 “Affirmatively furthering fair housing” is defined to mean taking meaningful actions that “overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for communities of color, persons with disabilities, and others protected by California law.
3 A protected class is a group of people sharing a common trait who are legally protected from being discriminated against on the basis of that trait.
.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 238 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-2 2023-2031 Housing Element
to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions.
1.1 ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
An assessment of fair housing must consider the elements and factors that cause, increase, contribute to, maintain, or perpetuate segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, significant disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs.4 The analysis must address patterns at a regional and local level and trends in patterns over time. This analysis should compare the locality at a county level or even broader regional level such as a Council of Government, where appropriate, for the purposes of promoting more inclusive communities.
For the purposes of this AFFH, “Regional Trends” describe trends the Bay Area (the members of ABAG) and Contra Costa County. “Local Trends” describe trends specific to the City of San Ramon.
1.2 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
The City uses a variety of data sources for the assessment of fair housing at the regional and local level. Sources include:
• California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer. • Housing Needs Data Packets prepared by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), which relies on 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) data by the U.S.
Census Bureau for most characteristics.
• Note: The ABAG Data Packets also referenced the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) reports (based on the 2013-2017 ACS).
• AFFH Data Report prepared by ABAG, which relies on the 2000, 2010, and 2020 Decennial Census and 2011-2015 ACS.
• U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census (referred to as “Census”) and American Community Survey (ACS).
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordable Strategy (CHAS) reports (based on the 2014-2018 ACS). • Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG. • Contra Costa County 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 County AI).
• City of San Ramon General Plan Update Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook, March 2022.
Some of these sources provide data on the same topic, but because of different methodologies, the resulting data differ. For example, the decennial census and ACS report slightly different estimates for the total population, number of households, number of housing units, and household size. This is in part because ACS provides estimates based on a small survey of the population 4 Gov. Code, §§ 65583, subds. (c)(10)(A), (c)(10)(B), 8899.50, subds. (a), (b), (c); see also AFFH Final Rule and Commentary (AFFH Rule), 80 Fed. Reg. 42271, 42274, 42282-42283, 42322, 42323, 42336, 42339, 42353-42360, esp. 42355-42356 (July 16, 2015). See also 24 C.F.R. §§ 5.150, 5.154(b)(2) (2016).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 239 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-3 2023-2031 Housing Element
taken over the course of the whole year.5 Because of the survey size and seasonal population shifts, some information provided by the ACS is less reliable. For this reason, the readers should keep in mind the potential for data errors when drawing conclusions based on the ACS data used in this chapter. The information is included as it provides an indication of possible trends.
The City also used findings and data from the 2020 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 County AI) for some of its local knowledge as it includes a variety of locally gathered and available information, such as a surveys, local history and events that have affected or are affecting fair housing choice. The City also used the County AI for its regional findings and data.
In addition. HCD has developed a statewide AFFH Data Viewer. The AFFH Data Viewer consists of map data layers from various data sources and provides options for addressing each of the components within the full scope of the assessment of fair housing. The data source and time frame used in the AFFH mapping tools may differ from the ACS data in the ABAG package. The City attempted, to the best of their ability, to ensure comparisons between the same time frames.
However, in some instances, various time frames are compared (often differing by one year). As explained earlier, the assessment is most useful in providing an indication of possible trends. 11-E.2 ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ISSUES
2.1 FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity refers to the ability of a locality and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing laws and rights, and provide outreach and education to community members. Enforcement and outreach capacity also includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing. The Fair Employment and Housing Act and the Unruh Civil Rights Act are the primary California fair housing laws. California state law extends antidiscrimination protections in housing to several classes that are not covered by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA) of 1968, including prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
In Contra Costa County, local housing, social services, and legal service organizations include the Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC), Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing, Bay Area Legal Aid, and Pacific Community Services.
The City of San Ramon is committed to complying with State and federal laws and regulations related to fair housing, including but not limited to, the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA), California Fair Employment and Housing Act, and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. Specifically, the City participates in the Urban County program to provide fair housing outreach and enforcement services to its residents and housing professionals, and refers fair housing inquiries to the various agencies for assistance. The City also routinely reviews and revises its land use policies and zoning provisions to ensure they comply with fair housing and Housing Element laws to facilitate the development of a diverse housing stock to meet the varied needs of its residents. As part of this 5 The American Community Survey is sent to approximately 250,000 addresses in the United States monthly (or 3 million per year).
It regularly gathers information previously contained only in the long form of the decennial census. This information is then averaged to create an estimate reflecting a 1- or 5-year reporting period (referred to as a “5-year estimate”). 5-year estimates have a smaller margin of error due to the longer reporting period and are used throughout this AFFH analysis.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 240 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-4 2023-2031 Housing Element
6 th cycle Housing Element update, the City has identified additional revisions to the land use plans and zoning code necessary to further fair housing.
Table E-1: Fair Housing Organizations Serving San Ramon Organization Focus Areas
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern
California (FHANC)
Non-profit agency that provides fair housing information and literature in a number of different languages, primarily serves Marin, Sonoma, and Solano County but also has resources to residents outside of the above geographic areas.
Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing
Housing counseling agency that provides education and charitable assistance to the general public in matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing.
Bay Area Legal Aid Largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties. Has a focus area in housing preservation and homelessness task force to provide legal services and advocacy for those in need.
Pacific Community Services Private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra Costa County (Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling as well as education and outreach
Source: Assessment of Fair Housing: Contra Costa County Regional Analysis. Prepared by MIG, March 2022 As part of the Contra Costa Urban County, San Ramon participated in the 2020-2025 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (2020 AI). As outlined in the 2020 AI, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has described the responsibility to affirmatively further fair housing as:
“Taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.” (2015 AFFH Regulation Preamble.)
As discussed in the 2020 AI, the County, including all jurisdictions within Contra Costa County, complies with the State and local fair housing laws. California Law: Government Code Section 12955 et seq – Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA): Prohibits housing discrimination or harassment in housing practices, including advertising, the application and selection process, unlawful evictions, terms and conditions of tenancy, privileges of occupancy, and mortgage loans and insurance. Government Code Section 12955(l) prohibits discrimination through public or private land use practices, decisions, and authorizations.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 241 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-5 2023-2031 Housing Element
The following categories are protected by FEHA: race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status (households with children under 18 years of age), source of income, disability, or genetic information.
In addition, FEHA contains similar reasonable accommodations, reasonable modifications, and accessibility provisions to the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act. FEHA explicitly provides that violations can be proven through evidence of the unjustified disparate impact of challenged actions and inactions and establishes the burden shifting framework that courts and the Department of Fair Employment and Housing must use in evaluating disparate impact claims.
The FEHA also incorporates the Unruh Act (Civil Code section 51), the Ralph Act (Civil Code section 51.7) and the Bane Act (Civil Code section 52.1). The Unruh Civil Rights Act provides protection from discrimination by all business establishments in California (including housing and accommodations) because of age, ancestry, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. While the Unruh Civil Rights Act specifically lists “sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, and medical condition” as protected classes, the California Supreme Court has held that protections under the Unruh Act are not necessarily restricted to these characteristics. In practice, this has meant that the law protects against arbitrary discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of personal appearance.
Furthermore, the Ralph Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 51.7) forbids acts of violence or threats of violence because of a person’s race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, political affiliation, or position in a labor dispute. Hate violence can include: verbal or written threats; physical assault or attempted assault; and graffiti, vandalism, or property damage. Ralph Act provides that all persons have the right to be free from violence committed against themselves or their property because of their race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, political affiliation, sex, sexual orientation, age, disability, position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Bane Civil Rights Act (California Civil Code Section 52.1) provides another layer of protection for fair housing choice by protecting all people in California from interference by force or threat of force with an individual’s constitutional or statutory rights, including a right to equal access to housing. The Bane Act also includes criminal penalties for hate crimes; however, convictions under the Act may not be imposed for speech alone unless that speech itself threatened violence.
California Civil Code Section 1940.3 prohibits landlords from questioning potential residents about their immigration or citizenship status. In addition, this law forbids local jurisdictions from passing laws that direct landlords to make inquiries about a person’s citizenship or immigration status.
In addition to these acts, Government Code Sections 11135, 65008, and 65580-65589.8 prohibit discrimination in programs funded by the State and in any land use decisions. Specifically, recent changes to Sections 65580-65589.8 require local jurisdictions to address the provision of housing options for special needs groups, including: Housing for persons with disabilities (SB 520), Housing for homeless persons, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing (SB 2), Housing for extremely low income households, including single-room occupancy units (AB 2634), and Housing for persons with developmental disabilities (SB 812).
The 2020 AI also includes the following unresolved complaints, findings, etc. filed in Contra Costa County:
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 242 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-6 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) Conciliation/ Voluntary Compliance Agreement: On November 7, 2017, a disabled woman filed a complaint with HUD against HACCC and the Vallejo Housing Authority (VHA). The complaint alleged that both housing authorities violated the Fair Housing Act, as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act, by denying her reasonable accommodation request for a time extension to search for suitable housing to accept her Housing Choice Voucher. The woman lost her voucher because of her request’s denial.
On February 13, 2018, HUD announced that it reached a Conciliation/ Voluntary Compliance Agreement with HACCC and VHA. As part of the agreement, HACCC and VHA will pay the woman a total of $10,000 ($9,000 from HACCC and $1,000 from VHA) and reinstate her Housing Choice Voucher. The authorities will also give the woman more time to find housing.
Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Conciliation Agreement: On March 28, 2017, a disabled resident filed a complaint with HUD against RHA for refusing to grant his reasonable accommodations request and terminating his Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. As a result, the resident had to place his belongings in storage and reside in homeless shelters and with relatives.
On December 14, 2017, HUD reached a Conciliation Agreement with the resident and RHA. As part of the agreement, RHA must pay the resident $5,833.00 to reimburse him for the storage costs. RHA must also reinstate the resident’s Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher. Additionally, RHA employees responsible for making decisions regarding the Housing Choice Voucher Program must attend HUD fair housing training.
2.1.1 Fair Housing Enforcement
A. Regional Trends
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has statutory mandates to protect the people of California from discrimination pursuant to the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), Ralph Civil Rights Act, and Unruh Civil Rights Act (with regards to housing).
The FEHA prohibits discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions), gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, military or veteran status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, and genetic information, or because another person perceives the tenant or applicant to have one or more of these characteristics.
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51) prohibits business establishments in California from discriminating in the provision of services, accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges to clients, patrons and customers because of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, or immigration status.
The Ralph Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51.7) guarantees the right of all persons within California to be free from any violence, or intimidation by threat of violence, committed against their persons or property because of political affiliation, or on account of sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sexual orientation, citizenship, primary language, immigration status, or position in a labor dispute, or because another person perceives them to have one or more of these characteristics.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 243 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-7 2023-2031 Housing Element
Based on DFEH Annual Reports, Table E-2 shows the number of housing complaints filed by Contra Costa County to DFEH between 2015–2020. A slight increase in the number of complaints precedes the downward trend from 2016–2020. Note that fair housing cases alleging a violation of FEHA can also involve an alleged Unruh violation as the same unlawful activity can violate both laws. DFEH creates companion cases that are investigated separately from the housing investigation.
Table E-2: Number of DFEH Housing Complaints in Contra Costa County (2020) Year Housing Unruh Civil Rights Act
2015 30 5
2016 32 2
2017 26 26
2018 22 2
2019 22 2
2020 20 1
Source: Assessment of Fair Housing: Contra Costa County Regional Analysis. Prepared by MIG, March 2022; https://www.dfeh.ca.gov/LegalRecords/?content=reports#reportsBody The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (HUD FHEO) enforces fair housing by investigating complaints of housing discrimination. Table E3 shows the number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County between 2015 and 2020. A total of 148 cases were filed within this time period, with disability being the top allegation of basis of discrimination followed by familial status, race, national origin, and sex. These findings are consistent with national trends stated in FHEO’s FY 2020 State of Fair Housing Annual Report to Congress where disability was also the top allegation of basis of discrimination. Table E3 indicates that the highest number of fair housing complaints are due to discrimination against those with disabilities, followed by income source, race, and national origin.
Table E-3: Number of FHEO Filed Cases by Protected Class in Contra Costa County (2015-2020) Year Number of Filed Cases Disability Race
National
Origin
Sex Familial Status
2015 28 17 4 2 2 4
2016 30 14 8 7 5 6
2017 20 12 3 5 1 5
2018 31 20 6 3 4 9
2019 32 27 4 4 4 1
2020 7 4 1 0 2 1
Total 148 94 26 21 18 26
Percentage of Total Filed Cases
*Note that cases may be filed on more
than one basis.
63.5% 17.5% 14.2% 12.2% 17.6%
Source: Assessment of Fair Housing: Contra Costa County Regional Analysis. Prepared by MIG, March 2022; Gov - Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) Filed Cases, https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/fheo-filed-cases
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 244 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-8 2023-2031 Housing Element
A summary of ECHO’s Fair Housing Complaint Log on fair housing issues, actions taken, services provided, and outcomes can be found in Table E-4 and Table E-5 below. A total of 143 actions were provided. Counseling to clients was the most common service (41 percent), followed by testers sent for investigation (39 percent). In regards to outcomes, insufficient evidence was the largest result (45 percent), followed by counseling provided to the tenant (27 percent). Only about 12 percent of all cases resulted in successful mediation.
Table E-4: Action(s) Taken/Services Provided by ECHO Fair Housing (2020-2021) – Contra Costa County Protected Class 1 3 5 6 7 Grand Total
Race 21 0 0 2 0 23
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 0 0 3 0 3
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Harassment 0 0 0 1 0 1
Income Source 15 0 1 7 1 24
Disability 7 1 14 33 5 60
National Origin 13 0 0 1 0 14
Other 0 0 1 11 5 17
Total 56 1 16 59 11 143
Source: Assessment of Fair Housing: Contra Costa County Regional Analysis. Prepared by MIG, March 2022 Note: 1. Testers sent for investigation; 3. Referred to attorney; 5. Conciliation with landlord; 6. Client provided with counseling;
7. Client provided with brief service; Source: ECHO Fair Housing (2020 – 2021)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 245 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-9 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-5: Outcomes of Services Provided by ECHO Fair Housing (2020-2021) – Contra Costa County Protected Class
Counseling
provided to
landlord
Counseling
provided to
tenant
Education to
Landlord
Insufficient
evidence
Preparing
Site Visit
Referred to
DFEH/HUD
Successful
mediation
Grand Total
Race 0 0 2 20 0 1 0 23
National Origin 0 0 1 13 0 0 0 14
Marital Status 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1
Sex 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Disability 2 25 2 12 0 4 15 60
Religion 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Sexual Orientation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Familial Status 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 3
Income Source 3 3 0 16 1 0 1 24
Sexual
Harassment 0 8 2 2 1 4 0 17
Other 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 5 39 7 64 2 10 16 143
Source: Assessment of Fair Housing: Contra Costa County Regional Analysis. Prepared by MIG, March 2022
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 246 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan City of San Ramon H.E-10 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Local Trends
The City of San Ramon participates in the Contra Costa Urban County program for fair housing services. However, fair housing records are maintained for the entire Urban County. Data for individual participating jurisdictions is not available. The HCD AFFH Data Viewer tool show the FHEO requests by city between the years of 2013 and 2021 (refer to Figure E-1). San Ramon had fewer than 0.25 inquiries per one thousand people, which is similar to the cities of Danville, Moraga, Lafayette and Orinda. The cities of Dublin and Walnut Creek had a slightly higher number at 0.5 inquires per one thousand people.
Figure E-1: FHEO Inquiries By City (2013-2021) – San Ramon
2.1.2 Fair Housing Testing
A. Regional Trends
Fair housing testing is a randomized audit of property owners’ compliance with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws.
ECHO conducts fair housing investigations in Contra Costa County (except Pittsburg) and unincorporated Contra Costa County. The 2020 Contra Costa County AI, however, did not report any findings on fair housing testing on the county level, however, it does bring to attention that
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 247 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-11 2023-2031 Housing Element
private discrimination is a problem in Contra Costa County that continues to perpetuate segregation.
Based on fair housing testing conducted in the City of Richmond, it was found that there was significant differential treatment in favor of White testers over Black testers in 55% of phone calls towards 20 housing providers with advertisements on Craigslist. Because Whites receive better services, they tend to live in neighborhoods apart from minority groups.
B. Local Trends
As described above, ECHO conducts fair housing investigations in Contra Costa County. However, the County AI did not include any findings on fair housing testing in the City of San Ramon.
However, the County AI did state that private discrimination is a problem in the County. It can be assumed that private discrimination is likely present in San Ramon. However, this lack of data at the local level is an issue for individual communities in assessing the nature and extent of fair housing concerns.
2.1.3 Fair Housing Education and Outreach
A. Regional Trends
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. Find below a more detailed description of fair housing services provided by local housing, social services, and legal service organizations.
Fair Housing Advocates of Northern California (FHANC)
FHANC is a non-profit agency with a mission to actively support and promote fair housing through education and advocacy. Fair housing services provided to residents outside of Marin, Sonoma, or Solano County include foreclosure prevention services & information, information on fair housing law for the housing industry, and other fair housing literature. Majority of the fair housing literature is provided in Spanish and English, with some provided in Vietnamese and Tagalog.
Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) Fair Housing ECHO Fair Housing is a HUD-approved housing counseling agency that aims to promote equal access in housing, provide support services to aid in the prevention of homelessness, and promote permanent housing conditions. The organization provides education and charitable assistance to the general public in matters related to obtaining and maintaining housing in addition to rental assistance, housing assistance, tenant/landlord counseling, homeseeking, homesharing, and mortgage and home purchase counseling. In Contra Costa County, ECHO Fair Housing provides fair housing services, first-time home buyer counseling and education, and tenant/landlord services (rent review and eviction harassment programs are available only in Concord). • Fair housing services encompasses counseling, investigation, mediation, enforcement, and education.
• First-time home buyer counseling provides one-on-one counseling with a Housing Counselor on the homebuying process. The Housing Counselor will review all documentation, examine and identify barriers to homeownership, create an action plan, and prepare potential homebuyers for the responsibility of being homeowners. The Housing Counselor will also review the credit reports, determine what steps need to be taken to
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 248 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-12 2023-2031 Housing Element
clean up adverse credit, provide counseling on money-saving methods, and assist in developing a budget.
• First-time home buyer education provides classroom training regarding credit information, home ownership incentives, home buying opportunities, predatory lending, home ownership responsibilities, government-assisted programs, as well as conventional financing. The class also provides education on how to apply for HUD-insured mortgages; purchase procedures, and alternatives for financing the purchase. Education also includes information on fair housing and fair lending and how to recognize discrimination and predatory lending procedures, and locating accessible housing if needed.
• ECHO’s Tenant/Landlord Services provides information to tenants and landlords on rental housing issues such as evictions, rent increases, repairs and habitability, harassment, illegal entry, and other rights and responsibilities regarding the tenant/landlord relationship.
Trained mediators assist in resolving housing disputes through conciliation and mediation • In cities that adopt ordinances to allow Rent Reviews (City of Concord only in Contra Costa County), tenants can request a rent review from ECHO Housing by phone or email. This allows tenants who experience rent increases exceeding 10 percent in a 12-month period to seek non-binding conciliation and mediation services.
Though the Contra Costa County Consortium Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing states that the organization provides information in Spanish, the ECHO website is predominantly in English with options to translate the homepage into various languages. Navigating the entire site may be difficult for the limited-English proficient (LEP) population.
Bay Area Legal Aid (BayLegal)
BayLegal is the largest civil legal aid provider serving seven Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Santa Clara). With respect to affordable housing, BayLegal has a focus area in housing preservation (landlord-tenant matters, subsidized and public housing issues, unlawful evictions, foreclosures, habitability, and enforcement of fair housing laws) as well as a homelessness task force that provides legal services and advocacy for systems change to maintain housing, help people exit homelessness, and protect unhoused persons’ civil rights. The organization provides translations for their online resources to over 50 languages and uses volunteer interpreters/translators to help provide language access. Its legal advice line provides counsel and advice in different languages. Specific to Contra Costa County, tenant housing resources are provided in English and Spanish.
The Housing Preservation practice is designed to protect families from illegal evictions, substandard housing conditions, and wrongful denials and terminations of housing subsidies. The practice also works to preserve and expand affordable housing and protect families from foreclosure rescue scams. BayLegal helps low-income tenants obtain or remain in safe affordable housing by providing legal assistance in housing-law related areas such as public, subsidized (including Section 8 and other HUD subsidized projects) and private housing, fair housing and housing discrimination, housing conditions, rent control, eviction defense, lock-outs and utility shut-offs, residential hotels, and training advocates and community organizations.
BayLegal also provides free civil legal services to low-income individuals and families to prevent homelessness and increase housing stability as well as assist unhoused youth/adults address
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 249 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-13 2023-2031 Housing Element
legal barriers that prevent them from exiting homelessness. This is done through a mix of direct legal services, coalition building and partnerships, policy advocacy, and litigation to advocate for systems change that will help people maintain housing, exit homelessness, and protect unhoused persons’ civil rights. The Homelessness Task Force (HTF) was developed in response to complex barriers and inequities contributing to homelessness, and strives to build capacity and develop best practices across the seven aforementioned counties to enhance BayLegal’s coordinated, multisystems response to homelessness.
Pacific Community Services, Inc. (PCSI)
• PCSI is a private non-profit housing agency that serves East Contra Costa County (Bay Point, Antioch, and Pittsburg) and provides fair housing counseling in English and Spanish.
Housing Counseling Services provided include:
• Foreclosure Prevention: Consists of a personal interview and the development of a case management plan for families to keep their homes and protect any equity that may have built up. Relief measures sought include: loan modification or reduced payments, reinstatement and assistance under ‘Keep Your Home’ program, forbearance agreements, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, refinancing or recasting the mortgage, or sale of the property • Homeownership Counseling: Prepares first-time buyers for a successful home purchase by helping them in budgeting, understanding the home purchase process, and understanding the fees that lenders may charge to better prepare new buyers when acquiring their first home.
• Rental Counseling; Tenant and Landlord Rights: PCSI provides information and assistance in dealing with eviction and unlawful detainer actions, deposit returns, habitability issues. getting repairs done, mediation of tenant/landlord disputes, assisting tenant organizations, legal referrals to Bay Area Legal Aid & Bar Association resources, pre-rental counseling and budgeting
● Fair Housing Services: Include counseling regarding fair housing rights, referral services and education and outreach. PCSI offers training for landlords and owners involving issues of compliance with federal and state fair housing regulations. ● Fair Housing Education and Outreach: Offers informative workshops for social service organizations and persons of protected categories. These workshops are designed to inform individuals how to recognize and report housing discrimination.
Overall, in terms of capacity, the capacity and funding of the above organizations is generally insufficient. Greater resources would enable stronger outreach efforts, including populations that may be less aware of their fair housing rights, such as limited-English proficiency and LGBTQ residents. Although ECHO serves most of Contra Costa County, it suffers from a severe lack of resources and capacity, with only one fair housing counselor serving the County. A lack of funding also constrains BayLegal’s ability to provide fair housing services for people facing discrimination, which further burdens groups like ECHO that provide such services.
B. Local Trends
The City’s website has a list of contacts for fair housing and legal services. These include”
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 250 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-14 2023-2031 Housing Element
• ECHO for Contra Costa County (described in the Regional section above); • Center of Human Development for Contra Costa County
• Project Sentinel – Tenant/Landlord Services
• Bay Area Legal Aid (described in the Regional section above) As described in the Regional section above, while there are resources in Contra Costa County for fair housing services, the capacity and funding of these groups is generally insufficient. Additionally, if the translation of outreach and education services is not available, it may be difficult for the limited-English proficient (LEP) population. The County AI found that San Ramon residents with limited proficiency in speaking English include Chinese and Korean speakers. The eastern side of San Ramon has both sizable and predominant Asian populations.
2.2 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
2.2.1 Race/Ethnicity
Ethnic and racial composition of a region is useful in analyzing housing demand and any related fair housing concerns, as it tends to demonstrate a relationship with other characteristics such as household size, locational preferences, and mobility. For example, prior studies have identified socioeconomic status, generational care needs, and cultural preferences as factors associated with “doubling up”- households with extended family members and non-kin.6 These factors have also been associated with ethnicity and race. Other studies have also found minorities tend to congregate in metropolitan areas though their mobility trend predictions are complicated by economic status (minorities moving to the suburbs when they achieve middle class) or immigration status (recent immigrants tends to stay in metro areas/ports of entry).7 To measure segregation in a given jurisdiction, ABAG provided AFFH Segregation Reports that include isolation indices, dissimilarity indices, and Thiel’s H indices for ABAG jurisdictions such as City of San Ramon.
Isolation Index. Isolation indices compare a neighborhood’s composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole. The index returns values of 0 to 1, where higher values indicate a particular racial or ethnic group is more isolated from other groups. An isolation index of 0.65 for Latinx residents, for example, indicates the average Latinx resident in the City lives in a neighborhood that is 65 percent Latinx.
Dissimilarity Index. Dissimilarity indices are used to measure the evenness with which two groups (frequently defined on racial or ethnic characteristics) are distributed across the geographic units, such as tracts within a community. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 denoting no segregation and 1 indicating complete segregation between the two groups. The index score can be understood as the percentage of one of the two groups that would need to move to produce an even distribution of racial/ethnic groups within the specified area. For example, an index score above 0.60 indicates 6 Harvey, H., Duniforn, R., & Pilkauskas, N. (2021). Under Whose Roof? Understanding the living arrangements of children in doubled-up households. Duke University Press, 58 (3): 821–846. https://doi.org/10.1215/00703370-9101102. 7 Sandefur, G.D., Martin, M., Eggerling-Boeck, J., Mannon, S.E., & Meier, A.M. (2001). An overview of racial and ethnic demographic trends. In N. J. Smelser, W.J. Wilson, & F. Mitchell (Eds.) America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences. (Vol I, pp. 40-102). National Academy Press Washington, D.C.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 251 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-15 2023-2031 Housing Element
60 percent of people in the specified area would need to move to eliminate segregation. The following shows how HUD views various levels of the index:
• <0.40: Low Segregation
• 0.40-0.54: Moderate Segregation
• >0.55: High Segregation
Thiel’s H Index. The Thiel’s H Index is used to measure segregation between all racial/ethnic groups within a jurisdiction by comparing neighborhood diversity to citywide diversity.
Neighborhoods are weighted by size so larger neighborhoods are more influential in determining the total measure of segregation. The Thiel’s H Index also ranges from 0 to 1, where 0 indicates all neighborhoods have the same demographics as the whole City, and 1 indicates each group lives exclusively in their own, separate neighborhood.
A. Regional Trends
Figure E-2 shows racial/ethnic populations in Contra Costa County and the Bay Area. Both geographic areas are diverse, in which people of color comprise a majority of the population. In 2019, Whites comprise 44 percent of residents in the County versus 39 percent in the Bay area.
In the County, 17 percent of residents are Asian or Pacific Islander versus 27 percent in the Bay Area. The percentage of Hispanic and Black/African American residents are similar in the County and the Bay Area: 26 percent and 24 percent respectively for Hispanic residents; eight percent and six percent respectively for Black/African American residents. American Indian and Alaska Native residents make up less one percent of the population in both the County and the Bay Area.
Figure E-2: Racial Composition – Contra Costa County and the Bay Area (2019) Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) Isolation, dissimilarity, and Thiel’s H indices for the Bay Area are presented in Table E-6. Isolation indices show that Asian/Pacific Islander and Latinx communities have become increasingly isolated since 2000. Conversely, Black and White communities have seen a decrease in isolation
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 252 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-16 2023-2031 Housing Element
during the same period. White populations maintain the highest value of isolation of 0.491, while Black populations are the least isolated (0.053). These values indicate that in the average Bay Area jurisdiction, a White resident lives in a neighborhood that is 49.1 percent White, while a Black resident lives in a neighborhood where only 0.05 percent of the population is Black.
Dissimilarity indices for the Bay Area show that Black and White communities are the most segregated compared to segregation between other non-White and White communities.
Asian/Pacific Islander residents are the least segregated from White residents compared to Latinx and Black residents. Segregation between all non-White groups and Whites has decreased in the Bay Area since 2000. Based on HUD’s definitions for dissimilarity values, segregation between all non-White and White communities is low.
The Thiel’s H index in the Bay Area has declined, indicating there is now less neighborhood-level racial segregation. This pattern is consistent with isolation and dissimilarity index trends described previously.
Table E-6: Racial/Ethnic Segregation Indices – Bay Area (2000-2020) 2000 2010 2020
Isolation Index
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.161 0.204 0.245
Black 0.071 0.062 0.053
Latinx 0.199 0.237 0.251
White 0.652 0.572 0.491
Dissimilarity Index
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 0.194 0.192 0.185
Black/White 0.265 0.249 0.244
Latinx/White 0.232 0.219 0.207
Non-White/White 0.194 0.185 0.168
Thiel’s H 0.052 0.048 0.042
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments AFFH Data Report, March 6, 2022.
According to the 2020 County AI, the areas of segregation found throughout Contra Costa County include:
● Black residents concentrated in the cities of Antioch, Hercules, Pittsburg, and Richmond and the unincorporated community of North Richmond.
● Hispanic residents concentrated in the cities of Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo; in specific neighborhoods within the cities of Antioch, Concord, and Oakley; and in the
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 253 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-17 2023-2031 Housing Element
unincorporated communities of Bay Point, Montalvin Manor, North Richmond, and Rollingwood.
● Asians and Pacific Islanders concentrated in the Cities of Hercules and San Ramon, unincorporated communities of Camino Tassajara and Norris Canyon, and within neighborhoods in the cities of El Cerrito and Pinole.
● Non-Hispanic White residents concentrated in the cities of Clayton, Lafayette, Orinda, and Walnut Creek; in the Town of Danville; and in the unincorporated communities of Alamo, Alhambra Valley, Bethel Island, Castle Hill, Diablo, Discovery Bay, Kensington, Knightsen, Port Costa, Reliez Valley, San Miguel, and Saranap.
● There are also concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites within specific neighborhoods in the cities of Concord, Martinez, and Pleasant Hill. In general, the areas with the greatest concentrations of non-Hispanic Whites are located in the southern portions of central Contra Costa County.
Additionally, the AFFH Data viewer provides information on the proportion on non-white residents at the block group level (Figure E-3) and further supports the trends highlighted in the 2020 AI.
Figure E-3: Minority Concentrated Areas – Contra Costa County and the Bay Area Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 254 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-18 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Local Trends
Table E-7 shows the racial and ethnic makeup of San Ramon’s population. Almost 47 percent of residents identify as Asian or Asian Pacific Islander. This percentage is much higher than in the County (17 percent) and the Bay Area (27 percent). White residents comprise 39 percent of San Ramon’s population, which is the same as the Bay Area but lower than the County (44 percent).
The Hispanic population in San Ramon is approximately seven percent of the City’s total. This is much lower than the County and Bay Area where Hispanics comprise approximately one-quarter of the population. Black or African American residents comprise about two percent of the population, which is lower than the region (8 percent in the County and 6 percent in the Bay Area).
The percentage of American Indian/Alaska Native residents (0.3 percent) and those who identify as another race or multiple races (5 percent) are similar to the region.
Table E-7: Racial Composition – San Ramon (2019)
Number Percentage
Asian/API 35,407 46.8%
Black or African American 1,705 2.3%
White 29,217 38.6%
Other Race or Multiple Races 3,777 5.0%
Hispanic or Lantinx 5,352 7.1%
American Indian or Alaska Native 190 0.3%
Total 75,648 100.0%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 2015-2019 ACS (5- Year Estimates)
Figure E-4 shows the racial and ethnic composition trends for San Ramon from 2000 to 2019.
The White population comprised three-quarters of the City’s population in 2000 but decreased to 39 percent by 2019. In contrast, the Asian/Pacific Islander population increased from 15 percent in 2000 to almost one-half of San Ramon’s residents (47 percent). The Hispanic population increased slightly between 2000 and 2010 but then decreased back to seven percent by 2019.
The Black/African American population saw a small increase from 1.9 percent in 2000 to 2.3 percent in 2019 while the percentage of American Indian or Alaska Native residents stayed about the same at 0.3 percent. Residents who identified as “other” race or multiple races increased from
0.3 percent to five percent over the two decades.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 255 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-19 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-4: Racial/Ethnic Composition Trends (2000-2019) – San Ramon Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Decennial Census 2000, 2010; 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021.
Isolation, dissimilarity, and Thiel’s H indices are presented in Table E-8. Isolation indices for all racial/ethnic groups, except Asian/Pacific Islanders, are lower in San Ramon than in the Bay Area as a whole. Since 2000, the Asian/Pacific Islander community became increasingly isolated; in 2000, Asian/Pacific Islanders lived in a neighborhood where 15.9 percent of the residents were Asian/Pacific Islander. In 2020, that percentage increased to 58 percent. During that same time period, Whites became much less isolated; in 2000 a White resident lived in a neighborhood where
73.3 percent of the residents were White. In 2020, that percentage decreased to 39.6 percent.
Hispanic residents in San Ramon are less isolated than in the Bay Area. On average, a Hispanic resident in San Ramon lives in a neighborhood where 9.6 percent of the population is Hispanic, compared to 25.1 percent in the Bay Area. Similar to the Bay Area, Black residents are the least isolated in San Ramon. A Black resident, on average, lives in a neighborhood where only 3.4 percent of the population is Black.
Dissimilarity indices indicate that segregation in San Ramon amongst Latino and White communities is lower than in the Bay Area, while it is higher amongst all other non-White and White communities. Like the region, segregation between Black and White communities is the highest, although segregation between Asian/Pacific Islander and White communities in San Ramon is only slightly lower. According to HUD’s definitions for dissimilarity, segregation is
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 256 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-20 2023-2031 Housing Element
considered low between White and all non-White communities. Over the past two decades, segregation between all non-White and White communities has increased, particularly for the Asian and Black communities. This is due primarily to the limited Black population in San Ramon.
Table E-8: Racial/Ethnic Segregation Indices – San Ramon (2000-2020) 2000 2010 2020
Isolation Index
Asian/Pacific Islander 0.159 0.44 0.58
Black 0.019 0.04 0.034
Latinx 0.074 0.095 0.096
White 0.733 0.549 0.396
Dissimilarity Index
Asian or Pacific Islander/White 0.141 0.345 0.368
Black/White 0.081 0.25 0.387
Latinx/White 0.097 0.099 0.114
Non-White/White 0.085 0.271 0.312
Thiel’s H 0.012 0.071 0.076
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments AFFH Data Report, March 6, 2022.
Figure E-5 and Figure E-6 compare racial/ethnic minority concentrations geographically in 2010 and 2018. The non-White population increased from 51.5 percent in 2010 to 61.4 percent in 2019.
This pattern is shown below, where the racial/ethnic minority population increased in most San Ramon block groups between 2010 and 2018. Racial/ethnic minorities are most concentrated in block groups in the eastern section of the City (east of Dougherty Road), a small central area near the Bollinger Canyon and Alcosta Boulevard intersection). There is only one block group, in the northwestern corner of the city, where less than 20 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group.
Predominant White and Asian populations by tract are included in Figure E-7 and Figure E-8. Most tracts in the City west of Dougherty Road have sizable White populations. Only one tract in the central area of the City and two portions of tracts in the northwestern area of the City have predominant White populations. As shown in Figure E-8 the eastern side of San Ramon has both sizable and predominant Asian populations.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 257 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-21 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-5: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population By Block Group (2010) – San Ramon Figure E-6: Racial/Ethnic Minority Population By Block Group (2018) – San Ramon
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 258 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-22 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-7: Predominant Population – White Majority Tracts (2010) – San Ramon Figure E-8: Predominant Population – Asian Majority Tracts (2010) – San Ramon
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-23 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.2.2 Persons with Disabilities
Persons with disabilities have special housing needs because of the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and the higher health costs associated with their disability. In addition, many may be on fixed incomes that further limits their housing options. Persons with disabilities also tend to be more susceptible to housing discrimination due to their disability status and required accommodations associated with their disability.
A. Regional Trends
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates, 118,603 residents (10.9 percent of Contra Costa County’s population) reported having one of six disability types listed in the ACS (hearing, vision, cognitive, ambulatory, self-care, and independent living).
The percentage of residents detailed by disability are listed in Table E-9 below. Though Contra Costa County has a higher percentage of population with disabilities, the county’s overall disability statistics are fairly consistent with the greater Bay Area, with ambulatory disabilities making up the greatest percentage of disabilities, followed by independent living, cognitive, hearing, self-care, and vision disabilities. Across the Bay Area and Contra Costa County, the percentage of individuals with disabilities also increases with age, with the highest percentage of individuals being those 75 years and older. Refer to Table E-10 for the distribution of percentages by age.
Table E-9: Percentage of Populations by Disability Type – Contra Costa County and the Bay Area (2019) Disability Type Contra Costa County Bay Area*
Hearing 2.9% 2.6%
Vision 1.8% 1.7%
Cognitive 4.4% 3.9%
Ambulatory 5.9% 5.4%
Self-Care Difficulty 2.4% 2.4%
Independent Living Difficulty 5.2% 5.1%
Percentage of Total Population with Disability 10.9% 9.8% Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG. (2019 ACS 5-year Estimates).
Note: *Bay Area refers to San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA Metro Area Table E-10: Population with Disabilities by Age - Contra Costa County and the Bay Area (2019) Age Contra Costa County Bay Area*
Under 5 years 0.8% 0.6%
5 - 17 years 4.9% 3.7%
18 - 34 years 6.2% 4.3%
35 - 64 years 9.7% 8.7%
65 - 74 years 21.5% 20.5%
75 years and over 51.2% 50.0%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-24 2023-2031 Housing Element
Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG. (2019 ACS 5-year Estimates).
Note: *Bay Area refers to San Francisco-Oakland-Berkeley, CA Metro Area Table E-11: Population with Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity – Contra Costa County (2019) Race/Ethnicity Percent with Disability
Black or African American Alone 16.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 21.2%
Asian alone 8.0%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 9.6%
Some other race alone 7.4%
Two or more races 9.9%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 12.6%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 9.4%
Source: 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates.
In terms of geographic dispersal, there is a relatively homogenous dispersal of persons with disability, especially in Central Contra Costa County, where most census tracts have less than 10 percent of individuals with disabilities. Towards Eastern Contra Costa County, the Western boundary, and parts of Southern Contra Costa County, however, the percentage of population with disabilities increases to 10–20 percent. Pockets where over 40 percent of the population has disabilities can be observed around Martinez, Concord, and the outskirts of Lafayette. Comparing areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities correspond with areas with high housing choice voucher concentration (24 percent of people who utilize HCVs in Contra Costa County have a disability). Though use of HCVs does not represent a proxy for actual accessible units, participating landlords remain subject to the FHA to provide reasonable accommodations and allow tenants to make reasonable modifications at their own expense. Areas with a high percentage of populations with disabilities also correspond to areas with high percentages of low-moderate income communities. The above demographic information indicates socioeconomic trends of populations of persons with disabilities.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-25 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-9: Distribution of the Population with a Disability: Contra Costa County and the Bay Area (2021) Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG.
B. Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 5.5 percent of San Ramon residents had a disability. This is a smaller portion of the population than the County and the Bay Area as described above. The following tables show the disability status by type, age and race/ethnicity. Table E-12 shows that
1.6 percent of the population experienced a hearing difficulty, one percent experienced a vision difficulty, 2.2 percent experienced a cognitive difficulty, 2.6 percent experienced an ambulatory difficulty, 1.3 percent experienced a self-care difficulty, and 2.2 percent experienced an independent living difficulty. Disabilities of all types are far more common amongst elderly residents compared to children under the age of 18 and adults aged 18 to 64. Figure E-10 shows disabilities by type for seniors (65 years and over). As shown in Table E-13, all race/ethnicity groups in San Ramon have a lower percentage of disabled residents than the County overall, with the exception of those who identify as some other race. This group had a slightly higher percentage of disabled residents than in the County (7.4 percent versus 8.1 percent). In San Ramon, the race/ethnic group that experienced the highest percentage of disabilities is American Indian/Alaska Native (12.8 percent), followed by Whites and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander (8.2 percent for both groups), and Other race (8.1 percent).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-26 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-12: Disabilities Age and Type: San Ramon (2019) Type of Disability
% with Disability
Under 18 18 to 64 65+ Total
Hearing disability 0.2% 0.7% 10.4% 1.6%
Vision disability 0.6% 0.7% 4.1% 1.0%
Cognitive disability 1.2% 1.6% 8.1% 2.2%
Ambulatory disability 0.2% 1.4% 16.2% 2.6%
Self-care disability 0.1% 0.9% 6.8% 1.3%
Independent Living disability — 1.3% 13.4% 2.2%
Total Population 21,385 46,261 7,943 75,589
Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Figure E-10: Disability by Type – San Ramon Seniors (2019) Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-27 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-13: Population with Disabilities by Race/Ethnicity – San Ramon (2019) Race/Ethnicity Percent with Disability
Black or African American Alone 7.1%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone 12.8%
Asian alone 3.5%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 8.2%
Some other race alone 8.1%
Two or more races 2.4%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 8.2%
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) 4.7%
Source: 2019 ACS 5-year Estimates.
Figure E-11 shows the population of persons with disabilities by tract in the City. Most of the tracts in the City have less than 10 percent of the population with disabilities. Two areas have between 10 and 20 percent of the population experiencing a disability: the northwest corner north of Crow Canyon Road and an area between Montevideo Drive and San Ramon’s southern boundary, west of Old Ranch Road. The northwest corner (north of CC Rd.) is mostly outside the City limits within unincorporated Contra Costa County, and the portion within the City is primarily part of The Preserve development which was not constructed in 2019. The southern area may include a population with a higher percentage experiencing a disability because a portion of it includes an established senior community.
Specifically, northern census tract is where Brookdale Senior Assisted Living Facility is located 18888 Bollinger Canyon Rd. (110 bed facility). Southern census tract is where Ivy Park at San Ramon Senior Assisted Living Facility is located 9199 Fircrest Ln. (140 bed facility). Also has a 55 yr. and older senior community (Sunny Glen HOA area has 173 SFR, 20 Detached Condominiums and 44 Club Townhouses).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-28 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-11: Distribution of San Ramon’s Population with a Disability by Tract (2019) – San Ramon
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-29 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.2.3 Familial Status
Under the FHA, housing providers (e.g. landlords, property managers, real estate agents, or property owners) may not discriminate because of familial status. Familial status refers to the presence of at least one child under 18 years old, pregnant persons, or any person in the process of securing legal custody of a minor child (including adoptive or foster parents). Examples of familial status discrimination include refusing to rent to families with children, evicting families once a child joins the family (through birth, adoption, or custody), enforcing overly restrictive rules regarding children’s use of common areas, requiring families with children to live on specific floors, buildings, or areas, charging additional rent, security deposit, or fees because a household has children, advertising a preference for households without children, and lying about unit availability.
Families with children often have special housing needs due to lower per capita income, the need for affordable childcare, the need for affordable housing, or the need for larger units with three or more bedrooms. Single parent households are also protected by fair housing law. Of particular consideration are female-headed households, who may experience greater housing affordability challenges due to typically lower household incomes compared to two-parent households. Often, sex and familial status intersect to compound the discrimination faced by single mothers.
A. Regional Trends
The composition of household types in Contra Costa County is similar to the Bay Area (Figure E12). More than half of households in both jurisdictions are married couple families. Alameda County is comparable to the Bay Area. Single-person households make up a quarter of households in the Bay Area, while the percentage is slightly less (22 percent) in the County. Non-family households comprise a higher percentage of households in the Bay Area (9 percent) versus the County (6 percent).
8 As shown in Table E-14, the County has a higher percentage of households with children compared to the Bay Area (35.8 percent compared to 32 percent). 8 A nonfamily household consists of a householder living alone (a one-person household) or where the householder shares the home exclusively with people to whom he/she is not related.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-30 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-12: Household Type Composition – Contra Costa County and Bay Area (2019) Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)), 2021 Table E-14: Households By Presence of Children – Contra Costa County and Bay Area (2019) Household Type
Contra Costa
County Bay Area
With one or more children under 18 35.8% 32.0%
With no children 64.2% 68.0%
Total Households 394,769 2,731,434
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) Figure E-13 shows that households with children in married-couple households are located in central parts of the county. Census tracts with the lowest percentage of children in married-couple households (less than 20 percent) are located between Pittsburg and Antioch.
Figure E-14 depicts the concentration of households headed by single mothers in the County by Census Tract. Areas of concentration include Richmond, San Pablo, Rodeo, Bay Point, Pittsburg, Antioch, and to the west of Concord. Those communities are also areas of high minority populations. By contrast, central County, in general, and the portions of central County to the south of the City of Concord have relatively low concentrations of children living in female-headed households (less than 20 percent). These tend to be more heavily White or White and Asian and Pacific Islander communities.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-31 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-13: Children in Married-Couple Households – Contra Costa County and Bay Area (2019) Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-32 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-14: Children in Female-Headed Households – Contra Costa County and Bay Area (2019) Source: Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG B. Local Trends
A majority of San Ramon’s households are married-couple family households. As shown in Table E-15, these households comprise 70 percent of the City’s total households and is a higher percentage than the County and the Bay Area where married-couple family households made up 55 percent and 51 percent of households, respectively. Table E-16 shows that 51 percent of households in San Ramon have at least one child under the age of 18. This percentage is also higher than the County and the Bay Area (36 percent and 32 percent, respectively). Single-parent headed households make up nine percent of San Ramon’s households, with female-headed households accounting for 6.7 percent of this total. This percentage is lower than the County and Bay Area where single-parent households makeup 17 percent and 15 percent of households, respectively.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-33 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-15: Household Type Composition – San Ramon (2019) Household Type Number
Percent of
Households
Female-Headed Family Households 1,703 6.7%
Male-Headed Family Households 599 2.3%
Married-Couple Family Households 17,882 70.0%
Other Non-Family Households 846 3.3%
Single-Parent Households 4,505 17.6%
Total Households 25,535 100.%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
Table E-16: Households By Presence of Children – San Ramon (2019) Household Type Number
Percent of
Households
With one or more children under 18 13,029 51.0%
With no children 12,506 49.0%
Total Households 25,535 100%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates) Figure E-15 illustrate the distribution of households in San Ramon that have children living in married-couple family households and households living with a spouse. The city overall has a very high percentage of children living in married-couple households. The only area with less than 80 percent is in the northwest corner in a census tract that also expands into Danville and the unincorporated County. Persons living with a spouse is also relatively high in the City. The areas with lower percentages (40 percent to 60 percent) are tracts in the northern and southern portions of San Ramon that are adjacent to the 680 Freeway. No tracts within San Ramon have more than 20 percent of female-headed family households.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-34 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-15: Percent of Children in Married-Couple Households –San Ramon (2019) Figure E-16: Percent of Population Living With A Spouse –San Ramon (2019)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-35 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.2.4 Income Level
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a Census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the households are LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI)).
A. Regional Trends
Each year, the HUD receives custom tabulations of American Community Survey (ACS) data from the U.S. Census Bureau. Known as the "CHAS" data (Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), it demonstrates the number of households in need of housing assistance by estimating the number of households that have certain housing problems and have income low enough to qualify for HUD’s programs (primarily 30, 50, and 80 percent of the area median income, or AMI).
Lower income households are considered households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI.
Renter-occupied households tend to have lower incomes compared to owner-occupied households.
In Contra Costa County, 36.8 percent of households are considered lower income, including 26.7 percent of owner-occupied households and 55.8 percent of renter-occupied households (Table E17). Approximately 65 percent of owners earn more than 100 percent of the AMI compared to only 34 percent of renters. Household income levels in the County are very similar to the Bay Area overall (Figure E-17). In the Bay Area, 39 percent of households are lower income while 52 percent earn more than 100 percent of the AMI.
Table E-17: Household Income Level By Tenure – Contra Costa County (2017) Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
Income Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0%-30% of AMI 19,025 7.5% 33,400 24.9% 52,425 13.5%
31%-50% of AMI 22,030 8.6% 21,885 16.3% 43,915 11.3%
51%-80% of AMI 27,200 10.7% 19,745 14.7% 46,945 12.0%
81%-100% of AMI 22,455 8.8% 14,095 10.5% 36,550 9.4%
Greater than 100% of AMI 164,485 64.5% 45,270 33.7% 209,755 53.8% Totals 255,200 100.0% 134,395 100.0% 389,595 100.0%
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-36 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-17: Households By Income Level – Contra Costa County and Bay Area (2017) Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
HUD defines a Low to Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI (based on HUD income definition of up to 80 percent of the Area Median Income).
Figure E-18 shows the LMI areas in Contra Costa County by block group. Most of central Contra Costa County has less than 25 percent of LMI populations. Block groups with high concentrations of LMI (between 75 and 100 percent of the population) can be found clustered around Antioch, Pittsburg, Richmond, and San Pablo. There are also small pockets with high percentages of LMI population around Concord. Other areas of the County have a moderate percentage of LMI population (25–75 percent).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-37 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-18: Low To Moderate Income (LMI) Households – Contra Costa County and Bay Area (2015) Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG B. Local Trends
A presented in Table E-18, San Ramon has a smaller population of lower income households compared to the County and Bay Area region (see Table E-17 and Figure E-18 above).
Approximately 17 percent of San Ramon households are lower income, compared to almost 37 percent in the County and 39 percent in the Bay Area region. For owner-occupied households,
11.7 percent are lower income in San Ramon compared to 26.7 percent in the County. The percentage of lower income renter-occupied households in San Ramon is 29 percent, which is also lower than the 55.8 percent in the County.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-38 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-18: Household Income Level By Tenure – San Ramon (2017) Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
Income Category Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0%-30% of AMI 639 3.7% 900 12.1% 1,539 6.2%
31%-50% of AMI 590 3.4% 605 8.2% 1,195 4.8%
51%-80% of AMI 810 4.7% 655 8.8% 1,465 5.9%
81%-100% of AMI 964 5.5% 800 10.8% 1,764 7.1%
Greater than 100% of AMI 14,405 82.7% 4,455 60.1% 18,860 76.0% Totals 17,408 7,415 24,823
Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2013-2017 ACS), 2020.
Isolation, dissimilarity, and Thiel’s H indices are described in detail in Section Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.. Isolation indices, presented in Table E19, shows that Above Moderate-income residents are the most isolated income group in San Ramon. San Ramon’s isolation index of 0.713 for these residents means that the average Above Moderate-income resident in San Ramon lives in a neighborhood that is 71.3% Above Moderateincome. Among all income groups, the Very Low-income population’s isolation index has changed the most over time, becoming more segregated from other income groups between 2010 and 2015.
Compared to the Bay Area average, San Ramon residents in most income groups are less isolated with the exception of Above Moderate Income residents. Residents in this income group are more isolated in San Ramon compared to the Bay Area (0.713 versus 0.507).
As shown by 2010 and 2015 dissimilarity indices for San Ramon, segregation between lower income and higher income residents has decreased. However, 23.4 percent of lower income residents and 29.7 percent of very low and extremely low income residents would have to move to a different neighborhood to create perfect income category integration. In 2015, income segregation in San Ramon between lower income residents and other residents was higher in Than the average value in the Bay Area. However, based on HUD’s definition of the index, income segregation in San Ramon is low (<.040).
The Thiel’s H index in San Ramon has declined from 2015 to 2010, indicating there is now less neighborhood-level income segregation. San Ramon’s Thiel’s H index of 0.037 is lower than 0.043 in the Bay Area, indicating there is less neighborhood level income segregation in San Ramon than in the average Bay Area city.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-39 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-19: Income Segregation Indices (2010-2015)
San Ramon
Bay Area
Average
2010 2015 2015
Isolation Index
Very Low Income (<50% AMI) 0.109 0.148 0.269
Low Income (50%-80% AMI) 0.085 0.057 0.145
Moderate Income (80%-120% AMI) 0.161 0.152 0.183
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI) 0.743 0.713 0.507
Dissimilarity Index
Below 80% AMI vs. Above 80% AMI 0.277 0.234 0.198
Below 50% AMI vs. Above 120% AMI 0.324 0.297 0.253
Thiel’s H 0.062 0.037 0.043
Source: Association of Bay Area Governments AFFH Data Report, March 6, 2022.
LMI areas where more than 51 percent of the household population is low or moderate income are shown geographically in Figure E-19. A few block groups in the City have 25 to 50 percent of LMI households, while the remaining areas have less than 25 percent of LMI households. This is similar to the City of Danville and the surrounding unincorporated County.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-40 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-19: LMI Households By Block Group (2020) – San Ramon
2.2.5 Housing Choice Vouchers
Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) are a form of HUD rental subsidy issued to a low-income household that promises to pay a certain amount of the household’s rent. Prices, or payment standards, are set based on the rent in the metropolitan area, and voucher households must pay any difference between the rent and the voucher amount. Participants of the HCV program are free to choose any rental housing that meets program requirements An analysis of the trends in HCV concentration can be useful in examining the success of the program in improving the living conditions and quality of life of its holders. One of the objectives of the HCV program is to encourage participants to avoid high-poverty neighborhoods, and encourage the recruitment of landlords with rental properties in low-poverty neighborhoods. HCV programs are managed by Public Housing Agencies (PHAs), and the programs assessment structure (Section Eight Management Assessment Program) includes an “expanding housing opportunities” indicator that shows whether the PHA has adopted and implemented a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units located outside areas of poverty or minority concentration.
A study prepared by HUD’s Office of Policy Development and Research found a positive association between the HCV share of occupied housing and neighborhood poverty concentration, and a negative association between rent and neighborhood poverty. This means that HCV use was concentrated in areas of high poverty where rents tend to be lower. In areas where these patterns occur, the program has not succeeded in moving holders out of areas of poverty.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-41 2023-2031 Housing Element
A. Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County (HACCC) administers approximately 7,000 units of affordable housing under the HCV program (and Shelter Care Plus program). Northwest Contra Costa County is served by the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) that administers approximately 1,851 HCVs. North-central Contra Costa County is served by the Housing Authority of the City of Pittsburg (HACP), which manages 1,118 tenant-based HCVs.
The HCV program serves as a mechanism for bringing otherwise unaffordable housing within reach of low-income populations. With reference to Figure E-20, the program appears to be most prominent in western Contra Costa County, in heavily Black and Hispanic areas, and in the northeast of the County, in predominantly Black, Hispanic, and Asian areas. Central Contra Costa County largely has no data on the percentage of renter units with HCVs. The correlation between low rents and a high concentration of HCV holders holds true for the areas around San Pablo, Richmond, Martinez, Pittsburg, and Antioch.
Figure E-20: Renter Units with Housing Choice Vouchers in Contra Costa County (2021) Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG Figure E-21 shows the Location Affordability Index in Contra Costa County. The Index was developed by HUD in collaboration with DOT under the federal Partnership for Sustainable Communities. One objective of the Partnership is to increase public access to data on housing, transportation, and land use. Before this Index, there was no standardized national data source on
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-42 2023-2031 Housing Element
household transportation expenses, which limited the ability of homebuyers and renters to fully account for the cost of living in a particular city or neighborhood.
The prevailing standard of affordability in the United States is paying 30 percent or less of your family’s income on housing, but this fails to account for transportation costs. One reason is that transportation costs have grown significantly as a proportion of household income since this standard was established. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in the 1930s American households spent just 8 percent of their income on transportation. Since then, as a substantial proportion of the U.S. population has migrated from center cities to surrounding suburbs and exurbs and come to rely more heavily (or exclusively) on cars, that percentage has steadily increased, peaking at 19.1 percent in 2003. As of 2013, households spent on average about 17 percent of their annual income on transportation, second only to housing costs in terms of budget impact. And for many working-class and rural households, transportation costs actually exceed housing costs.
In Contra Costa County, we see that the majority of the County has a median gross rent of $2,000– $2,500. Central Contra County (areas between Danville and Walnut Creek) have the highest rents around $3,000 or more. The most affordable tracts in the County are along the perimeter of the County in cities like Richmond, San Pablo, Pittsburg and Martinez.
Figure E-21: Location Affordability Index in Contra Costa County Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-43 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Local Trends
The percentage of renter units with HCVs in San Ramon are shown in Figure E-22. No data is available for a large portion of the city. However; the census tracts with data shows that tract 355126 east of Windemere Parkway has the higher percentage of renter units with HCVs in the city at 29 percent. In tracts 345112 and 355115, 5 to 15 percent of renter units have HCVs. Tracts 345111 and 345203 have less than five percent of renter units with HCVs.
Figure E-22: Renter Units with Housing Choice Vouchers in San Ramon Figure E-23 shows the location affordability index in San Ramon. Affordability ranges from less than $2,000 to greater than $3,000. The areas with greater affordability also correspond with portions of San Ramon that have a higher percentage of low and moderate income households (please see Figure E-19). Areas where living costs are higher (greater than $3,000) overlap with higher median households (greater than $125,000).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-44 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-23: Location Affordability Index in San Ramon
2.3 RACIALLY OR ETHNICALLY CONCENTRATED AREAS
2.3.1 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs) are geographic areas with significant concentrations of poverty and minority populations. HUD developed a census-tract based definition of R/ECAP that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold and a poverty test. The threshold states that an area with a non-White population of 50 percent or more would be identified as a R/ECAP; the poverty test defines areas of extreme poverty as areas where 40 percent or more of the population live below the federal poverty line or where the poverty rate is three times the average poverty rate for the metropolitan area (whichever is lower). Thus, an area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration, and the poverty test would be classified as a R/ECAP. Identifying R/ECAPS facilitates an understanding of entrenched patterns of segregation and poverty due to the legacy effects of historically racist and discriminatory housing laws.
A. Regional Trends
In Contra Costa County, the only area that meets the official definition of a R/ECAP is Monument Corridor in Concord (highlighted with red stripes in Figure E-24 below).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-45 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-24: R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG Figure E-25 shows TCAC designated areas of high segregation and poverty and R/ECAPs in ABAG jurisdictions beyond Contra Costa County. Areas of high segregation and poverty and R/ECAPs are most concentrated in north Alameda County, from San Leandro to Berkeley, and San Francisco. There is also a cluster of tracts with these designations in Santa Clara County in the San Jose area. All other ABAG counties, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Solano, and Sonoma, have few TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty and R/ECAPs in comparison. In general, these areas, specifically the San Jose and Oakland neighborhoods, are predominantly non-White populations. However, large populations of racial/ethnic minorities are not concentrated in these areas alone. Block groups with large racial/ethnic minority populations also exist in northern Contra Costa County, southern Solano County, and northern San Mateo County where there are little to no areas of high segregation and poverty or R/ECAPs. TCAC areas of high segregation and poverty and R/ECAPs also generally correlate with large LMI household populations.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-46 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-25: TCAC Areas of High Segregation and Poverty and R/ECAPs in ABAG Counties Expanded R/ECAPs in Contra Costa County
According to the 2020 Contra Costa County AI, however, the HUD definition that utilizes the federal poverty rate is not suitable for analysis in the San Francisco Bay Area due to the high cost of living.
The HUD definition would severely underestimate whether an individual is living in poverty. The Contra Costa County AI proposes an alternate definition of a R/ECAP that includes majorityminority census tracts that have poverty rates of 25 percent or more. Under this definition, twelve other census tracts would qualify as R/ECAPs in the areas of Antioch, Bay Point, Concord, Pittsburg, North Richmond, Richmond and San Pablo (Refer to Figure E-26).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-47 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-26: R/ECAPs in Contra Costa
Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG (Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice January 2020-2025 (2020 AI).
Note: The 2020 AI does not provide a legend for the map shown above nor does it name the specific 12 additional R/ECAPs identified. The map shows the general location of the expanded R/ECAPs identified in the County. ● Antioch: One R/ECAP located between Highway 4 (on the southern end) and railroad tracks (on the northern end). Somerville Road and L Street form the eastern and western boundaries.
● Bay Point: One R/ECAP located north of Willow Pass Road and goes all the way to the water. It is roughly bounded to the east by Loftus Road and the west by Port Chicago Highway.
● Concord: Three R/ECAPS that share borders with each other. They are all located in the Monument Corridor area of Concord and include the one official R/ECAP identified through the HUD AFFH Data and Mapping Tool. The R/ECAPs are roughly bounded by Highway 242 to the west, and Monument Boulevard to the east.
● Pittsburg: Two R/ECAPS that border each other. The northern R/ECAP is bounded by E. 14th Street to the north and Highway 4 to the south. The other R/ECAP, immediately to the south of the first, is similarly bounded by Highway 4 to the north and Buchanan Road to the south. It is bounded by Railroad Avenue to the west.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-48 2023-2031 Housing Element
● North Richmond: One R/ECAP with Giant Road as its eastern boundary. It lies between W. Gertrude Avenue to the south and Parr Boulevard to the north. The census tract extends all the way to the water on the west side.
● Richmond: Three R/ECAPs roughly located within the Iron Triangle area. Two of the R/ECAPs are stacked on top of each other and form a triangle shape. The southern border aligns with Ohio Avenue, and sides of the triangle area bounded by Richmond Parkway to the west, and the railroad tracks along Carlson Boulevard to the east. The third R/ECAP is directly to the east of the other two. It extends roughly to Highway 80 on its eastern side, and the southern border is formed by Cutting Boulevard. The western boundary is shared with the other two R/ECAPs, and is formed by the railroad tracks along Carlson Boulevard.
The northern boundary roughly aligns with Macdonald Avenue. ● San Pablo: One R/ECAP bounded by Highway 80 to the east, and El Portal Road to the north. The western boundary is formed by San Pablo Avenue and 23rd Street. The southern boundary roughly traces the San Pablo city boundary.
According to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey, 69,326 people lived in these expanded R/ECAPs, representing 6.3 percent of the County’s population. Hispanic and Black populations make up a disproportionately large percentage of residents who reside in R/ECAPs compared to the population of the County or Region as a whole. In Contra Costa County, approximately 53% of individuals living in R/ECAPs are Hispanic, nearly 18% are Black, 19.57% are Mexican American, 4.65% are Salvadoran American, and 1.49% are Guatemalan Americans. Families with children under 18 still in the household comprise almost 60% of the population in Contra Costa County’s R/ECAPs, significantly higher than neighboring metropolitan areas of San Francisco, Oakland, and Hayward. To those already living in poverty, the higher rate of dependent children in their households would translate to a greater strain on their resources.
B. Local Trends
Approximately 3.7 percent of San Ramon’s population lives below the poverty level. This percentage increases for seniors; nine percent of residents age 65 and older live below the poverty level. Table E-20 shows the percentage of residents in poverty by race/ethnicity. Black/African Americans experience the highest level of poverty at 9.2 percent while Asian/Asian Pacific Islanders have the lowest at 2.9 percent.
Table E-20: Poverty Status By Race – San Ramon (2019)
Racial / Ethnic Group
Percent in
Poverty
Black or African American (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 9.2% Hispanic or Latinx 4.6%
White (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 4.4%
White, Non-Hispanic 4.3%
Other Race or Multiple Races (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 3.5% American Indian or Alaska Native (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 3.4% Asian / API (Hispanic and Non-Hispanic) 2.9%
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package, 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-49 2023-2031 Housing Element
As described in the Regional Trends above, no R/ECAP areas are located within San Ramon.
According to the HCD AFFH Data Viewer, all census tracts within San Ramon have less than ten percent of the population living below the poverty level.
2.3.2 Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAAs) are defined by the HUD as communities with a large proportion of affluent and non-Hispanic White residents. According to a policy paper published by the HUD, non-Hispanic Whites are the most racially segregated group in the United States. In the same way neighborhood disadvantage is associated with concentrated poverty and high concentrations of people of color, distinct advantages are associated with residence in affluent, White communities. RCAAs are currently not available for mapping on the AFFH Data Viewer. As such, an alternate definition of RCAA from the University of Minnesota Humphrey School of Public Affairs is used in this analysis. RCAAs are defined as census tracts where (1) 80 percent or more of the population is white, and (2) the median household income is $125,000 or greater (slightly more than double the national median household income in 2016).
A. Regional Trends
By cross-referencing Figure E-6 and Figure E-27 (below), several RCAAs are shown running from Danville to Lafayette and that tapers off towards Walnut Creek. This aligns with the cities’ racial demographic and median income (summarized in Table E-21 below). Although not all census tracts/block groups meet the criteria to qualify as RCAAs, there is a tendency for census block groups with higher white populations to have higher median incomes throughout the county.
Table E-21: White Population and Median Household Income of RCAAs in Contra Costa County (2019) City White Population Median Household Income (2019)
Danville 80.53% $160,808
Lafayette 81.23% $178,889
Walnut Creek 74.05% $105,948
Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG (DataUSA.io (2019)).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-50 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-27: Median Household Income in Contra Costa County Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG In 2022, HCD released maps of Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) at the tract level on the HCD AFFH Data Viewer. RCAAs were determined using a location quotient (LQ) and median income.9 To determine the RCAAs, census tracts with a LQ of more than 1.25 and a median income 1.5 times higher than the COG AMI (or 1.5x the State AMI, whichever is lower) were assigned a numeric score of 1 (Is a RCAA). Census tracts that did not meet this criterion were assigned a score of 0 (Not a RCAA). The LQ represents the percentage of total white population (White Alone, Not Hispanic or Latino) for each census tract compared to the average percentage of total white population for all census tracts in a given COG region. As shown in Figure E-28, RCAAs are prevalent throughout the region surrounding San Ramon. Much of the Contra Costa County area north and east of San Ramon is considered an RCAA. RCAAs also span throughout Alameda County east and south of the City. 9 The complete methodology for determining RCAAs can be found here:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=4100330678564ad699d139b1c193ef14&sublayer=4
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-51 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-28: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) – Region (2019) The ABAG region is heavily populated with RCAAs (Figure E-29). RCAAs are prevalent in many areas, the exception of southern Alameda County, eastern Santa Clara County, Sonoma County, and Solano County. RCAAs are much more common in the ABAG region compared to the areas north, east, and south. This is consistent with other trends seen in northern California. Bay Area jurisdictions tend to have higher median incomes and lower poverty rates compared to neighboring regions. This is consistent with the Silicon Valley boom, that continues to bring large populations of high income earners to the Bay Area region. However, the influx of wealthy tech companies and employees has also increased wealth disparities in the region, where 25 percent of the population in Silicon Valley holds 92 percent of the wealth.
10 This issue is generally concentrated in the San
Francisco area and Santa Clara County, but also affects housing costs and wealth distribution in neighboring jurisdictions.
10 DiFeliciatonio, Chase. 2022. San Francisco Chronicle. New report shows Silicon Valley’s huge wealth gap. https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/Report-Silicon-Valley-s-population-declined-16921277.php.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-52 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-29: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) – ABAG (2019) B. Local Trends
Figure E-30 shows the median income for San Ramon and surrounding jurisdictions. San Ramon’s median income is one of the highest in the area at $160,783. Table E-22 shows the median income by race in the city. Asian households have the highest median income in San Ramon ($190,014), followed by residents who identify as Two or More Races, ($152,500), Black/African Americans ($150,813) and Whites ($145,953). Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders have the lowest median income at $95,378. Almost all of these median incomes are higher than that of the County overall ($99,716).
Figure E-31 shows the geographical distribution of median incomes in San Ramon. One block group located around the Canyon Lakes Golf Course has a median income lower than $87,100, which is the HCD 2020 State Median Income). All other block groups have median incomes between $87,100 and $125,000 or greater than $125,000.
Using the definition of RCAAs described in Region Trends above and comparing the median income map with Figure E-7 earlier in this AFFH showing White majority tracts, only one census tract in San Ramon is considered a RCAA. This is census tract 345203 located in the northwestern corner of the City. This tract is 82 percent White and has a median income of $205,357 in 2019.
However, only a small portion of the tract is located in San Ramon, with the boundaries extending north into Danville and the unincorporated County. Danville is discussed in the Regional RCAA Trends above.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-53 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-30: Median Household Income In San Ramon and Surrounding Areas (2019) Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates).
Table E-22: Median Income by Race/Ethnicity (2019) – San Ramon Race/Ethnicity Households Percent Distribution Median Income Households 25,535 --- $160,783
White 12,983 50.80% $142,729
Black or African American 735 2.90% $150,813
American Indian and Alaska Native 73 0.30% -
Asian 10,451 40.90% $190,014
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander
91 0.40% $95,378
Some other race 284 1.10% $111,333
Two or more races 918 3.60% $152,500
Hispanic or Latino origin (of any race) 1,538 6.00% $119,591 White alone, not Hispanic or Latino 11,931 46.70% $145,953 Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-54 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-31: Median Household Income by Block Group in San Ramon (2019) As discussed previously, in 2022, HCD released maps showing Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) by tract. There are seven tracts within or encompassing part of San Ramon that are considered RCAAs. Two are in the southern area of the City, generally bound by the southern City boundary, eastern City boundary and Alcosta Boulevard, Montevideo Drive to the north, and Tareyton Avenue to the west. The northwestern corner of the City also has several tracts that are considered RCAAs. It is relevant to note that the northernmost tracts that are considered RCAAs also encompass a large proportion of the area north of San Ramon that is not within the City boundaries. As discussed previously, there are two tracts in the City where more than 10 percent of the population experiences a disability, both of which have been identified as RCAAs (see Figure E-11). Both these tracts (tract 3452.03 and 3451.03) also have larger populations of persons aged 65 and older compared to all other tracts in the City. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 20.7 percent of the population in tract 3452.03 and 19.5 percent of the population in tract 3451.03 are 65 or older compared to only 10.5 percent citywide. This likely contributes to the larger populations of persons with disabilities in these tracts.
Access to opportunities will be further discussed in this Assessment of Fair Housing below. It is important to note that RCAAs don’t appear to have superior access to opportunities as nearly all of the City is considered a highest resource area. However, the northwest corner, where RCAAs are most prevalent, have the highest access to employment opportunities compared to other areas of the City. Employment opportunities are also further discussed below.
The RCAAs in the southern area of the City are mostly comprised of owner-occupied households (Figure E-33). Owner-occupied households tend to earn higher incomes compared to renters.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 291 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-55 2023-2031 Housing Element
Renters also tend to experience housing problems, including cost burden and overcrowding, at a higher rate than owners. Disproportionate housing needs are further discussed later in this Assessment of Fair Housing Issues. Conversely, the northwestern corner of the City has a larger population of renters. Approximately 43.5 percent of households in the tract encompassing the largest proportion of the northwest corner of the City are renters. According to the 2015-2019 ACS, only 27.6 percent of households citywide are renter-occupied.
Figure E-32: Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Affluence – San Ramon (2019)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 292 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-56 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-33: Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2022) Compared to other jurisdictions in the region, such as Alameda County, Santa Clara County, and San Francisco jurisdictions, San Ramon does not have large wealth disparities. As presented in Figure E-19 previously, there are no block groups in the City with large concentrations of low or moderate income households. Most San Ramon households earn more than 100 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). While wealth disparities are reduced within San Ramon, San Ramon is generally more affluent and wealthier than the County as a whole and neighboring jurisdictions, especially Alameda County cities west of the City.
2.4 ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES
Access to opportunity is a concept to approximate the link between place-based characteristics (e.g. education, employment, safety, and the environment) and critical life outcomes (e.g. health, wealth, and life expectancy). Ensuring access to opportunity means both improving the quality of life for residents of low-income communities, as well as supporting residents’ mobility and access to ‘high resource’ neighborhoods.
While the Federal Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) Rule has been repealed, the data and mapping developed by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) can still be useful in informing communities about segregation in their jurisdiction and region, as well as disparities in access to opportunity. This section presents the HUD-developed index scores based on nationally available data sources to assess Alameda County residents’ access to key opportunity assets by race/ethnicity and poverty level. Table E-24 provides index scores or values (the values range from 0 to 100) for the following opportunity indicator indices:
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 293 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-57 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Low Poverty Index: The low poverty Index captures the depth and intensity of poverty in a given neighborhood through poverty rate calculations and percentile rankings. The higher the score, the less exposure to poverty in a neighborhood. • School Proficiency Index: The school proficiency index uses 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 elementary schools. The higher the index value, the higher the school system quality is in a neighborhood.
• Labor Market Engagement Index: The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood. This is based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment in a census tract. The higher the index value, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood. • Transit Trips Index: This index is based on estimates of 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 for the region (i.e. the Core-Based Statistical Area (CBSA). The higher the transit trips index value, the more likely residents in that neighborhood utilize public transit.
• Low Transportation Cost Index: This index is based on estimates of transportation costs for a family that meets the following description: a 3-person single-parent family with income at 50 percent of the median income for renters for the region/CBSA. The higher the index value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood. • Jobs Proximity Index: The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a given residential neighborhood as a function of its distance to all job locations within a region/CBSA, with larger employment centers weighted more heavily. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood. • Environmental Health Index: The environmental health index summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the index value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group.
The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) convened 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 has created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state “to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas for families with children in housing financed with nine percent Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs)”. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up of a set of indicators. Table E-23 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters are:
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 294 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-58 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of population under federal poverty line; • Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or all people of color in comparison to the County.
Table E-23: Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps (2020) Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty
Adult education
Employment
Job proximity
Median home value
Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and values Education Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
Math proficiency
Reading proficiency
High School graduation rates
Student poverty rates
Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2021 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020
TCAC/HCD assigns “scores” for each of the domains in Table E-23 by census tract and computes “composite” scores that are a combination of the three domains. Scores from each individual domain range from 0-1, where higher scores indicate higher “access” to the domain or higher “outcomes.” Composite scores do not have a numerical value but rather rank census tracts by the level of resources (low, moderate, high, highest, and high poverty and segregation).
The TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps offer a tool to visualize show areas of highest resource, high resource, moderate resource, moderate resource (rapidly changing), low resource, and high segregation and poverty and can help to identify areas within the community that provide good access to opportunity for residents or, conversely, provide low access to opportunity. They can also help to highlight areas where there are high levels of segregation and poverty.
The information from the opportunity mapping can help to highlight the need for housing element policies and programs that would help to remediate conditions in low resource areas and areas of high segregation and poverty and to encourage better access for low and moderate income and black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) households to housing in high resource areas.
A. Regional Trends
HUD Opportunity Indicators. Opportunity indicators for Contra Costa County included in Table E24 indicate that White residents are exposed to the highest opportunities for quality schools and jobs, tend to live closer to their jobs and live in neighborhoods with better environmental conditions.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 295 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-59 2023-2031 Housing Element
The County’s Black population is most likely to utilize public transit and have the lowest transportation costs.
Populations below the poverty line, regardless of race/ethnicity, face more challenges accessing quality schools and jobs and living in neighborhoods with better environmental conditions. All populations below the poverty line utilize transit more and have lower transportation costs.
TCAC Opportunity Areas. Tract-level TCAC Opportunity score categories for the region are shown in Figure E-34. This visual representation of TCAC Opportunity Areas in Contra Costa County is based on a composite score, where each tract is categorized based on percentile rankings of the level of resources within the region. The only census tract in Contra Costa County considered an area of high segregation & poverty is located in Martinez. Concentrations of low resource areas are located in the northwestern and eastern parts of the county (Richmond to Hercules and Concord to Oakley); census tracts with the highest resources are located in central and southern parts of the county (San Ramon, Danville, Moraga, and Lafayette).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 296 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-60 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-24: Opportunity Indices in Contra Costa County (2020) Index
School
Proficiency
Transit
Trip
Low Transportation
Cost
Labor
Market
Jobs
Proximity
Environmental
Health
Contra Costa County
Total Population
White, Non-Hispanic 69.32 79.83 71.72 68.76 49.30 54.75 Black, Non-Hispanic 34.34 81.81 75.62 42.52 48.12 43.68 Asian or Pacific Islander, NonHispanic 59.43 80.81 72.22 66.87 45.27 52.22 Native American, Non-Hispanic 49.99 80.47 73.09 51.19 49.04 47.92 Hispanic 39.38 82.31 75.57 42.30 45.11 43.85
Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non-Hispanic 55.60 81.05 74.17 55.46 50.67 49.39 Black, Non-Hispanic 25.84 84.03 78.23 32.63 48.69 39.84 Asian or Pacific Islander, NonHispanic 46.48 84.04 77.75 52.15 50.02 41.52 Native American, Non-Hispanic 19.92 82.61 75.06 34.52 48.41 46.48 Hispanic 30.50 84.69 78.06 32.01 44.57 38.66
Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG (AFFHT Data Table 12; Data Sources: Decennial Census; ACS; Great Schools; Common Core of Data; SABINS; LAI; LEHD; NATA) Note: American Community Survey Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 297 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan City of San Ramon H.E-61 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-34: Regional TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score By Tract (2021) Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG B. Local Trends
TCAC Opportunity Areas. TCAC Opportunity Area scores for San Ramon have been compiled by tract (Table E-25) and are presented geographically in Figure E-35. All but one tract in the City are highest resource tracts. Tract 345101, located east of the 680 Freeway and along the City’s southern boundary is high resource.
As shown in Table E-25, the tracts in San Ramon with the highest composite scores are: 345113 (score of 0.726), located in the northern portion of the City between Crow Canyon Road and the boundary with Danville and three tracts in the eastern portion of San Ramon: 355114 (score of
0.715), 355116 (score of 0.725) and 355117 (score of 0.811).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 298 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-62 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-25: TCAC Opportunity Area Scores By Tract (2021) – San Ramon Tract
Economic
Score
Environmental
Score
Education
Score
Composite
Score
Final
Category
345101 0.526 0.643 0.818 0.384 High
345102 0.652 0.594 0.906 0.554 Highest
345103 0.614 0.893 0.892 0.587 Highest
345105 0.568 0.501 0.98 0.581 Highest
345108 0.658 0.793 0.963 0.677 Highest
345111 0.496 0.755 0.953 0.556 Highest
345112 0.578 0.912 0.951 0.641 Highest
345113 0.629 0.937 0.973 0.726 Highest
345115 0.745 0.683 0.957 0.697 Highest
345116 0.729 0.689 0.903 0.623 Highest
345202 0.656 0.553 0.921 0.561 Highest
345203 0.583 0.726 0.95 0.588 Highest
355114 0.625 0.917 0.977 0.715 Highest
355115 0.528 0.895 0.967 0.635 Highest
355116 0.665 0.915 0.967 0.725 Highest
355117 0.842 0.845 0.962 0.811 Highest
Source: UC Berkeley – TCAC Opportunity Area Scores by Tract. 2021.
Figure E-35: San Ramon TCAC Opportunity Area Composite Score By Tract (2021)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 299 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-63 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.4.1 Education
A. Regional Trends
Housing and school policies are mutually reinforcing, which is why it is important to analyze access to educational opportunities when assessing fair housing. At the most general level, school districts with the greatest amount of affordable housing tend to attract larger numbers of LMI families (largely composed of minorities). As test scores are a reflection of student demographics, where Black/Hispanic/Latino students routinely score lower than their White peers, less diverse schools with higher test scores tend to attract higher income families to the school district. This is a fair housing issue because as higher income families move to the area, the overall cost of housing rises and an exclusionary feedback loop is created, leading to increased racial and economic segregation across districts as well as decreased access to high-performing schools for non-White students.
According to the Contra Costa County AI, academic outcomes for low-income students are depressed by the presence of high proportions of low-income classmates; similarly situated lowincome students perform at higher levels in schools with lower proportions of low income students.
The research on racial segregation is consistent with the research on poverty concentration— positive levels of school integration led to improved educational outcomes for all students. Thus, it is important wherever possible to reduce school-based poverty concentration and to give lowincome families access to schools with lower levels of poverty and greater racial diversity.
The 2021 TCAC Opportunity Areas Education Composite Score for a census tract is based on math and reading proficiency, high school graduation rate, and student poverty rate indicators. The score is broken up by quartiles, with the highest quartile indicating more positive education outcomes and the lowest quartile signifying fewer positive outcomes.
There are 19 public school districts in Contra Costa County, in addition to 124 private schools and 19 charter schools. Figure E-36 shows that the northwestern and eastern parts of the county have the lowest education domain scores (less than 0.25) per census tracts, especially around Richmond and San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, east of Clayton, and Concord and its northern unincorporated areas. Census tracts with the highest education domain scores (greater than 0.75) are located in central and southern parts of the county (bounded by San Ramon on the south; Orinda and Moraga on the west; Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Clayton, and Brentwood on the north).
Overlaying Figure E-27(Median Household Income) and Figure E-34 (TCAC Education Scores) reveals that areas with lower education scores correspond with areas with lower income households (largely composed of minorities) and vice versa. With reference to Table E-24, we also see that index values for school proficiency are higher for White residents, indicating a greater access to high quality schools regardless of poverty status.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 300 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-64 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-36: Contra Costa County TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Score By Tract Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG Graduation rates by race and ethnicity for Contra Costa County are presented in Table E-26.
Contra Costa County had higher graduation rates than the State of California for both the 2016- 171 and 2020-21 classes. In both 2017 and 2021, the Asian population had the highest graduation rate, increasing from 95.2 percent in 2017 to 96.2 percent in 2021. Graduation rates for all racial and ethnic groups increased between 2017 and 2021, with American Indian and Alaska Native students, students without their race reported, and African American students saw the largest increases in graduation rates.
Table E-26: High School Graduation Rates By Race/Ethnicity – Contra Costa County (2016-2021) 2016-2017 2020-2021
Students
Graduation
Rate
Students
Graduation
Rate
African American 1,480 78.6% 1,304 83.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native 41 78.0% 42 85.7%
Asian 1,515 95.2% 1,871 96.2%
Filipino 678 94.5% 673 95.4%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 301 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-65 2023-2031 Housing Element
Hispanic or Latino 4,495 81.9% 5,125 84.8%
Pacific Islander 93 88.2% 88 88.6%
White 4,882 92.3% 4,473 93.4%
Two or more races 534 89.5% 740 91.4%
Not Reported 53 69.8% 82 75.6%
Contra Costa County 13,771 87.6% 14,398 89.6%
California 493,795 82.7% 500,179 83.6%
Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2016- 17 and 2020-21.
B. Local Trends
Greatschools.org is a non-profit organization that rates schools across the States. The Great Schools Summary Rating calculation is based on four ratings: the Student Progress Rating or Academic Progress Rating, College Readiness Rating, Equity Rating, and Test Score Rating.
Ratings at the lower end of the scale (1-4) signal that the school is “below average,” 5-6 “average.” and 7-10 “above average.” San Ramon has:
• Two public high schools (Dougherty Valley High School – GreatSchools rating of 10; California High School – GreatSchools rating of 9);
• Four public middle schools with GreatSchool ratings of 8 and 9); • Twelve public elementary schools (4 schools with a rating of 9; six schools with a rating of 8 and two schools with a rating of 7).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 302 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-66 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-37: Great School Ratings (2022) – San Ramon
Note: Private schools are shown in gray.
Source: GreatSchools.org, GreatSchools Rating – San Ramon, CA, 2022.
Public schools in San Ramon are part of the San Ramon Valley Unified School District (SRVUSD).
SRVUSD has 32,000 students, 36 schools, 3,500 employees and encompasses the communities of Alamo, Blackhawk, Danville, and San Ramon (including the new Dougherty Valley communities in east San Ramon) as well as a small portion of the cities of Walnut Creek and Pleasanton.
The SRVUSD website includes an Equity Report showing demographic information for the District.
Table E-27 shows the changes in student demographics over a twenty year period (2000 to 2020). In 2000, people of color comprised 19 percent of the student body. In 2020, that percentage had increased to 62 percent. While the percentage of Asian, Hispanic or Latino, students of two or more races and Filipino students all increased during the 20 year period, the percentage of Black students stayed relatively the same (1.8 percent and 1.7 percent respectively) and the percentages of Pacific Islander and American Indian and Alaska Native students decreased.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 303 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-67 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-27: SRVUSD’s Student Demographics – 1999-2000 to 2019-2020 – San Ramon 1999-2000 2019-2020
White 80.8% 38.3%
Asian 10.6% 38.8%
Latinx 4.1% 8.8%
Two or more races N/A 8.3%
Filipino 1.6% 3.6%
Black 1.8% 1.7%
Pacific Islander 0.4% 0.2%
American Indian and Alaska Native 0.7% 0.2%
Source: SRVSD Equity Report, www.srvusd.k12.ca.us
Table E-28 shows the graduation rates of students in the SRVUSD for 2016-2017 and 2020- 2021. In 2021, SRVUSD had a 96.5 percent graduation rate, which is higher than the County (89.6%) and the State (83.6%). Graduation rates for all reported race and ethnic groups were over 90 percent, with the highest being for African American (98.0%) and Asian (98.4%) students.
It should also be noted that the graduation rates for these two groups increased or stayed the same between 2017 and 2021 while the rates dropped for other groups during the same time period.
The graduation rate for all of SRVUSD also declined from 97.4 percent in 2017 to 96.5 percent in 2021.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 304 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-68 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-28: High School Graduation Rates By Race/Ethnicity – SRVUSD (2016-2021) – San Ramon 2016-2017 2020-2021
Students
Graduation
Rate
Students
Graduation
Rate
African American 43 97.7% 49 98.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native * * * *
Asian 691 98.3% 989 98.4%
Filipino 96 97.9% 96 94.8%
Hispanic or Latino 236 96.6% 248 93.5%
Pacific Islander * * * *
White 1,258 97.1% 1,164 96.0%
Two or more races 143 96.5% 196 93.9%
Not Reported * * * *
San Ramon Valley Unified School
District 2,473 97.4% 2,751 96.5%
Source: California Department of Education, Data Reporting Office. Cohort Outcome Data for the Class of 2016- 17 and 2020-21.
Note: to protect student privacy, data are suppressed (*) on the Cohort Reports if the cell size within a selected student population (cohort students) is 10 or less. Additionally, on the Ethnicity reports, “Not Reported” is suppressed, regardless of actual cell size, if the student population for one or more other ethnicity groups is suppressed.
TCAC Opportunity Area education scores for San Ramon tracts are shown in Figure E-38. All tracts have scores exceeding 0.75. Table E-25 above shows that two tracts have education scores of 0.818 and 0.892 and the remaining tracts have scores of 0.90 or higher. These TCAC scores are similar to surrounding jurisdictions in the southern and central portions of Contra Costa County.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 305 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-69 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-38: San Ramon TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Score By Tract – San Ramon
2.4.2 Transportation
A. Regional Trends
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to households affected by low incomes and rising housing prices, especially because lower income households are often transit dependent.
Public transit should strive to link lower income persons, who are often transit dependent, to major employers where job opportunities exist. Access to employment via public transportation can reduce welfare usage and increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing outside of traditionally low-income neighborhoods.
Transportation opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the transit trips index and (2) the low transportation cost index. The transit trips index measures how often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating a higher likelihood that residents in a neighborhood utilize public transit. The low transportation cost index measures cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to lower transportation costs in that neighborhood.
Neither indices, regardless of poverty level, varies noticeably across racial/ethnic categories. All races and ethnicities score highly on both indices with values close in magnitude. If these indices
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 306 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-70 2023-2031 Housing Element
are accurate depictions of transportation accessibility, it is possible to conclude that all racial and ethnic classes have high and relatively equal access to transportation at both the jurisdiction and regional levels. If anything, both indices appear to take slightly higher values for non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics, suggesting better access to transit and lower costs for these protected groups.
Contra Costa County is served by rail, bus, and ferry transit but the quality of service varies across the county. Much of Contra Costa County is connected to other parts of the East Bay as well as to San Francisco and San Mateo County by Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) rail service. The Richmond-Warm Springs/South Fremont and Richmond-Daly City/Millbrae Lines serve El Cerrito and Richmond during peak hours while the Antioch-SFO Line extends east from Oakland to serve Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek, Contra Costa Center/Pleasant Hill, Concord, and the Pittsburg/Bay Point station. An eastward extension, commonly known as eBART, began service on May 26, 2018. The extension provides service beyond the Pittsburg/Bay Point station to the new Pittsburg Center and Antioch stations. BART is an important form of transportation that helps provide Contra Costa County residents access to jobs and services in other parts of the Bay Area.
The Capitol Corridor route provides rail service between San Jose and Sacramento and serves commuters in Martinez and Richmond.
In contrast to rail transportation, bus service is much more fragmented in the County and regionally.
Several different bus systems including Tri-Delta Transit, AC Transit, County Connection, and WestCat provide local service in different sections of the County. In the Bay Area, there are 18 different agencies that provide bus service. The lack of an integrated network can make it harder for transit riders to understand how to make a trip that spans multiple operators and add costs during a daily commute. For example, an East Bay Regional Local 31-Day bus pass is valid on County Connection, Tri-Delta Transit, and WestCAT, but cannot be used on AC Transit.
Additionally, these bus systems often do not have frequent service. In central Contra Costa, County Connection buses may run as infrequently as every 45 to 60 minutes on some routes.
Within Contra Costa, transit is generally not as robust in east County despite growing demand for public transportation among residents. The lack of adequate public transportation makes it more difficult for lower-income people in particular to access jobs. Average transit commutes in Pittsburg and Antioch exceed 70 minutes. In Brentwood, average transit commute times exceed 100 minutes.
Transit agencies that service Contra Costa County include County Connection, Tri Delta Transit, WestCAT, AC Transit, and BART. The County Connection Bus (CCCTA) is the largest bus transit system in the county that provides fixed-route and paratransit bus service for communities in Central Contra Costa. Other non-Contra Costa agencies that provide express service to the county include:
• San Francisco Bay Ferry (Richmond to SF Ferry Building); • Golden Gate Transit (Line 40);
• WHEELS Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (Route 70x); • SolTrans (Route 80/82 and the Yellow Line);
• Capitol Corridor (Richmond/Martinez to cities between Auburn and San Jose);
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 307 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-71 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Fairfield & Suisun Transit (Intercity express routes); • Altamont Corridor Express (commute-hour trains from Pleasanton); • Napa Vine Transit (Route 29)
Figure E-39: Public Transit Routes in Contra Costa County Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG Commuting Patterns in Contra Costa County
Additional information about transit usage in Contra Costa County is available by looking at commuting patterns. Figure E-40 shows the how people in the County travel to and from their jobs. Almost 80 percent of county residents travel by automobile to their job. Of those who drove,
11.5 percent carpooled. Public transit was used by almost 11 percent of residents for work travel.
Over six percent of workers in the county worked from home. Other modes of travel, such as biking and walking, accounted for about three percent of workers.
All Transit explores metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. According to the most recent data posted (2019), Contra Costa County has an AllTransit Performance Score of 5.0 (out of 10). The map in Figure E-41 shows that the areas near freeway and transit corridors in the County have a higher transit usage. In comparison, Alameda County has an AllTransit Performance Score of 7.1.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 308 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-72 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-40: Means of Transportation for Work – Contra Costa County (2019) Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
Figure E-41: Contra Costa County All Transit Performance Score and Map (2019) Source: AllTransit, https://alltransit.cnt.org/rankings B. Local Trends
The City of San Ramon website lists the following transit options in the City:
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 309 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-73 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) - County Connection Route 92x from the San Ramon Transit Center and the Danville Sycamore Park & Ride Lot to the ACE train station in Pleasanton.
• AC Transit - Serves Alameda and Western Contra Costa Counties, with transbay service to the San Francisco Transbay Terminal.
• Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) & Bart Express - Serving the Greater Bay Area. • County Connection – Provides bus service to and from the Dublin/Pleasanton and Walnut Creek BART Stations to San Ramon. Provides paratransit services through LINK Paratransit with information available at: LINK Paratransit website. • Wheels - Provides equal access to a variety of safe, affordable and reliable public transportation choices, increasing the mobility and improving the quality of life of those who live or work in and visit the Tri-Valley area. These include bus connections to BART, ACE, and County Connection.
• Senior Transportation Express Van – The Alcosta Senior and Community Center has two vans available for transportation with wheelchair lifts. Rides are available Monday through Friday for riders living within San Ramon city limits. Reservations are required 24 hours in advance.
Other programs and incentives include:
• Go San Ramon - Go San Ramon is a pilot program available to those areas in the City where fixed-route transit service is not provided. This ride share program is valid for trips that start and end within the designated service area. The service area includes parts of south San Ramon, as well as the San Ramon Transit Center, San Ramon Regional Medical Center, Kaiser, Alcosta Senior and Community Center, and West Dublin and Dublin/Pleasanton BART stations.
• 511 Contra Costa - Commute incentive programs for residents and those who work in Contra Costa County, including the: Vanpool Incentive Program, Drive Less Commute Incentive Program, Pass2Class Program for students and the Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
• Carpool to BART – Carpools can park in a designated Carpool parking space at selected BART Stations, including Dublin/Pleasanton and Walnut Creek BART. Carpools must have a BART Carpool Parking Permit.
• Clipper Cards - Clipper is the all-in-one transit card for the Bay Area, and in limited locations can be used to pay for parking.
Commuting Patterns in San Ramon
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 310 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-74 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-42 shows the how people in San Ramon travel to and from their jobs. Similar to the County, approximately 80 percent of workers in San Ramon drive to their jobs. Nine percent of workers in San Ramon take public transportation and almost nine percent work from home.
Figure E-42: Means of Transportation for Work – San Ramon (2019) Figure E-43 shows the AllTransit Performance Score for San Ramon. With a score of 3.0 (out of 10), the city has a lower score than the County (5.0). The following are AllTransit scores of areas near San Ramon:
• Danville: 1.9
• Blackhawk area: 1.0
• Alamo area 3.3
• Walnut Creek: 4.7
• Lafayette: 4.6
• Dublin (Alameda County): 5.3
AllTransit includes information about the different types of transit available to San Ramon residents.
For instance, while 84.7 percent of jobs are near transit, none of the transit options are high frequency transit, frequent rush hour transit or frequent full day transit. Access to less frequent transit is available to 75 percent of low-income households in the city, as well as 44 percent of White residents and 56 percent of minority residents.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 311 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-75 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-43: San Ramon All Transit Performance Score and Map (2019) Source: AllTransit, https://alltransit.cnt.org/rankings
2.4.3 Economic
A. Regional Trends
Employment opportunities are depicted by two indices: (1) the labor market engagement index and (2) the jobs proximity index. The labor market engagement index provides a summary description of the relative intensity of labor market engagement and human capital in a neighborhood, taking into account the unemployment rate, labor-force participation rate, and percent with a bachelor’s degree or higher. The index ranges from 0 to 100, with higher values indicating higher labor force participation and human capital. The jobs proximity index quantifies the accessibility of a neighborhood to jobs in the region by measuring the physical distances between jobs and places of residence. It too varies from 0 to 100, and higher scores point to better accessibility to employment opportunities.
In Contra Costa County, non-Hispanic Whites and non-Hispanic Asians/Pacific Islanders are at the top of the labor market engagement index with scores of 66.76 and 66.87 respectively. NonHispanic Blacks and Hispanics score the lowest in the county with scores around 32. (Refer to Table E-24 for a full list of indices). Figure E-44 shows the spatial variability of jobs proximity in Contra Costa County. Tracts extending north from Lafayette to Martinez and its surrounding unincorporated areas have the highest index values followed by its directly adjacent areas. Cities like Pittsburg, Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, and Hercules have the lowest index scores (less than 20). Hispanic residents have the least access to employment opportunities with an index score of
45.11 whereas White residents have the highest index score of 49.30.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 312 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-76 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-44: Residential Proximity to Job Locations in Contra Costa County Source: Contra Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG TCAC economic scores are determined using the following variables: poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home value. A complete list of TCAC Opportunity Map domains and indicators are included in Table E-23. TCAC economic scores by tract in the County are presented in Figure E-45. The scores in the highest quartile are located in the western and central communities of Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette, Walnut Creek and the southern portion of San Ramon. The northern communities of Antioch, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Richmond, Pinole, Hercules and portions of the unincorporated County have economic scores is the lowest quartile.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 313 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-77 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-45: Contra Costa County TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score By Tract Source: Contra Source: Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG B. Local Trends
The jobs proximity map for San Ramon is shown in Figure E-46. The northwest portion of the City has the closest proximity (>80), most likely due to the many commercial and mixed use areas located in this part of San Ramon. As discussed previously, this there are also a concentration of RCAAs in this corner of the City. The eastern area of the city (east of Dougherty Road) has a TCAC economic score between 20 and 40. The residential and open space land uses in this portion of San Ramon likely contributes to the lower job proximity score.
While the northwest area of San Ramon has the highest job proximity score, the highest TCAC economic score for the City is located east of Bollinger Canyon Road and south of Windemere Parkway, with a score greater than 0.75. While this area has lower scores for job proximity, the median housing values, adult education levels and low poverty scores contribute to the more positive overall economic values.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 314 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-78 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-46: Residential Proximity to Job Locations in San Ramon Figure E-47: San Ramon TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic Score By Tract – San Ramon
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 315 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-79 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.4.4 Environmental
A. Regional Trends
The Environmental Health Index (Refer to Table E-24) summarizes potential exposure to harmful toxins at a neighborhood level. Index values range from 0 to 100 and the higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health. Therefore, the higher the value, the better the environmental quality of a neighborhood, where a neighborhood is a census block-group. There are modest differences across racial and ethnic groups in neighborhood access to environmental quality. All racial/ethnic groups in Contra Costa County obtained moderate scores ranging from low 40s to mid–50s. Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics have the lowest scores amongst all residents in Contra Costa County with scores of 43; whereas non-Hispanic Whites and Asians/Pacific Islanders have the highest scores (over 50) amongst all residents in Contra Costa County.
CalEnviroScreen was developed by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to evaluate pollution sources in a community while accounting for a community’s vulnerability to the adverse effects of pollution. Measures of pollution burden and population characteristics are combined into a single composite score that is mapped and analyzed. Higher values on the index indicate higher cumulative environmental impacts on individuals arising from these burdens and population factors.
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) compiles these scores to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.
In addition to environmental factors (pollutant exposure, groundwater threats, toxic sites, and hazardous materials exposure) and sensitive receptors (seniors, children, persons with asthma, and low birth weight infants), CalEnviroScreen also considers socioeconomic factors such as educational attainment, linguistic isolation, poverty, and unemployment.
Figure E-48 below displays the Environmental Score for Contra Costa County based on CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Pollution Indicators and Values that identifies communities in California disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and face vulnerability due to socioeconomic factors. The highest scoring 25 percent of census tracts were designated as disadvantaged communities. In Contra Costa County, disadvantaged communities include census tracts in North Richmond, Richmond, Pittsburg, San Pablo, Antioch, Rodeo, and Oakley.
Figure E-49 shows updated scores for CalEnviroscreen 4.0 released by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Generally speaking, adverse environmental impacts are concentrated around the northern border of the county (Bay Point to Pittsburg) and the western border of the county (Richmond to Pinole). Areas around Concord to Antioch have moderate scores and the rest of the county have relatively low scores. From central Contra Costa County, we see an almost radial gradient effect of green to red (least to most pollution).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 316 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-80 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-48: Contra Costa County TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score By Tract Source: Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG Figure E-49: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in Contra Costa County Source: Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 317 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-81 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Local Trends
Environmental TCAC scores for San Ramon are 0.50 or higher, particularly east of the 680 freeway. Tracts in the eastern portion of the city have scores in the highest quartile (0.75 or better). The various dedicated open space and trails in the eastern half of San Ramon likely contribute to the high scores.
Figure E-50: San Ramon TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental Score By Tract CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores follow trends similar to TCAC environmental scores (Figure E-51). All but one census tract in San Ramon have the lowest (best) CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile scores. Tract 345111 has a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 percentile score of 13.85. This score is in the second best score category.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 318 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-82 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-51: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Results in San Ramon
As shown in Figure E-52, there are 58 parks in San Ramon accessible to all residents regardless of location. There is an additional four community centers, two community gyms, and three community gardens in the City. Parks and recreational facilities are not concentrated in one area alone. All residents, including future households, have adequate access to parks and open space.
Parks and open space are described in further detail below.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 319 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-83 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-52: San Ramon Parks (2022)
Source: City of San Ramon, 2022.
2.5 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
Disproportionate housing needs generally refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. The Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) developed by the Census for HUD provides detailed information on housing needs by income level for different types of households in Contra Costa County and San Ramon. Housing problems considered by CHAS include:
● Housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 30 percent of gross income; ● Severe housing cost burden, including utilities, exceeding 50 percent of gross income; ● Overcrowded conditions (housing units with more than one person per room); and ● Units with physical defects (lacking complete kitchen or bathroom) According to HUD CHAS data, approximately 152,000 households (39 percent) in the County experience any one of the above housing problems. The data for San Ramon shows 8,520 households (34 percent) in the City experiencing at least one housing problem (refer to Table E31 below).
2.5.1 Cost Burden (Overpayment)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 320 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-84 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing cost burden, or overpayment, is defined as households paying 30 percent or more of their gross income on housing expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities. Renters are more likely to overpay for housing costs than homeowners. Housing cost burden is considered a housing need because households that overpay for housing costs may have difficulty affording other necessary expenses, such as childcare, transportation, and medical costs.
A. Regional Trends
Almost 36 percent of all Contra Costa households experience cost burdens. Renters experience cost burden at higher rates than owners (48.3 percent compared to 28.9 percent). Table E-29 shows housing problems and cost burden by tenure and race/ethnicity. Among owners, American Indian and Pacific Islander households experience the highest rates of cost burdens (37.9 percent and 37.6 percent, respectively), while White households have the lowest percentage of cost burden (27 percent). For renters, Black households experience the highest rate of cost burden (60 percent) while Pacific Islander households have the lowest percentage (32 percent).
Table E-29: Housing Problems and Cost Burden By Race/Ethnicity – Contra Costa County (2018) White Black Asian
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
OwnerOccupied 27.8% 36.4% 31.5% 44.7% 41.8% 40.4% 31.0% RenterOccupied 46.5% 62.5% 46.6% 48.1% 55.7% 63.6% 53.6% All Households 32.7% 51.1% 35.7% 46.2% 47.7% 52.0% 38.8% With Cost Burden
OwnerOccupied 27.0% 34.1% 28.5% 37.9% 37.6% 34.7% 28.9% RenterOccupied 43.7% 60.0% 39.4% 41.8% 32.0% 53.2% 48.3% All Households 31.3% 48.7% 31.6% 39.6% 35.2% 43.7% 35.6% Source: HUD CHAS Data (2014-2018)
Geographically, concentrations of cost burdened renter households are located in and around San Pablo, Pittsburg, Antioch, west Brentwood and Oakley, East San Ramon, and northern parts of Concord towards unincorporated areas (please refer to Figure E-53). In these tracts, over 80 percent of renters experience cost burdens. Majority of east Contra Costa has 60 – 80 percent of renter-households that experience cost burdens; west Contra Costa has 20 – 40 percent of renterhouseholds that experience cost burdens. Census tracts with a low percentage of cost-burdened households are located between San Ramon and Martinez on a north-south axis. In these tracts, less than 20 percent of renter-households experience cost burdens.
Housing problems and cost burdens can also affect special needs populations disproportionately.
Table E-30 shows that renter elderly and large family households experience housing problems and cost burdens at higher rates than all renters, all households, and their owner counterparts.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-85 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-30: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households – Contra Costa County (2018) Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
All HH
Elderly
Large
HH
All
Owner
Elderly
Large
HH
All
Renters
Any Housing Problem 32.4% 39.7% 31.0% 73.3% 72.7% 48.3% 38.8% Cost Burden > 30% 32.5% 25.7% 28.9% 69.8% 49.8% 48.3% 35.6% Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.
Figure E-53: Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in Contra Costa County (2019) Source: Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG B. Local Trends
Overall, San Ramon residents experience a slightly lower percentage of cost burden compared to the County (approximately 32 percent versus 36 percent, respectively). Similar to the County, renter occupied households in the city face greater cost burden (46.2 percent) than owner occupied households (26.1 percent). American Indian residents experience the highest percentage of cost burden (54.3 percent) among owner households in San Ramon. Hispanic (59.7 percent), Black (52.9 percent) and White (50.5 percent) residents have the highest percentage of cost burden among renter households.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-86 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-31: Housing Problems and Cost Burden By Race/Ethnicity – San Ramon (2018) White Black Asian
American
Indian
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic All
With Housing Problem
OwnerOccupied 24.8% 30.1% 28.6% 54.3% 0.0% 32.3% 27.2% RenterOccupied 53.6% 52.9% 41.3% 0.0% 71.4% 65.3% 50.8% All Households 33.0% 42.4% 31.5% 34.5% 57.7% 45.3% 33.9% With Cost Burden
OwnerOccupied 24.7% 28.8% 26.8% 54.3% 0.0% 27.1% 26.1% RenterOccupied 50.5% 52.9% 34.7% 0.0% 38.1% 59.7% 46.2% All Households 32.0% 41.8% 28.5% 34.5% 30.8% 39.9% 31.8% Source: HUD CHAS Data (2014-2018)
Figure E-54 and Figure E-55show renter overpayment in San Ramon between 2014 and 2019.
Generally, overpayment decreased in a majority of the City with the exception of areas east of Dougherty Road. Census tract 355116 (east of Windemere Parkway) saw the greatest increase of overpayment, increasing from the 20-40 percent range in 2014 to greater than 80 percent in 2019. This census tract also has the highest percentage of HCVs and has an affordability range between $2,500 and $3,000 (please refer to Figure E-22 and Figure E-23).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-87 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-54: Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in San Ramon (2014) Figure E-55: Percentage of Overpayment by Renters in San Ramon (2019)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-88 2023-2031 Housing Element
Similar to the County, San Ramon elderly renter-households face housing problems and cost burdens at a higher rate than all renters, all households and elderly owner-households. However, while large family renter-households face housing problems at a greater rate, cost burden for these households is less than all renters in San Ramon.
Table E-32: Housing Problems, Elderly and Large Households – San Ramon (2018) Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied
All HH
Elderly
Large
HH
All
Owner
Elderly
Large
HH
All
Renters
Any Housing Problem 34.4% 31.3% 27.2% 76.2% 54.4% 50.8% 33.9% Cost Burden > 30% 34.1% 25.6% 26.1% 72.7% 38.2% 46.2% 31.8% Source: HUD CHAS (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.
2.5.2 Overcrowding
A. Regional Trends
Overcrowding is typically defined as a housing unit occupied by more than one person per room.
Overcrowding typically occurs when there are not enough adequately sized units within a community, when high housing costs relative to income force too many individuals to share a housing unit than it can adequately accommodate, or when families reside in smaller units than they need to devote income to other necessities, such as food and health care. Overcrowding tends to accelerate the deterioration of housing. Therefore, maintaining a reasonable level of occupancy and alleviating overcrowding are critical to enhancing quality of life.
The 2015-2019 ACS indicates overcrowding affected five percent of all housing units countywide, including 2.4 percent of owner units and 10.4 percent of renter units. Figure E-56 shows the geographic distribution of overcrowded households. Tracts in San Pablo, Richmond, and Pittsburg with higher percentages of non-White population show higher concentrations of overcrowded households compared to the rest of the county. Monument Corridor, the only official R/ECAP in Contra Costa County, a predominantly Hispanic community in Concord, also exhibits more overcrowding than other parts of the County.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-89 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-56: Percentage of Overcrowded Households in Contra Costa County Source: Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG B. Local Trends
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, 3.2 percent of housing units in the City (834 units) were overcrowded compared to the County’s five percent. Overcrowding disproportionately affected renters. In San Ramon seven percent of renter-occupied households are overcrowded, compared to only 1.8 percent of owner-occupied households, indicating overcrowding may be the result of an inadequate supply of larger sized rental units. While 73 percent of occupied housing units in the City had three or more bedrooms (the minimum size considered large enough to avoid most overcrowding issues for large households), only a small portion of these units (11 percent) were occupied by renters.
As shown in Figure E-57, the entire City of San Ramon and the surrounding areas are below the statewide average of overcrowded households (8.2 percent).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-90 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-57: Percentage of Overcrowded Households in San Ramon
2.5.3 Substandard Housing Conditions
A. Regional Trends
Incomplete plumbing or kitchen facilities can be used to measure substandard housing conditions.
Incomplete facilities and housing age are estimated using the 2015-2019 ACS. In general, residential structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation such as roofing, plumbing, and electrical system repairs.
According to 2015–2019 ACS estimates, shown in Table E-33, 0.86 percent of households in Contra Costa County lack complete kitchen facilities and 0.39 percent of households lack complete plumbing facilities. Renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.
Table E-33: Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure – Contra Costa County (2019) Owner Renter All HHs
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0.19% 0.67% 0.86%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0.19% 0.20% 0.39%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-91 2023-2031 Housing Element
Housing age can also be used as an indicator for substandard housing and rehabilitation needs.
As stated above, structures over 30 years of age require minor repairs and modernization improvements, while units over 50 years of age are likely to require major rehabilitation. In the County, 73 percent of the housing stock was built prior to 1990, including 38 percent built prior to 1970. Figure E-58 shows median housing age Contra Costa and surrounding counties: San Francisco County (year 1944), Marin County (year 1966), Alameda County (year 1968), Contra Costa (year 1976). Sonoma County (year 1978), Solano County (year 1981) and San Joaquin County (year 1981). Figure E-59 shows the median housing age of cities and communities in Contra Costa.
Figure E-58: Median Year Housing Units Built (2019) - Region Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
Figure E-59: Median Year Housing Units Built (2019) – Contra Costa County Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-92 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Local Trends
Incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities affect less than two percent of households in San Ramon.
Table E-34 shows substandard conditions for owners, renters and all households from the 2015– 2019 ACS estimates. The percentage of households with incomplete kitchen facilities in San Ramon were slightly higher than the County (1.6 percent versus 0.86 percent), while incomplete plumbing facilities were lower (0.1 percent versus 0.39 percent, respectively). Similar to the County, renter households are more likely to lack complete facilities compared to owner households.
Table E-34: Substandard Housing Conditions by Tenure – San Ramon (2019) Owner Renter All HHs
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 0.2% 1.4% 1.6%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates) The median age for housing units in San Ramon is 1992. Table E-35 and Figure E-60 shows age of housing units by census tract. More than half of the housing stock in the City has been built since 1990 and is less than 30 years old. A majority of these homes are located in the eastern portion of the City in the new established neighborhoods.
Table E-35: Housing Stock Age (2019) – San Ramon
Census Tract
1969 or Earlier
(50+ Years)
1970-1989
(30-50 Years)
1990 or Later
(<30 Years)
Total Housing
Units
345101 48.1% 36.2% 15.7% 1,983
345102 40.4% 59.6% 0.0% 1,186
345103 20.7% 52.7% 26.6% 1,811
345105 29.9% 49.5% 20.5% 2,479
345108 1.3% 61.2% 37.5% 3,319
345111 1.8% 77.4% 20.7% 1,909
345112 2.5% 25.0% 72.5% 2,440
345113 2.8% 48.3% 48.8% 1,601
345115 0.8% 51.6% 47.6% 1,979
345116 3.4% 95.2% 1.3% 900
345202 7.4% 50.9% 41.7% 3,321
345203 43.6% 33.7% 22.7% 2,871
355114 0.0% 4.3% 95.7% 3,513
355115 1.6% 0.7% 97.7% 2,701
355116 0.0% 1.0% 99.0% 2,487
355117 1.8% 2.3% 95.9% 2,002
City Total 8.7% 37.8% 53.5% 26,525
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-93 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-60: Median Year Housing Units Built (2019) – San Ramon Source: 2015-2019 ACS (5-Year Estimates)
The City’s Building and Safety Department manages code enforcement and neighborhood preservation. The Neighborhood Preservation Inspector’s duties and services include: responding to citizen inquiries, ideas and viewpoints by investigating alleged violations of the City Municipal Code, Zoning Code and other related laws; initially, seeking voluntary compliance if there is no immediate life and safety danger; actively pursuing compliance when violations of the City Municipal or Zoning Code exist through administrative, civil or criminal remedies; and coordinating with other agencies for cross-jurisdictional violations.
According to San Ramon’s Building Inspector and Code Enforcement Officer, the City is in good condition overall. Though the first two developments built San Ramon are located in the northwest and south sections of the City, as shown in Figure E-60 above where the housing stock tends to be older, property owners Citywide, including in these areas, maintain their properties. In general, code enforcement needs are not concentrated in a single area of the City.
2.5.4 Displacement Risk
A. Regional Trends
Displacement occurs when housing costs or neighboring conditions force current residents out and rents become so high that lower-income people are excluded from moving in. UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project states that a census tract is a sensitive community if the proportion of very low income residents was above 20 percent in 2017 and the census tracts meets two of the following criteria: (1) Share of renters above 40 percent in 2017; (2) Share of Non-White
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-94 2023-2031 Housing Element
population above 50 percent in 2017; (3) Share of very low-income households (50 percent AMI or below) that are also severely rent burdened households above the county median in 2017; or (4) Nearby areas have been experiencing displacement pressures. Using this methodology, sensitive communities were identified in areas between El Cerrito and Pinole; Pittsburg, Antioch and Clayton; East Brentwood; and unincorporated land in Bay Point. Small pockets of Sensitive Communities are also found in central Contra Costa County from Lafayette towards Concord (please refer to Figure E-61).
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-95 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-61: Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement – Contra Costa County Source: Costa County Collaborative (C4) Regional AFFH Context prepared by MIG B. Local Trends
The Urban Displacement Project identified one sensitive area at risk of displacement in San Ramon.
This census tract, 355115, is located between Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road in the eastern portion of the City. Information from the 2015-2019 ACS Estimates and HCD Data includes the following:
• The share of renter households in this tract is higher than the Citywide average (52 percent versus 28 percent).
• Of the renter households, approximately 63 percent are overpaying for housing (spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing).
• This tract has one of the highest percentages of low and moderate income households in the City at 36 percent (one block group along the 680 freeway and the city’s southern boundary is higher with 45 percent low/mod residents).
• Approximately 83 percent of the population are non-white. The predominant population is Asian, comprising 63 percent of the tract’s residents.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-96 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-62: Sensitive Communities at Risk of Displacement – San Ramon As discussed previously, vulnerability is measured based on several variables including: share of renters exceeding 40 percent, share of people of color exceeding 50 percent, share of low income households severely rent burdened, and proximity to displacement pressures. Displacement pressures were defined based on median rent increases and rent gaps. San Ramon is a predominately owner-occupied household community (72.4 percent) with a White population of only 38.6 percent The Asian population represents the largest population citywide (46.5 percent).
In comparison, Contra Costa County has a White population of 43.8 percent and an owneroccupied population of only 65.9 percent.
Since the 2006-2010 ACS, the non-Hispanic White population in San Ramon decreased from
50.4 percent. During the same period, the proportion of owner-occupied households also decreased slightly, from 73 percent in 2010 to 72.4 percent in 2019.
As presented in Figure E-63, Asian/API householders are most likely to own their homes (78.6 percent), followed by American Indian/Alaska Native householders (76.7 percent), and nonHispanic White householders (71.3 percent). Black/African American householders, Hispanic/Latinx householders, and householders of another race/multiple races are significantly less likely to own their homes in comparison.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-97 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-63: Housing Tenure by Race of Householder (2019) Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook – San Ramon, 2021 (based on 2015-2019 ACS).
Figure E-64 shows the median contract rent in San Ramon, Contra Costa County, and the Bay Area from 2009 to 2019. As of 2019, San Ramon has the highest median contract rent price of $2,260, compared to the County ($1,686) and Bay Area ($1,849). Over the past ten years, median contract rent has increased 57.7 percent in San Ramon, a higher increase than Contra Costa County (45.2 percent) and the Bay Area region (54.6 percent). As presented above, increasing rental prices in the City are more likely to disproportionately affect people of color, specifically Black/African American householders, Hispanic/Latinx households, and householders of another or multiple races.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-98 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-64: Median Contract Rent (2009-2019)
Source: ABAG Housing Needs Data Workbook – San Ramon, 2021 (based on 2005-2019 ACS).
2.5.5 Homelessness
A. Regional Trends
Communities are required by HUD to conduct a Point-in-Time (PIT) Count of individuals, youth, and families experiencing homelessness. The Contra Costa Health, Housing, and Homeless Services Division conducted a point-in-time count of the regional homeless population on January 22nd and 23rd, 2020. The survey identified 2,277 homeless persons in Contra Costa County, including 707 sheltered individuals and 1,570 unsheltered individuals. As shown in Table E-36, the County’s homeless population has increased 12 percent since 2015.
Table E-36: County Sheltered, Unsheltered and Total PIT Trends (2015-2020) 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 5-year % change
Sheltered 704 620 696 697 668 707 <1%+
Unsheltered 1,326 1,110 911 1,537 1,627 1,570 18%+
Total 2,030 1,730 1,607 2,234 2,295 2,277 12%+
Source: Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report, 2020
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-99 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-37 shows the demographics of the individuals who were in the 2020 PIT. Men comprised 65 percent of the total individuals and almost three-quarters of were unsheltered (72 percent).
This contrasted to women included in the PIT, who comprised 35 percent of the total and were mostly sheltered (73 percent). Individuals aged 25 to 54 years made up the majority of individuals (55 percent), followed by individuals aged 55 to 61 years (17 percent) and 62+ years (16 percent).
Young adults, aged 18 to 24, accounted for five percent of individuals while children 18 years or younger were slightly higher at seven percent. While children were mostly sheltered (81 percent), other age groups had a greater percentage of unsheltered individuals. Whites made up the majority of individuals (54 percent), followed by Blacks (29 percent) and Hispanics (23 percent). While Pacific Islanders comprised one percent of individuals in the PIT, a majority of them were sheltered (88 percent).
Table E-37: Demographics of Individuals Experiencing Homelessness (2020) – Contra Costa County % of Total % Sheltered % Unsheltered
Gender
Male 65% 28% 72%
Female 35% 73% 27%
Age
<18 yrs 7% 81% 19%
18-24 yrs 5% 39% 61%
25-54 yrs 55% 24% 76%
55-61 yrs 17% 32% 68%
62+ yrs 16% 32% 68%
Race/Ethnicity
White 54% 23% 77%
Black 29% 41% 59%
Hispanic 23% 24% 76%
American Native 8% 45% 55%
Multiple Races 6% 25% 75%
Asian 2% 34% 66%
Pacific Islander 1% 88% 12%
Source: Source: Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report, 2020 The County’s 2020 PIT count also included households. Of the 1,972 households counted, 92 were families (five percent) and 1,880 were adults only (95 percent). Figure E-65 shows that approximately two-thirds of families were sheltered compared to only about a quarter of adult-only households.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-100 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-65: Households Experiencing Homelessness – 2020 – Contra Costa County Source: Source: Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report, 2020 The County’s PIT report also stated that 2,217 beds were available to the community on the night of the PIT count. As shown in Figure E-66, the majority of beds available were through permanent supportive housing (1,163), followed by emergency shelters (630), rapid rehousing (231) and transitional housing (194). Appendix 11-B of this Housing Element has a categorized list of facilities in the County and the Tri-Valley area.
Figure E-66: Number of Beds by Project Type – 2020
Source: Source: Contra Costa County: Annual Point in Time Count Report, 2020
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-101 2023-2031 Housing Element
B. Local Trends
The County’s 2020 PIT survey documented six unsheltered homeless individuals in San Ramon or less than one percent of the countywide unsheltered population. Although the point-in-time count identified six homeless persons in San Ramon, the survey represents only a snapshot reflecting those persons identified as homeless on the day of the count during a limited time frame. Many individuals and families move in and out of homelessness and shelters over the course of a year.
Homeless individuals and families have perhaps the most immediate housing need of any group.
They also have one of the most difficult set of housing needs to meet, due to both the diversity and complexity of the factors that lead to homelessness, and to community opposition to the siting of facilities that serve homeless clients.
Although no homeless shelters are located within San Ramon, various facilities located in Contra Costa County and the Tri-Valley area are available (please see Regional Trends section above).
The City will continue to support the Contra Costa County Continuum of Care (CoC) Board and supporting agencies and organizations to address the problem of homelessness throughout the County. The City will also continue to analyze and address impediments to the provision of housing for the homeless and near homeless by facilitating and encouraging the development of affordable housing and facilities for the homeless, including homeless shelters, transitional housing, single room occupancy units, and permanent supportive housing.
2.6 OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS
2.6.1 Development History and Patterns in San Ramon
The information in this section was provided in the San Ramon General Plan Update: Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook, published in March 2022.
While the City of San Ramon was incorporated in 1983, “the area that became San Ramon largely determined by the 1958 Contra Costa County General Plan, which designated 464 acres of San Ramon as “controlled manufacturing” which later became Bishop Ranch Business Park”11. Further growth in the area came about due to new highways, including Interstate 50 and 680.12 Planning and Zoning
The City has four planning boundaries:
• Planning Area (23,499 acres): this encompasses the City limits, the Sphere of Influence and the Urban Growth Boundary.
• Sphere of Influence (19,737 acres): this boundary is the probable physical boundary and service area of the city, which is adopted by the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). This area includes the city and adjacent unincorporated areas. • Urban Growth Boundary (13,738 acres): the UGB encompasses existing urban development or undeveloped areas adjacent to urban development anticipated to be developed over the life of the General Plan. Within the UGB, cities typically adopt land use policies that encourage urban development. Outside of the UGB, cities typically set aside 11 City of San Ramon, San Ramon General Plan Update: Existing Conditions and Trends Workbook, March 2022. 12 See Footnote #9
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-102 2023-2031 Housing Element
lands for open space, passive recreation and/or resource preservation. San Ramon’s UGB was established in 1999 by the city’s voters as part of Measure G (see below for more information).
• City Limits (12,862 acres): this is the current city boundary for San Ramon development and where city services are provided.
Unique to San Ramon, a local ballot initiative, Measure G, was approved by San Ramon voters in 1999, requires a super majority vote (four out of five representatives) from both the San Ramon Planning Commission and the San Ramon City Council, and three (three) public hearings with each public body for any changes to the General Plan (General Plan Amendment).
Approximately 35 percent of the area within the City limits is comprised of residential development.
The following shows the City’s housing mix in 2020 (Department of Finance, E-5 series):
• Single Family Home (Detached): 62.6%
• Single Family Home (Attached): 10.5%
• Multifamily Housing (Two to Four Units): 3.9%
• Multifamily Housing (Five+ Units): 22.8%
• Mobile Homes: 0.1%
As shown, the majority of housing in San Ramon is made up of single-family homes. In terms of Zoning Districts in the City, single family zones comprise approximately 22 percent of the land in San Ramon, while medium and high density residential zones comprise a little over five percent and mixed-use is approximately three percent of the land within the city limits.
The City’s website provides a map showing the location of affordable housing available in San Ramon. Figure E-67 shows the location of these sites, which are all located in the eastern portion of the city with the exception of two senior affordable housings sites located in the southern area.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E
-103 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-67: Affordable Housing Sites in San Ramon
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan City of San Ramon H.E-104 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.6.2 Home Loans
Home loan applications in San Ramon by race are shown in Table E-38. Of the 5,491 total application in San Ramon, almost 64 percent of the loans were originated, while 15 percent were denied and the remaining 21 percent were either approved but not accepted, withdrawn by the applicant or closed for incompleteness. Applicants of almost all race and ethnicities had loan approval rates close to the citywide average, with the exception of American Indian/Alaska Native and Black applicants (approval rate of 57 percent and 53 percent, respectively). Black applicants also had the highest denial rate at 24 percent, followed by Hispanic applicants with a 19 percent denial rate.
Figure E-68 shows that homeownership rates in San Ramon are highest amongst American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and White residents. These groups all have an ownership rate higher than 70 percent. Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islanders have a much lower homeownership rate at 21 percent. All other racial/ethnic groups have a more even division of owners and renters.
Table E-38: Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race/Ethnicity (2019-2019) – San Ramon American
Indian or
Alaska
Native
Asian /
API
Black or
African
American
White
Hispanic
or Latinx
Unknown All
Application approved
but not accepted 0% 5% 6% 4% 4% 4% 3.9%
Application denied 14% 14% 24% 15% 19% 15% 15.0%
Application
withdrawn by
applicant
14% 14% 15% 11% 12% 14% 13.1%
File closed for
incompleteness 14% 4% 2% 3% 2% 5% 4.2%
Loan originated 57% 63% 53% 67% 63% 62% 63.8%
Total 14 2,693 68 1443 185 1,088 5,491
Source: ABAG Housing Element Data Package (based on Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council’s (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) loan/application register (LAR) files, 2018-2019), 2021
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-105 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-68: Tenure by Race – 2019 – San Ramon
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019 (5-Year Estimates)
2.6.3 Parks, Trails and Recreation
The San Ramon Parks, Trails, Open Space, and Recreation Master Plan was adopted by the City Council in 2020. This Master Plan’s primary purpose was to develop a clear set of objectives to provide direction for the development, re-development, expansion, and enhancement of the City’s park system, trails, open spaces, recreation facilities, and programs for short-term (5 year) and long-term (10-year) planning in accordance with General Plan 2035. Preparation of the Master Plan included a variety of outreach efforts and community input.
Table E-39 below shows the City’s park inventory in 2019, which totaled 68 parks and facilities totaling almost 377 acres.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-106 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-39: 2019 Inventory of Park Acreage by Park Classification – San Ramon Park Classification Number Acreage
Neighborhood Parks29 29 116.18
School Parks 17 78.29
Community Parks 4 101.00
Specialty Parks 7 61.37
Dog Parks
Trailheads/Staging Areas
Community Gardents
Historic Parks
Specialized Rec Facilities 11 20.11
Aquatic Center
Senior/Community Center
Community Theater
Community Gymnasium
Tennis Court and Track
Total 68 376.95
Source: San Ramon Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, June 2020 (Table 3)
Figure E-69 through Figure E-71are maps from the 2020 Master Plan that show the existing parks and trail systems in San Ramon, identification of park improvement needs, and a plan of proposed parks. The identified areas of need as well as proposed parks are primarily located in the western side of the City.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-107 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-69: San Ramon Parks and Recreation System Map Existing Park System Source: San Ramon Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, June 2020 Figure E-70: San Ramon Park Need
Source: San Ramon Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, June 2020
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-108 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-71: San Ramon Proposed Parks – 2020 Master Plan Source: San Ramon Parks, Trails, Open Space and Recreation Master Plan, June 2020
2.6.4 Open Space and Natural Resources
Open spaces, natural habitats, rolling hills, creeks, and canyons define the City's distinct character.
The protection and conservation of these scenic surroundings are integral to the natural resources of the City and the quality of life of the community. There are 3,500-acres of land designated as open space within the City limits, which includes the undeveloped hills and ridges that surround the City. The Planning Area includes habitat for several special status species and the native oak trees are protected in an effort to protect the area’s natural resources.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-109 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.6.5 Healthy Places
This analysis utilizes the Healthy Places Index (HPI) to measure transportation opportunities and park accessibility in the City (see Section 1.3.4.3, Transportation, and Section 1.3.6.3, Open Space and Recreation). The HPI is a new tool that allows local officials to diagnose and change community conditions that affect health outcomes and the wellbeing of residents. The HPI tool was developed by the Public Health Alliance of Southern California to assist in comparing community conditions across the state and combines 25 community characteristics such as housing, education, economic, and social factors into a single indexed HPI Percentile Score, where lower percentiles indicate lower conditions. Figure E-72 shows the HPI percentile scores for San Ramon tracts. All tracts in the City have the highest HPI score range of 80 to 100 percent.
Figure E-72: Healthy Index by Tract (2021) – San Ramon
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-110 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.6.6 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
Disadvantaged communities in California are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from the State’s cap-and-trade program. Known as California Climate Investments (CCI), these funds are aimed at improving public health, quality of life and economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities at the same time they’re reducing pollution that causes climate change. As identified using the HCD AFFH tool, no areas within San Ramon or the surrounding areas are identified as a disadvantaged community.
2.6.7 2020-2025 Contra Costa County Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) The 2020-2025 Contra Costa County AI was completed in 2019 and outlines impediments to fair housing for the Contra Costa Consortium. The Contra Costa Consortium includes the cities of Antioch, Concord, Pittsburg, and Walnut Creek, and Contra Costa County (with the County representing the other incorporated cities as well the unincorporated areas of the County). San Ramon is a participating City in the Contra Costa Urban County. The following key fair housing issues and contributing factors were identified in the 2020 AI. This list includes only the fair housing issues and contributing factors cited in the 2020 AI that relate or apply to San Ramon:
• Segregation/Integration: Segregation in the area has many drivers or contributing factors including but not limited to zoning and land use laws, the location and type of affordable housing, and source of income discrimination.
• Disproportionate Housing Needs: Hispanic and Black residents face particularly severe housing problems. Rising cost pressures and the extent of residential displacement and relocation throughout the County has become more severe. Contributing factors include availability of family-sized subsidized units throughout the County, displacement of residents due to economic pressures, rising housing costs, source of income discrimination, displacement due to domestic violence and sexual assault, lending discrimination, loss of affordable housing, and lack of regional cooperation.
• Access to Opportunity: Access to opportunity is highest for non-Hispanic Whites and lowest for non-Hispanic blacks and Hispanics in the County. Access to opportunity is lowest in the western and northeastern sections of the County and highest in the central County areas, including San Ramon. Contributing factors include availability of reliable public transportation, lack of access to opportunity due to rising housing costs, lack of regional and local cooperation, location of employers, location of schools and student assignment plans, and location of environmental health hazards.
The 2020 AI includes the following goals to reduce impediments to fair housing choice:
• Increase available financial resources for affordable housing in order to better fund efforts to foster stable residential integration and increased access to opportunity. • Provide for the production of additional affordable housing through market incentives and improvements.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-111 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Increase residential racial and ethnic integration by increasing the supply of affordable housing for families in high opportunity areas.
• Increase the supply of permanent supportive housing for people with disabilities and services for people with disabilities.
• Reduce housing discrimination and discriminatory barriers to residential mobility. • Address barriers to mobility for families and individuals in publicly-supported housing, including Housing Choice Voucher participants.
• Reduce the displacement of low-income communities of color by enhancing protections for vulnerable tenants and homeowners and preserving affordable housing in areas that are gentrifying or at risk of gentrification.
• Increase access to opportunity through targeted public investments and efforts to increase economic mobility within Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAPs). • Increase and stabilize access to proficient schools.
• Increase coordination of housing and environmental health planning to support access to healthy homes and neighborhoods.
• Improve inter-jurisdictional coordination.
2.6.8 Housing Choice Vouchers and Subsidized Housing Units Housing choice voucher (HCV) recipients and the location of subsidized housing units can be used to explain patterns of household income distribution and other demographics. As shown in Figure E-73, there are three subsidized housing projects in San Ramon: Highlands Point Apartments (60 affordable units) on the eastern side of the City, Muirlands at Windemere Apartments (349 affordable units) on the eastern side of the City, and Villa San Ramon (24 affordable units) on the southern side of the City. Highlands Point Apartments is located in a tract where 29.6 percent of renters receive HCVs and Muirlands at Windemere Apartments is in a tract where 11.4 percent of renters receive HVCs. The eastern side of the City, where there are more HCV recipients and where Highlands Point Apartments and Muirlands at Windemere Apartments are located, tend to also have larger non-White populations. Cost burden renters are also significantly more prevalent on the east side of the City compared to the remainder of San Ramon. Muirlands at Windemere Apartments is also located in the only sensitive community at risk of displacement identified in the City. This tract is the only tract in the City where more than 25 percent of households are low or moderate income (LMI) (27 percent). Conversely, Villa San Ramon is located in an RCAA with a non-White population consistent with the citywide trend.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-112 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-73: Housing Choice Vouchers (HCV) by Tract and Subsidized Housing Units (2021)
2.6.8 Improvement Projects and Plans
As discussed above, San Ramon is generally a high resource City where accessible educational, economic, and environmental opportunities citywide. However, certain areas of the City tend to have more substandard housing conditions, such as an aging housing stock, or less access to employment opportunities. While the City’s housing stock is generally new, more than half of housing units were built after 1990, the western side of the City tends to have older housing units (see Section 2.5.3, Substandard Housing Conditions). Conversely, employment opportunities are less accessible to southern and eastern San Ramon neighborhoods compared to the northwestern area according to HUD jobs proximity indices (see Section 2.4.3, Economic). All Transit scores reveal the same areas are less connected with less access to jobs and reduced frequency of service (see Section 2.4.2, Transportation). In an effort to improve San Ramon neighborhoods, facilities, and transitways, the City completed the following Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects in FY 2020-2021:
• Bollinger Canyon Road Widening Projects (central San Ramon) • Pavement Management (central and eastern San Ramon)
• Bicycle Network Improvements and Enhancements (central western San Ramon) • Alcosta Senior and Community Center Renovation
• Citywide Exterior Painting and Sealing (Pine Valley and Iron Horse Gymnasiums, Glass House)
• Forest Farm Structures
• Aquatic Center Improvements
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-113 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Alcosta Boulevard Street Light Improvement
• San Ramon Valley Boulevard Beautification (northwestern San Ramon) • Citywide Lighting Zone Improvements
• Vista San Ramon Zone Improvements (central western San Ramon) • El Nido Zone Improvements (western San Ramon)
• Four Oaks Zone Improvements (western San Ramon)
• Dougherty Valley Tree Management Plan (eastern San Ramon) • Citywide Park Amenities
• Pedestrian Enhancement Devices (eastern San Ramon)
As shown above, the City allocates improvement projects citywide, including where transportation improvements may be needed due to reduced connectivity or access to employment opportunities.
San Ramon has also completed a FY 2022/23 – 2026/27 CIP report. Planned improvement projects include a Bicycle Master Plan Update, Citywide trail amenities replacement and improvements, facility improvements, Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) implementation, and public meeting access enhancements. The City will continue to implement CIP projects citywide to enhance neighborhood conditions and circulation, including in neighborhoods where these characteristics may be lacking.
2.6.9 Measure G (1999)
As discussed in Chapter 11.3, Housing Constraints, of this Housing Element, San Ramon voters approved a growth management measure (Measure G (1999)) to initiate a General Plan update that would create urban growth boundaries to encourage smart growth by promoting infill development through mixed use development and discouraging urban sprawl in 1999. Measure G (1999) is implemented by the Growth Management Element of the General Plan to “Manage the City’s growth in a way that balances existing and planned transportation facilities, protection of open space and ridgelines, provision of diverse housing options and job opportunities, and the preservation of high quality community facilities and services.” When General Plan and Specific Plan amendments are involved, Measure G (1999) adds approximately three to four months to the overall schedule. Overall, Measure G has the potential to constrain housing development.
However, this Housing Element includes the actions and programs to mitigate constraints related to Measure G (1999):
• The General Plan Update is currently in progress and rezoning/upzoning will be processed as a package, so that no General Plan or Specific Plan amendments will be required in the future to accommodate the RHNA.
• Multiple public meetings were conducted, and property owners and developers consulted, in order to identify the most appropriate and realistic sites for the RHNA to obtain public buy-in to the RHNA sites strategy.
• If/when the sites inventory buffer diminishes, the City will undertake a coordinated and proactive approach to replenish the sites inventory.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-114 2023-2031 Housing Element
11-E.3 SITES INVENTORY
HCD requires the City’s sites inventory used to meet the RHNA affirmatively furthers fair housing.
This includes ensuring RHNA units, especially lower income units, are not disproportionately concentrated in areas with larger populations of interest or special needs populations such as racial/ethnic minority groups, persons with disabilities, R/ECAPs, cost burden renters, etc. For the purposes of analyzing the City’s RHNA strategy through the lens of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, the sites inventory is shown at the tract level by subarea groupings (Table E-40). Areas are grouped by Planning Areas identified in the City’s General Plan. Figure E-74 shows the RHNA Sites Inventory.
• Northwest/West San Ramon – between the City’s western boundary and I-680 o Bollinger Canyon, Twin Creeks, Westside Planning Areas o Zoning includes the following specific plans: Northwest Specific Plan, San Ramon Village Specific Plan and Westside Specific Plan. Other zoning includes a variety of residential zones, mixed use, commercial, administrative office, public uses, parks and open space.
• Central San Ramon – East of I-680, west of Coyote Creek in the north and Alcosta Boulevard and Old Ranch Road in the southern area)
o Crow Canyon, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Hills and Southern San Ramon Planning Areas
o Zoning includes the North Camino Specific Plan, a variety of residential uses, mixed use, city center mixed use, commercial, administrative office, public uses, parks and open space.
• East Sam Ramon – generally east of Old Dougherty Road/Stoneleaf Road and west of Bollinger Canyon Road
o Dougherty Valley Planning Area and Dougherty Valley Specific Plan Zoning includes mixed use, planned development for single family residential uses, community commercial, parks, public uses and open space.
Northwest/West San Ramon
This area consists of three tracts that are all the highest TCAC opportunity category. The percentage of racial/ethnic minority populations ranges from 16.9 percent in the northwest to 53.3 percent in the west. The low and moderate income population is less than 20 percent.
Overcrowding is not a significant issue (0.0% to 2.8%) and cost burdened households range from about 21 to 41 percent for owner households and 27 to 47 percent for renter households.
A total of 1,438 RHNA units are included in this area as follows: 485 low income, 129 moderate and 824 above moderate. Tract 345202 has the largest percentage of RHNA units and is located in the Crow Canyon Planning Area that is west of I-80. With 43 percent of the units being for low or moderate income households, the RHNA strategy will allow for housing mobility and help to carry out the goals and visions of the Northwest Specific Plan, San Ramon Village Specific Plan and Westside Specific Plan.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-115 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-40: San Ramon RHNA Distribution By Planning Area and Census Tract Tract
# of
HHs
Total
Capacity
(Units)
Income Distribution TCAC
Opp.
Category
% NonWhite% LMI
Pop.
R/ECAP
% Overcrowded
Renter
Cost
Burden
Owner
Cost
Burden
Lower Moderate
Above
Moderate
Northwest/West San Ramon (Bollinger Canyon, Twin Creeks, Westside, Western portion of Crow Canyon Planning Areas) 345115 1,933 49 0 0 49 Highest 50.2% 6.6% No 1.0% 27.2% 20.9% 345202 3,030 1,138 475 114 549 Highest
45.0% -
53.3%
18.9% No 2.8% 31.7% 32.7%
345203 2,733 223 6 12 205 Highest 16.9% 17.3 No 0.0% 47.0% 40.8% Central San Ramon (Eastern portion of Crow Canyon, Bishop Ranch, Dougherty Hills and Southern San Ramon Planning Areas) 345101 1,839 214 190 7 17 High 65.8% 22.0% No 1.8% 32.0% 32.1% 345103 1,757 64 47 5 12 Highest 42.7% 19.6% No 0.6% 40.8% 26.7% 345105 2,214 87 57 16 14 Highest 34.3% 15.5% No 0.8% 28.9% 37.2% 345108 3,216 5,223 1,671 421 3,131 Highest 37.7% 14.8% No
0.0%-
0.4%
41.2% 36.2%
345111 1,854 916 256 27 633 Highest
52.7%-
69.7%
19.5% No
0.0% -
6.3%
35.5% 28.3%
East San Ramon (Dougherty Valley Planning Area)
355115 2,672 425 36 269 120 Highest 72.6% 27.0% No 0.0% 61.3% 24.7%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan City of San Ramon H.E
-116 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-74: San Ramon RHNA Distribution
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 353 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E
-117 2023-2031 Housing Element
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 354 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-118 2023-2031 Housing Element
Central San Ramon
The Central San Ramon area has four tracts with the Highest TCAC opportunity category and one tract (345101) with a High TCAC category. The percentage of non-white residents in this area ranges from approximately 34 percent to 70 percent. The highest percentage of overcrowding in the City is located in tract 345111, which encompasses the southern part of Bishop Ranch and a portion of the Southern San Ramon Planning Area. Renter cost burden varies from 32 percent to 41 percent while owner cost burden ranges between approximately 27 percent and 37 percent.
The percentage of low and moderate income households is between 15 percent and 22 percent.
A total of 6,504 RHNA units are included in this area as follows: 2,221 low income, 476 moderate and 3,807 above moderate. The largest portion of units is located in tract 345108, which includes portions of the Bishop Ranch and Dougherty Hills Planning Areas. The City’s RHNA strategy in this area builds off of the North Camino Specific Plan, the city center mixed use and a variety of residential zoning designations. The mix of income units will allow for a variety of mobility options.
East San Ramon
One tract with RHNA sites is located in the East San Ramon area (355155). This tract has the Highest TCAC opportunity rating. The area has the highest percentage of non-White residents at almost 73 percent and also has the highest percentage of low and moderate income households of the tracts in this analysis. While no overcrowding has been documented, renter overpayment is over 60 percent and owner overpayment is approximately 25 percent.
This portion of San Ramon has the smallest number of RHNA units at 425. The income categories include 36 low, 269 moderate and 120 above moderate. It should be noted that this area has a significant share of the City’s existing affordable housing, as discussed in the Local Knowledge section of this AFFH. The City’s RHNA strategy of providing a majority of moderate and above moderate units will allow for mobility and a more even distribution of housing options.
3.1 INTEGRATION AND SEGREGATION
3.1.1 Race/Ethnicity
The distribution of RHNA units by income category and racial/ethnic minority population (block group) is shown in Table E-41 and Figure E-75. Most RHNA units are located in block groups where between 21 percent and 40 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. Only 2.7 percent of RHNA units are located in block groups where less than 20 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. There are no RHNA units in block groups with racial/ethnic minority populations exceeding 81 percent.
In terms of income distribution, lower, moderate and above moderate RHNA units are located are predominately located in block groups where between 21 percent and 40 percent of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group. For those block groups with a higher percentage of the population belongs to a racial or ethnic minority group, the largest number of RHNA units are in the moderate income category. The distribution of RHNA units across income categories does not exacerbate existing segregation conditions related to race or ethnicity.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 355 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-119 2023-2031 Housing Element
Table E-41: Distribution of RHNA Units By Racial/Ethnic Minority Population Racial/Ethnic
Minority
Population
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <20% 6 0.2% 12 1.4% 205 4.3% 223 2.7%
21-40% 1,715 62.5% 429 49.1% 3,077 64.8% 5221 62.4%
41-60% 777 28.3% 155 17.7% 1,284 27.0% 2216 26.5%
61-80% 244 8.9% 278 31.8% 185 3.9% 707 8.4%
Total 2,742 100.0% 874 100.0% 4,751 100.0% 8367 100.0%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 356 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-120 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-75: Sites Inventory and Racial/Ethnic Minority Population By Block Group (2018)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 357 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-121 2023-2031 Housing Element
3.1.2 Persons with Disabilities
As described above, according to the 2015-2019 ACS, 5.5 percent of San Ramon residents had a disability. This is a smaller portion of the population than the County and the Bay Area. Most of the tracts in the City have less than 10 percent of the population with disabilities. Two areas have between 10 and 20 percent of the population experiencing a disability: the northwest corner north of Crow Canyon Road and an area between Montevideo Drive and San Ramon’s southern boundary, west of Old Ranch Road.
As presented in Table E-42 and Figure E-76, the majority of RHNA units (96.6 percent) are located in tracts that have less than ten percent of the population with a disability. Approximately
3.4 percent of the RHNA units are located in tracts that have ten to 20 percent of the population with disabilities, including 1.9 percent of lower income units, 1.9 percent of moderate income units and 4.6 percent above moderate income units. This distribution of the RHNA units will allow for disabled residents in San Ramon to have housing options across income categories.
Table E-42: Distribution of RHNA Units By Population of Persons with Disabilities Disabled
Population
(Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <10% 2689 98.1% 857 98.1% 4534 95.4% 8080 96.6%
10-20% 53 1.9% 17 1.9% 217 4.6% 287 3.4%
Total 2,742 100.0% 874 100.0% 4,751 100.0% 8367 100.0%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 358 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-122 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-76: Sites Inventory and Population of Persons with Disabilities by Tract (2019)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 359 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-123 2023-2031 Housing Element
3.1.3 Familial Status
The vast majority of census tracts in San Ramon have children in married households and all tracts have a low percentage of children in female-headed households (less than 20 percent). Therefore, the City’s RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing conditions related to familial status.
Table E-43: Distribution of RHNA Units By Percent of Children in Married Couple Households Children in
Married Couple
HHs (Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 60-80% 6 0.2% 12 1.4% 205 4.3% 223 2.7%
>80% 2,736 99.8% 862 98.6% 4,546 95.7% 8144 97.3%
Total 2,742 100.0% 874 100.0% 4,751 100.0% 8367 100.0%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 360 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-124 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-77: Sites Inventory and Percent of Children in Married Couple Households by Tract (2019)
Figure E-78: Sites Inventory and Percent of Children in FemaleHeaded Households by Tract (2019)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 361 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan City of San Ramon H.E-125 2023-2031 Housing Element
3.1.4 Income Level
Table E-44 and Figure E-79 show the distribution of RHNA units by LMI population. As noted earlier, Approximately 17 percent of San Ramon households are lower income, compared to almost 37 percent in the County and 39 percent in the Bay Area region. San Ramon also has less neighborhood level income segregation than the average Bay Area city.
For the areas in the City that have between 25 and 50 percent of LMI population, RHNA units are distributed as follows: 1.3 percent lower units, 30.8 percent moderate units and 2.5 percent above moderate units. It should be noted that much of the City’s current affordable housing is located in the LMI areas. RHNA units in the tracts with less than 25 percent LMI is: 98.7 percent lower units,
69.2 percent moderate units and 97.5 percent above moderate units. The RHNA strategy will provide for housing mobility options throughout the City and does not exacerbate the existing income levels in San Ramon.
Table E-44: Distribution of RHNA Units By LMI Household Population LMI Household
Population
(Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent <25% 2706 98.7% 605 69.2% 4631 97.5% 7942 94.9%
25-50% 36 1.3% 269 30.8% 120 2.5% 425 5.1%
Total 2,742 100.0% 874 100.0% 4,751 100.0% 8367 100.0%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 362 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-126 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-79: Sites Inventory and LMI Households by Tract (2019)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 363 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-127 2023-2031 Housing Element
3.2 DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS
3.2.1 Cost Burden
In San Ramon, areas with greater cost burden for owners (40 to 60 percent) are located in the north west (this tract extends into Danville and the unincorporated County) and the largely Dougherty Valley area (also with a large unincorporated area.
Renters in the City who experience the highest cost burden are located in the Dougherty Valley area in the eastern portion of the City. The area with the highest percentage of overpayment (60 to 80 percent) is located east of Windemere Parkway.
Cost burdened households by tenure and sites used to meet the City’s RHNA are presented in Table E-45 and Table E-46 and Figure E-80 and Figure E-81. The majority of RHNA units are located in areas with 20 percent to 40 percent of cost burdened owner households and between 20 percent and 60 percent of cost burdened renter households. RHNA units in these areas include lower, moderate and above moderate units to provide for housing opportunities and mobility in various areas of the City. The RHNA strategy does not exacerbate the existing cost burden levels in San Ramon.
Table E-45: Distribution of RHNA Units By Population of Cost Burdened Owner Households Cost Burdened
Owner (Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 20-40% 2736 99.8% 862 98.6% 4546 95.7% 8144 97.3%
40-60% 6 0.2% 12 1.4% 205 4.3% 223 2.7%
Total 2,742 100.0% 874 100.0% 4,751 100.0% 8367 100.0%
Table E-46: Distribution of RHNA Units By Population of Cost Burdened Renter Households Cost Burdened
Renter (Tract)
Lower Moderate Above Moderate Total
Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent Units Percent 20-40% 982 35.8% 167 19.1% 1283 27.0% 2432 29.1%
40-60% 1,724 62.9% 438 50.1% 3,348 70.5% 5510 65.9%
60-80% 36 1.3% 269 30.8% 120 2.5% 425 5.1%
Total 2,742 100.0% 874 100.0% 4,751 100.0% 8367 100.0%
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 364 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-128 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-80: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Owner-Occupied Households by Tract (2019)
Figure E-81: Sites Inventory and Cost Burdened Renter-Occupied Households by Tract (2019)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 365 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan City of San Ramon H.E-129 2023-2031 Housing Element
3.2.2 Overcrowded
There are no tracts in San Ramon where more than 8.2 percent of households, the Statewide average, are overcrowded (Figure E-82). Therefore, the City’s RHNA strategy does not exacerbate existing conditions related to overcrowding.
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 366 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-130 2023-2031 Housing Element
Figure E-82: Sites Inventory and Overcrowded Households by Tract (2017)
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 367 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-131 2023-2031 Housing Element
11-E.4 IDENTIFICATION AND PRIORITIZATION OF CONTRIBUTING
FACTORS
4.1 INSUFFICIENT FAIR HOUSING TESTING AND LIMITED OUTREACH CAPACITY (HOUSING
MOBILITY)
Fair housing outreach and education is imperative to ensure that those experiencing discrimination know when and how to seek help. As described earlier in this AFFH, the County AI found that private discrimination continues to be a problem in Contra Costa County and can perpetuate disparities in opportunities. While there are resources in Contra Costa County for fair housing services, the capacity and funding of these groups is generally insufficient. Also, the lack of specific fair housing records for San Ramon is a potential issue. The City is not able to accurately assess the nature and extent of discriminatory practices without local records.
Additionally, if the translation of outreach and education services is not available, it may be difficult for the limited-English proficient (LEP) population. The County AI found that San Ramon residents with limited proficiency in speaking English include Chinese and Korean speakers. The eastern side of San Ramon has both sizable and predominant Asian populations.
Contributing Factors:
• Lack of outreach due to language barriers
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations • More education needed by the public sector for residents to be familiar
4.2 NEW OPPORTUNITIES IN HIGH RESOURCE AREAS (PLACE-BASED STRATEGIES, HOUSING
MOBILITY)
All of San Ramon has been identified as high or highest resource areas. High-scoring schools, the proximity to San Francisco and the open space and recreation resources help contribute to the quality of life. The AFFH analysis did find that existing affordable housing options in San Ramon are limited and are primarily located in the eastern portion of the City. This includes the available data on housing choice vouchers and the location of affordable housing discussed under the Local Knowledge section. In addition, outreach for the Housing Element found that many residents want to protect the current feel of San Ramon and the many environmental resources. Projects with increased densities or affordability restrictions were a cause for concern among many respondents.
Further, additional housing opportunities in San Ramon, a high resource area, may be especially important due to the County’s overall character. Eastern Contra Costa County has significantly reduced access to opportunities compared to the western County, including San Ramon. The eastern County is comprised of mainly TCAC low resource tracts. Additional housing in San Ramon may promote mobility for low income households currently residing in the County.
Contributing Factors:
• Location and type of affordable housing, including Housing Choice Vouchers • Development patterns in existing neighborhoods, including predominately single-family homes
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 368 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 City of San Ramon H.E-132 2023-2031 Housing Element
• Community concern regarding high density development
• Environmental and open space resources
4.3 DISPLACEMENT RISK IN AREAS WITH DISPROPORTIONATE HOUSING NEEDS AND
SENSITIVE COMMUNITIES (ANTI-DISPLACEMENT AND TENANT PROTECTIONS, HOUSING MOBILITY) As housing prices continue to rise in the Bay Area and San Ramon, challenges to finding affordable housing options increases. One sensitive area at risk of displacement has been identified in San Ramon. This census tract, 355115, is located between Bollinger Canyon Road and Dougherty Road in the eastern portion of the city. Information from the 2015-2019 ACS Estimates and HCD Data includes the following:
• The share of renter-households in this tract is higher than the citywide average (52 percent versus 28 percent).
• Of the renter-households, approximately 63 percent are overpaying for housing (spending more than 30 percent of their income on housing).
• This tract has one of the highest percentages of low and moderate income households in the City at 36 percent (one block group along the 680 freeway and the city’s southern boundary is higher with 45 percent low/mod residents).
• Approximately 83 percent of the population are non-white. The predominant population is Asian, comprising 63 percent of the tract’s residents.
Contributing Factors:
• The availability of affordable units in a range of sizes • Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
• High cost of housing and resulting cost burden
• Challenges faced in sensitive communities
2.1.b
Packet Pg. 369 Attachment: Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated December 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment (GPA 2021-0001) for the 2023-2031 Exhibit 2: City of San Ramon 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter
December 20, 2022
Finding/Comment # Response Reference
A.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity: The housing
element must include a summary of fair housing
enforcement and outreach capacity. The analysis must
address how the City complies with state and federal
fair housing laws, including regulations, lawsuits, and related enforcement actions.
Added discussion
of how the City
complies; added
umbrella statement
regarding fair
housing laws.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing) 11.E-2
A.1
(cont.)
Local to Regional Patterns of Income and Concentrated
Areas of Affluence (RCAA): The element briefly
mentions a concentrated area of affluence (p. H.E-47)
and that the City has a much smaller proportion of
lower-income households compared to the County and
Bay Area region (p. H.E-35). However, the element
should include specific analysis of these areas to guide an appropriate policy response. The analysis should at
least address evaluating trends, conditions, comparisons to other neighborhoods and cities beyond the I-680
corridor, effectiveness or absence of past strategies,
local data and knowledge and other relevant factors
related to equitable quality of life. The element must
add or modify meaningful programs based on the
outcomes of this analysis.
Added discussion
of how City relates
to the broader
region, including
income; added
ABAG region
discussion; added
more comparison
to region.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing), 11.E-2
A.1
(cont.)
Local Data and Knowledge: The element must include
local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to
discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the
City related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture
emerging trends and issues, including utilizing
knowledge from local and regional advocates and
service providers, City staff and related local and
County planning documents.
Discussion
included on a
history of zoning
and land use
policies and how it
contributes to
housing patterns
today, and on the
City’s Measure G.
Additional local
data and
knowledge
discussion
included in
section.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing), 2.4, 2.5, 2.6
And Section 11.2
A.1
(cont.)
Other Relevant Factors: The element must include
other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing
issues in the City. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use, zoning and barriers to housing
choices, investment practices, seeking investment or
lack of seeking investment to promote affordability and inclusion, information about redlining/greenlining,
restrictive covenants and other discriminatory practices, land use related lawsuits, local initiatives, demographic Discussion
included on a
history of zoning
and land use
policies and how it
contributes to
housing patterns
today, and on the
City’s Measure G.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing), 2.6
And Section 11.2
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 370 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment trends, or other information that complements the state and federal data.
A.1
(cont.)
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on
the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element
should re-assess contributing factors and particularly
prioritize those factors then formulate appropriate
policies and programs.
AFFH updated to
include further
analysis on
contributing
factors and
includes programs
and policies
incorporated based
on revisions.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing)
And Section 11.5
A.2 Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The
element does include some data on the number of
existing and projected ELI households, but it must also analyze their housing needs. The analysis should
evaluate tenure, overpayment, resources, and strategies available and the gap and magnitude of housing needs
to better formulate policies and programs.
Added additional
discussion
recognizing the
vulnerability of
this group.
Section 11.2.4.8
A.2
(cont.)
Analysis of Special Needs Population: While the
element quantifies the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the
element should discuss challenges faced by the
population, the existing resources to meet those needs
(availability senior housing units, # of large units, # of deed restricted units, etc.,), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and
funding to help address those gaps. This analysis
should also address elderly by tenure (renters and
owners).
Added additional
discussion analysis
of housing needs
for special needs
population
Section 11.2.4
A.3 Entitled Projects: While the element may utilize
pending, approved or under construction projects
toward the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), it must also demonstrate their affordability
and availability in the planning period. Affordability
must be demonstrated based on actual sales price, rent
level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). Availability should account for the likelihood of project completion in the planning period and should address the status, necessary steps to issue permits, any barriers to development and other relevant factors.
Added additional
discussion
regarding entitled
projects and
affordability/avail
ability.
Table 11.4-2, Section
11.4.2.2 A.3
(cont.)
Realistic Capacity: Where zoning allows 100 percent
nonresidential uses, the calculation of residential
capacity should account for the likelihood of 100
percent nonresidential development. For example, the
element could analyze all development activity in
nonresidential zones allowing 100 percent
nonresidential uses, how often residential development
occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations,
policies, and programs accordingly. This analysis may
Added additional
discussion
regarding entitled
projects and
affordability/avail
ability.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4.3,
11.4.4 2.1.c
Packet Pg. 371 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment incorporate any proposed policies such as residential
performance standards, prohibition of commercial uses
and should clarify that all zones allow residential uses, particularly 100 percent residential uses.
A.3
(cont.)
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must
include an analysis demonstrating the potential for
additional development on nonvacant sites. While the
element includes parcel by parcel descriptions intended to demonstrate potential for redevelopment, it should
complement these descriptions with a discussion of
existing uses and recent trends or expressed interest to support various factors (e.g., age, improvement to land value, lot coverage) utilized to identify nonvacant sites.
Expanded
descriptions and
support of
potential on
specific sites;
responses
provided to public
comments
incorporated into
Appendix
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4.4.2,
Program 13 and
Program 15
A.3
(cont.)
Nonvacant Sites (Existing Uses): The element must
address the extent existing uses impede additional
development such as market demand for the existing
use and existing leases, contracts or other conditions
that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent
additional residential development. For example, many
sites are parking lots, offices, San Ramon Visitor
Conference Center, and similar uses. The element could
generally describe these typologies and whether the
existing uses impede additional development. Finally,
the City should consider and address public comments
regarding the potential of redevelopment on some
identified sites.
Expanded
descriptions on
existing use sites;
responses
provided to public
comments
incorporated into
section and
Appendix.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4.4.2
A.3
(cont.)
Nonvacant Sites (Recent Trends): Many sites utilize
factors such as age, improvement to land value and lot
coverage to demonstrate the potential for
redevelopment. The element should evaluate recent
trends or expressed interest in redevelopment to support the validity of these factors. For example, the element could list recent redevelopment or expressed interest in redevelopment by the existing use and factors then
evaluate the similarities to identified sites.
Provided
additional
information on
recent trends and
tables on recent
development trend
in San Ramon.
Table 11.4-4 and
Section 11.4.4.2
A.3
(cont.)
Nonvacant Sites (Continued): In addition, if relying
upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50
percent of the RHNA for lower income households, the
housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not
an impediment to additional residential development
and will likely discontinue in the planning period.
(Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings
(e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial
evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede
additional residential development and will not be
utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to
accommodate the RHNA.
Noted. Housing
Element has
demonstrated that
the existing uses
are not an
impediment to
additional
development and
will likely
discontinue in
planning period.
Incorporated in
findings
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
A.3
(cont.)
AB 725: For jurisdictions that are considered
Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25
Statement added
about compliance
Section 11.4.4
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 372 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment percent of the remaining moderate and above moderate
RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater) (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4)).
A.3
(cont.)
Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government
Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), upon adoption
of the housing element, the City must submit an
electronic version of the sites inventory with its
adopted housing element to [email protected].
HCD has not received a copy of the electronic
inventory. Please note, the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing
the sites inventory.
Noted. Will
provide HCD an
electronic site
inventory upon
adoption of the
Housing Element
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
A.3
(cont.)
Emergency Shelters: The element mentions emergency
shelters are permitted in the Thorough Fare
Commercial district with capacity to accommodate the
need for emergency shelters but should also discuss
proximity to transportation and services and any
conditions inappropriate for human habitability. The
analysis should also list and evaluate development
standards and add or modify programs if necessary.
Updated sections
to address
emergency shelter
analysis and
incorporated
program revision
Section 11.3.1.8 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 A.3
(cont.)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): After a cursory
review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered some
areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law.
HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should modify Program 16 (ADU) to
update the City’s ADU ordinance and comply with
state law.
Program 16
updated
Section 11.5
Program16
A.4 Land Use Controls: The element must identify and
analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as
potential constraints on a variety of housing types.
While the element lists various development standards,
it should also evaluate those development standards for impacts on housing supply (number of units), cost,
feasibility, and the ability to achieve maximum
densities.
Program
modifications
related to
development
standards such as
height, parking,
and increase in
density range to
address missing
middle housing.
Added analysis of
impacts on cost,
feasibility and
ability to achieve
maximum
densities.
Section 11.3.1.5 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 A.4
(cont.)
Land Use Controls (Continued): In addition, the
element should include a discussion of compliance with
State Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code, § 65915.),
including whether the City has an ordinance and
implementing mechanisms such as application
requirements, granting of density bonuses, concession
Updated density
bonus provisions
based on changes to
State law and
included action in
Program 19.
Section 11.3 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 2.1.c
Packet Pg. 373 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment and incentives, waivers and modifications and parking
reductions. Based on the outcomes of this discussion,
the element should add or modify programs if
necessary.
A.4
(cont.)
Building Codes: The element should identify and
evaluate any local amendments to the building code for
impacts on housing costs.
Added discussion
on local adoption
of 2022 Building
Code and impacts.
Section 11.3.1.11
A.4
(cont.)
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the
element mentions typical timeframes and that
developments are subject to various reviews; it should
also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development complying with zoning.
The analysis should address the approval body, the
number of public hearing if any, approval findings and
any other relevant information. The analysis should
evaluate approval findings for impacts on approval
certainty and timing.
Added discussions
and tables on
permit type,
typical number of
hearings,
processing
procedure. Added
analysis of
approval findings.
Section 11.3 and 11.5
A.4
(cont.)
Processing and Permit Procedures (Continued): In
addition, the element must clarify whether there are
written procedures for the SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and
add a program to address these requirements, if
necessary.
Added discussion
and included in
Program 19
Section 11.3.1.9 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 A.4
(cont.)
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
The element indicates group homes for seven or more
persons are allowed in all residential zones and subject to a conditional use permit (CUP). The element also
indicates these uses are subject to parking requirements of one space per three beds plus guest and employee
parking. The element should analyze the CUP and
parking requirements for impacts on housing for
persons with disabilities including approval certainty, objectivity, feasibility, timing and cost and add or
modify programs to address the constraint.
Analysis added to
address land use
permit
requirements;
program added to
address parking
and modification
of zoning
requirements.
Section 11.3.1.12 and
11.5 A.4
(cont.)
Other Local Ordinances: The element must analyze any
locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development (e.g.,
inclusionary requirements, short term rentals, growth
controls). While the element (p. H.3-2) explains
Measure G is primarily a growth management
requirement related to the Urban Growth Boundary,
coordinating infrastructure and promoting infill
development, it also explains that any general plan
amendment is subject to four fifths voting requirements (p. H.E-92). The element should analyze the impacts of
requiring a four-fifths vote for any general plan
amendment on housing supply, cost, timing and
feasibility and add or modify programs as appropriate
to address identified constraints.
Added process
requirements and
analysis of
Measure G; added
Program 14 to
evaluate Measure
G with clear
objectives and
timeframe to
address potential
impacts
Section 11.2.6.9,
11.3.1.3, and Program
13 and 14 in Section
11.5 2.1.c
Packet Pg. 374 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment A.4
(cont.)
Potential Nongovernmental Constraints: The element
must be revised to identify the price of land (vacant or nonvacant) and analyze requests to develop housing at
densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory, including hinderance on the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need. The element notes
projects are often approved below the maximum
allowable densities but should also discuss requests of densities below the realistic capacity assumptions in the sites inventory.
Added analysis of
land costs and
development
trends related to
densities.
Section 11.3.2
B.1 To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs
must be revised with specific commitment and discrete
timelines (e.g., at least annually or month and year).
Examples include:
• Program 1 (Neighborhood Preservation): The
Program should commit to how often outreach will be
conducted in targeted areas and consider additional
outreach methods, beyond updating a website.
• Program 2 (City Rehabilitation Grants): The Program
should commit to annually explore and pursue
additional funding.
• Program 6 (Housing Choice Vouchers): The Program
should commit to how often the City will work with
fair housing service providers to educate the
community on source of income protections (SB 329
and SB 222).
• Program 5 (Preservation of Existing Affordable
Housing Stock): The Program could commit to
proactively work with non-profit and public agencies
early in the planning period to develop a strategy, seek funding and other resources to preserve at-risk units
and support tenants.
• Program 9 (Below Market Rate Home Ownership
Program): The Program should commit to how often
the City will promote the availability of the program
and consider distribution at a broader regional level.
• Program 10 (Affordable and Special Needs Housing
Development): The Program commits to annual
outreach at community events and seeking grants to
defray outreach costs. However, the Program should
also specifically commit to annually contact affordable housing developers to identify development
opportunities, including assisting with funding or
supporting funding applications, for lower-income
households, including extremely low-income and
special needs households.
• Program 21 (Regional Partnerships for Affordable
Housing): The Program could commit to support and
assist with pursuing funding such as past efforts related to the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) as
noted on page H.C-12.
Added specific
commitment and
discrete timelines.
Table provided for
clarity.
Section 11.5
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 375 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment B.2 As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of
housing types.
Updated the site
analysis with
additional
information on
capacity of sites,
non-vacant sites,
and large sites and
updated programs
accordingly.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
Concurrent Rezoning: HCD understands the City will
be completing rezoning prior to the start of the planning period (January 31, 2023) to accommodate the RHNA,
including for lower-income households. Please be
aware, if rezoning is not completed by January 31,
2023, the element must include a program(s) to rezone
sites with appropriate zoning and development
standards pursuant to Government Code section 65583,
subdivision (c)(1), and meet all the requirements of
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h)
and (i).
Updated to
Program 13 and 15
to acknowledge the
City’s rezone
commitment and byright approval
requirements.
Section 11.5 Program
13, Program 15
B.2
(cont.)
Large Sites: The element should include a program to
encourage the development of housing for lowerincome households on sites greater than ten acres.
Actions could include coordination with property
owners and developers to facilitate appropriate
parceling or site planning (e.g., one to five acres),
establishing incentives, priority processing and fee
reductions.
Included
narratives to
discuss San
Ramon’s large
sites and strategies
to achieve
affordability on
larger sites such as
Inclusionary
Housing
Ordinance.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
B.3 As noted in Finding A4, the element requires a
complete analysis of potential governmental and
nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the
results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any
identified constraints.
Program 14 added
as requested by
HCD to consider
the impacts of
Measure G and to
review/determine
opportunities to
streamline
approvals. Added
Program 18 to
intensify and
increase housing
choices and
affordability by
raising the
baseline density
RS and RM zone
Program to update
zoning standards
that are seen as
Section 11.3 and 11.5
Program 14 and
Program 18
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 376 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment constraints to
development.
B.4 As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a
complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be
revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes
of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must
specifically respond to the analysis and identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to
overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must
have specific commitment, discrete timing or
milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or
numerical targets toward AFFH outcomes. As
appropriate, actions must address housing mobility,
new housing choices and affordability in higher
resource or higher income areas throughout the City
(e.g., a variety of choices and affordability such as
missing middle housing types in lower density single
family areas), place-based strategies for community
preservation and revitalization and displacement
protection.
Updated Appendix
to include analysis
of how the City
complies with
enforcement of
housing laws,
analysis of
regional patterns
of income and
concentrated areas
of affluence, and
discussion of local
data related to fair
housing issues.
The City has also
updated Program
24 to include
specific
commitments and
timelines for
meaningful actions
related to
furthering fair
housing.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing)
And Section 11.5
Program 24
C.1 While the element includes quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by
income group; it could consider quantified objectives
for conservation beyond at-risk preservation. Examples
of programs that could be utilized include Programs 3
(Green Building), 4 (Code Enforcement), 6 (Housing
Choice Vouchers), 7 (Condominium Conversions) and
15 (Replacement Housing).
Updated Table
11.5-2 to include
quantified
objectives for
housing
conservation.
Section 11.5, Table
11.5-2
D.1 The element should discuss or commit to immediately deliver the housing element to all public agencies that provide water and sewer service.
Upon adoption of
the Housing
Element, the City
is required to
deliver the
Housing Element
to all public
agencies that
provide water and
sewer service to
the City.
Section 11.1.10
2.1.c
Packet Pg. 377 Attachment: Exhibit 2: Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter, dated December 20, 2022 (3867 : General Plan Amendment
Exhibit 3: Errata Revisions to the City of San Ramon 2023-2031 Housing Element Update in Response to HCD Comments on January 12, 2023
January 12, 2023
Errata
Change
No.
HCD
Comment
on January
12, 2023
Redline Revision
1. Nonvacant
Sites:
Address
Church of
the Valley
comments
on draft
Housing
Element
(dated
June 10,
2022)
Added on Page H-D-23, Notes:
Church of the Valley; Previously unsuccessful Senior Care Facility; open to residential opportunity; capacity based preserving existing primary building and landscaped portions of site and developing remaining area to 75% of max density.
Property owner/developer has been seeking development opportunities on the property, with most recent plan in 2019 for a senior assisted living facility. HE update will facilitate rezone to allow housing land use and provide more flexibility that will not require a use permit for residential homes. The rezoning proposed is a residential overlay to the underlying PS zone and development standards set to facilitate residential development at 6 to 14 du/ac with parking and height standards in line with density ranges of the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Land Use
Control:
Add
analysis of
impacts on
cost,
feasibility
and ability
to achieve
maximum
densities
Edits made previously on pages H.3-10, 3-38, 3-39 and Program 19. Additional summary language added to page H.3-10 and 3-11 as follows:
Height Limits
Residential development up to 30 units per acre has a height limit of 35 feet, able to accommodate a three-story multi-family structure. However, this 35-foot limit may limit unit size, potentially constraining the development of a range of unit sizes, especially larger units suitable for family households. Therefore, this Housing Element includes a program action to increase the height limit to 40 feet.
For residential development above 30 units per acre (as in RVH) or mixed use development (as in MU), the City’s height limit is increased to 50 to 60 feet, able to accommodate a four-story mixed use structure. For example, the recent ROEM Apartments is a four-story development Type V construction at a density of approximately 66 units per acre. Other similar developments in Contra Costa County include 1501 N. California Boulevard in Walnut Creek. This project is also a four-story building at about 64 units per acre. In San Pablo, the five-story Central Avenue Housing has a density of about 67 units per acre and a height of 61 feet.
Parking Standards
Parking requirements for single-family and multi-family residential uses in San Ramon are summarized in Table 11.3-3. Parking required for a prototypical 100-unit multifamily residential development in San Ramon and other Tri-Valley area communities is presented in Table 11.3-4. San Ramon’s requirement is nearly the same as what would be required for the same development in Danville and higher than the requirement for the same development in Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Dublin and Pleasanton are located along the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) lines with stations stopping at these cities, allowing these cities to take advantage of public transit. Although the provision of off-street parking can increase the cost of housing, San Ramon’s standards are reasonable as requirements for multi-family developments are equal to or less than
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 378 Attachment: Exhibit 3 Additional Errata Revisions to the 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated January 12, 2023 (3867 : General Plan Amendment
requirements for single-family detached dwellings, except for four-bedroom units.
Three parking spaces are required for a four-bedroom multi-family unit but only two spaces are required for a four-bedroom single-family unit. This requirement may potentially constraint the development of large multi-family units. The City will amend the ZO to reduce the parking requirement for large multi-family units (four bedrooms) from three spaces to two spaces. Guest space requirements for multi-family developments are reasonable because these types of developments do not have private driveways for each unit to accommodate parking for guests as is required for new single-family homes. The City offers flexible or alternative parking arrangements to facilitate multi-family housing and mixed use construction. These may include tandem parking and shared parking. For example, the City Walk project utilizes shared parking between residential and commercial uses.
Furthermore, parking standards for single-family homes with more than four bedrooms are higher than other cities. Given that the City has a large proportion of families with children and extended/multi-generation family members, there is a demand for larger homes. The City will revise the parking standards for large single-family homes to be consistent with regional trends.
Because the increased cost of off-street parking can make financing the development of housing affordable to lower and moderate income households more difficult, reduced parking and other incentives, concessions, or waivers and modifications of development standards are available for developers of affordable projects that are eligible for a density bonus. However, for projects not eligible for a density bonus, the City’s parking standards may constrain development due to the cost of parking construction. This Housing Element includes a program action to amend the ZO to utilize the State Density Bonus parking standards for all projects. As part of the rezoning of sites to meet the City’s RHNA, the City will establish appropriate development standards, including parking, to ensure maximum densities can be achieved.
Furthermore, the City will amend the ZO to reduce parking standards for large singlefamily and multi-family units as discussed above.
3. Other
Local
Ordinances
: Should
establish
measures;
should
commit to
streamline
approvals
and other
mechanis
ms to
address
the
constraint,
including
taking an
initiative
Added to Program 14 on Page H.5-16:
Program 14: Growth Management (Measure G)
Land use decisions triggering Measure G require a four-fifth super-majority vote of the Council. This requirement can potentially hinder the City’s ability to address the need for new housing opportunities. The City will conduct an education program to educate the public regarding the impact of Measure G and compliance with State law.
Responsible Agency: City of San Ramon, Community Development Department, Planning Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives/Timeframe:
• Annually evaluate housing proposal processed under Measure G, to determine if the super majority requirement delayed approval. • By 2026, conduct an education program to educate the public regarding the impact of Measure G and compliance with State law.
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 379 Attachment: Exhibit 3 Additional Errata Revisions to the 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated January 12, 2023 (3867 : General Plan Amendment
to the
voters to
modify or
remove
the 4/5ths
requireme
nt.
Provided
suggested
language
to amend
Program
14 • By 2028, review and determine pursue and establish opportunities to streamline Measure G approvals and if necessary, pursue and complete other mechanisms to ensure the process does not constraint development, including a ballot measure.
AFFH Themes: New Opportunities in High Resource Areas
Housing Mobility
Targeted Neighborhoods: Not applicable
4. Concurrent
Rezoning:
Commit to
appropriat
e
developme
nt
standards
and to
meet all by
right
requireme
nts
Added to Program 13 on page H.5-14 and 5-15:
Six sites: 20 to 60 du/ac
The rezoned sites will meet the requirements of Government Code 65583.2, including but not limited to a minimum density of 20 units per acre, minimum site size to permit at least 16 units on site, and zoned to allow ownership and rental housing by right in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower income households (see also Program 14). As part of the rezoning, appropriate development standards (including but not limited to setbacks, lot coverage, height, and parking, among others) will be established to ensure the allowable maximum density of each zone can be achieved.
Overall, rezone sites will provide an estimated capacity of 5,287 units (1,477 very low income; 711 low income; 593 moderate income; and 2,506 above moderate income units), adequate to fulfill the City’s RHNA shortfall of 2,190 units. To ensure that the City complies with SB 166 (No Net Loss), the City will monitor the consumption of residential and mixed use acreage to ensure an adequate inventory is available to meet the City’s RHNA obligations. To ensure sufficient residential capacity is maintained to accommodate the RHNA, the City will develop and implement a formal ongoing (project-by-project) evaluation procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower income households, the City will identify and if necessary, rezone sufficient sites to accommodate the shortfall and ensure “no net loss” in capacity to accommodate the RHNA.
Responsible Agency: City of San Ramon, Community Development Department, Planning Division
Financing: General Fund
Objectives/Timeframe:
• Complete redesignation/rezoning of 55 sites as outlined in Appendix D to fully accommodate the RHNA by the end of 2023. As part of the rezoning, establish a procedure to provide by-right approval of projects on reuse sites (identified in the previous Housing Elements) and rezone sites that include 20 percent of the units as housing affordable to lower income households (see also Program 14). • Maintain an inventory of the available sites for residential development and make it available on City website. Update sites inventory annually.
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 380 Attachment: Exhibit 3 Additional Errata Revisions to the 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated January 12, 2023 (3867 : General Plan Amendment
5. Large Sites:
Add Large
Sites
Program
Add New Program Number 20; renumber programs 20 and after to reflect addition of new Program 20:
Program 20: Development of Large Sites
The sites inventory for meeting the RHNA includes four large sites (larger 10 acres) that are expected to offer affordable housing opportunities for lower income households. To facilitate the development of these large sites, the City will:
Provide site planning tools such as clustered development, allowing flexibility for the transferring of densities within the property.
Meet with property owners and developers to encourage the development of mixed income housing with a mix of unit sizes, types, and prices. Allow the development in phases within eight years of the Housing Element Planning period.
Responsible Agency: City of San Ramon, Community Development Department Financing: General Fund
Objectives/Timeframe:
Meet with developers/property owners at least semi-annually beginning 2023 to facilitate development of sites.
By 2024, establish objective development standards for clustered development to facilitate large-site development.
AFFH Themes: New Opportunities in High Resource Areas Housing Mobility Targeted Neighborhoods: Not applicable
6. AFFH:
Increase
missing
middle
objectives
to 200
units; set
parameter
s for
evaluation
and
response.
Provided
suggested
edits to
Program
18 Modified Program 18, page H.5-15 as follows:
• A waiver system to ensure development standards do not preclude the maximum allowable density.
The City shall evaluate the effectiveness of meeting missing middle housing targets of these strategies in 2027 year and if half of the objective is not achieved, the City will pursue and establish additional measures, including but not limited to further increasing development intensity and additional measures as appropriate such as fee mitigation (in-lieu or other) single family zones within the following year to achieve more inclusive neighborhoods throughout City.
2.1.d
Packet Pg. 381 Attachment: Exhibit 3 Additional Errata Revisions to the 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated January 12, 2023 (3867 : General Plan Amendment
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 382
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 383
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 384
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 385
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 386
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 387
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 388
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 389
Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- Exhibit 1: 2023-2031 Housing Element, dated
December 2022 (by reference only)
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 390 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- Exhibit 2: City of San Ramon 2023-2031 Housing Element Update Findings and Responses to HCD October 18, 2022 Letter
December 20, 2022
Finding/Comment # Response Reference
A.1 Fair Housing Enforcement and Capacity: The housing
element must include a summary of fair housing
enforcement and outreach capacity. The analysis must
address how the City complies with state and federal
fair housing laws, including regulations, lawsuits, and related enforcement actions.
Added discussion
of how the City
complies; added
umbrella statement
regarding fair
housing laws.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing) 11.E-2
A.1
(cont.)
Local to Regional Patterns of Income and Concentrated
Areas of Affluence (RCAA): The element briefly
mentions a concentrated area of affluence (p. H.E-47)
and that the City has a much smaller proportion of
lower-income households compared to the County and
Bay Area region (p. H.E-35). However, the element
should include specific analysis of these areas to guide an appropriate policy response. The analysis should at
least address evaluating trends, conditions, comparisons to other neighborhoods and cities beyond the I-680
corridor, effectiveness or absence of past strategies,
local data and knowledge and other relevant factors
related to equitable quality of life. The element must
add or modify meaningful programs based on the
outcomes of this analysis.
Added discussion
of how City relates
to the broader
region, including
income; added
ABAG region
discussion; added
more comparison
to region.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing), 11.E-2
A.1
(cont.)
Local Data and Knowledge: The element must include
local data, knowledge, and other relevant factors to
discuss and analyze any unique attributes about the
City related to fair housing issues. The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture
emerging trends and issues, including utilizing
knowledge from local and regional advocates and
service providers, City staff and related local and
County planning documents.
Discussion
included on a
history of zoning
and land use
policies and how it
contributes to
housing patterns
today, and on the
City’s Measure G.
Additional local
data and
knowledge
discussion
included in
section.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing), 2.4, 2.5, 2.6
And Section 11.2
A.1
(cont.)
Other Relevant Factors: The element must include
other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing
issues in the City. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use, zoning and barriers to housing
choices, investment practices, seeking investment or
lack of seeking investment to promote affordability and inclusion, information about redlining/greenlining,
restrictive covenants and other discriminatory practices, land use related lawsuits, local initiatives, demographic Discussion
included on a
history of zoning
and land use
policies and how it
contributes to
housing patterns
today, and on the
City’s Measure G.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing), 2.6
And Section 11.2
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 391 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- trends, or other information that complements the state and federal data.
A.1
(cont.)
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues: Based on
the outcomes of a complete analysis, the element
should re-assess contributing factors and particularly
prioritize those factors then formulate appropriate
policies and programs.
AFFH updated to
include further
analysis on
contributing
factors and
includes programs
and policies
incorporated based
on revisions.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing)
And Section 11.5
A.2 Extremely Low-Income (ELI) Households: The
element does include some data on the number of
existing and projected ELI households, but it must also analyze their housing needs. The analysis should
evaluate tenure, overpayment, resources, and strategies available and the gap and magnitude of housing needs
to better formulate policies and programs.
Added additional
discussion
recognizing the
vulnerability of
this group.
Section 11.2.4.8
A.2
(cont.)
Analysis of Special Needs Population: While the
element quantifies the City’s special needs populations, it must also analyze their special housing needs. For a complete analysis of each population group, the
element should discuss challenges faced by the
population, the existing resources to meet those needs
(availability senior housing units, # of large units, # of deed restricted units, etc.,), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and
funding to help address those gaps. This analysis
should also address elderly by tenure (renters and
owners).
Added additional
discussion analysis
of housing needs
for special needs
population
Section 11.2.4
A.3 Entitled Projects: While the element may utilize
pending, approved or under construction projects
toward the Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA), it must also demonstrate their affordability
and availability in the planning period. Affordability
must be demonstrated based on actual sales price, rent
level or other mechanisms ensuring affordability (e.g., deed restrictions). Availability should account for the likelihood of project completion in the planning period and should address the status, necessary steps to issue permits, any barriers to development and other relevant factors.
Added additional
discussion
regarding entitled
projects and
affordability/avail
ability.
Table 11.4-2, Section
11.4.2.2 A.3
(cont.)
Realistic Capacity: Where zoning allows 100 percent
nonresidential uses, the calculation of residential
capacity should account for the likelihood of 100
percent nonresidential development. For example, the
element could analyze all development activity in
nonresidential zones allowing 100 percent
nonresidential uses, how often residential development
occurs and adjust residential capacity calculations,
policies, and programs accordingly. This analysis may
Added additional
discussion
regarding entitled
projects and
affordability/avail
ability.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4.3,
11.4.4 2.1.e
Packet Pg. 392 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- incorporate any proposed policies such as residential
performance standards, prohibition of commercial uses
and should clarify that all zones allow residential uses, particularly 100 percent residential uses.
A.3
(cont.)
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element must
include an analysis demonstrating the potential for
additional development on nonvacant sites. While the
element includes parcel by parcel descriptions intended to demonstrate potential for redevelopment, it should
complement these descriptions with a discussion of
existing uses and recent trends or expressed interest to support various factors (e.g., age, improvement to land value, lot coverage) utilized to identify nonvacant sites.
Expanded
descriptions and
support of
potential on
specific sites;
responses
provided to public
comments
incorporated into
Appendix
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4.4.2,
Program 13 and
Program 15
A.3
(cont.)
Nonvacant Sites (Existing Uses): The element must
address the extent existing uses impede additional
development such as market demand for the existing
use and existing leases, contracts or other conditions
that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent
additional residential development. For example, many
sites are parking lots, offices, San Ramon Visitor
Conference Center, and similar uses. The element could
generally describe these typologies and whether the
existing uses impede additional development. Finally,
the City should consider and address public comments
regarding the potential of redevelopment on some
identified sites.
Expanded
descriptions on
existing use sites;
responses
provided to public
comments
incorporated into
section and
Appendix.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4.4.2
A.3
(cont.)
Nonvacant Sites (Recent Trends): Many sites utilize
factors such as age, improvement to land value and lot
coverage to demonstrate the potential for
redevelopment. The element should evaluate recent
trends or expressed interest in redevelopment to support the validity of these factors. For example, the element could list recent redevelopment or expressed interest in redevelopment by the existing use and factors then
evaluate the similarities to identified sites.
Provided
additional
information on
recent trends and
tables on recent
development trend
in San Ramon.
Table 11.4-4 and
Section 11.4.4.2
A.3
(cont.)
Nonvacant Sites (Continued): In addition, if relying
upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50
percent of the RHNA for lower income households, the
housing element must demonstrate existing uses are not
an impediment to additional residential development
and will likely discontinue in the planning period.
(Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Absent findings
(e.g., adoption resolution) based on substantial
evidence, the existing uses will be presumed to impede
additional residential development and will not be
utilized toward demonstrating adequate sites to
accommodate the RHNA.
Noted. Housing
Element has
demonstrated that
the existing uses
are not an
impediment to
additional
development and
will likely
discontinue in
planning period.
Incorporated in
findings
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
A.3
(cont.)
AB 725: For jurisdictions that are considered
Metropolitan, the element must identify at least 25
Statement added
about compliance
Section 11.4.4
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 393 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- percent of the remaining moderate and above moderate
RHNA on sites that allow at least four units of housing (e.g., four plex or greater) (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(4)).
A.3
(cont.)
Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government
Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), upon adoption
of the housing element, the City must submit an
electronic version of the sites inventory with its
adopted housing element to [email protected].
HCD has not received a copy of the electronic
inventory. Please note, the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing
the sites inventory.
Noted. Will
provide HCD an
electronic site
inventory upon
adoption of the
Housing Element
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
A.3
(cont.)
Emergency Shelters: The element mentions emergency
shelters are permitted in the Thorough Fare
Commercial district with capacity to accommodate the
need for emergency shelters but should also discuss
proximity to transportation and services and any
conditions inappropriate for human habitability. The
analysis should also list and evaluate development
standards and add or modify programs if necessary.
Updated sections
to address
emergency shelter
analysis and
incorporated
program revision
Section 11.3.1.8 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 A.3
(cont.)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): After a cursory
review of the City’s ordinance, HCD discovered some
areas which are not consistent with State ADU Law.
HCD will provide a complete listing of ADU noncompliance issues under a separate cover. As a result, the element should modify Program 16 (ADU) to
update the City’s ADU ordinance and comply with
state law.
Program 16
updated
Section 11.5
Program16
A.4 Land Use Controls: The element must identify and
analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as
potential constraints on a variety of housing types.
While the element lists various development standards,
it should also evaluate those development standards for impacts on housing supply (number of units), cost,
feasibility, and the ability to achieve maximum
densities.
Program
modifications
related to
development
standards such as
height, parking,
and increase in
density range to
address missing
middle housing.
Added analysis of
impacts on cost,
feasibility and
ability to achieve
maximum
densities.
Section 11.3.1.5 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 A.4
(cont.)
Land Use Controls (Continued): In addition, the
element should include a discussion of compliance with
State Density Bonus Law. (Gov. Code, § 65915.),
including whether the City has an ordinance and
implementing mechanisms such as application
requirements, granting of density bonuses, concession
Updated density
bonus provisions
based on changes to
State law and
included action in
Program 19.
Section 11.3 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 2.1.e
Packet Pg. 394 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- and incentives, waivers and modifications and parking
reductions. Based on the outcomes of this discussion,
the element should add or modify programs if
necessary.
A.4
(cont.)
Building Codes: The element should identify and
evaluate any local amendments to the building code for
impacts on housing costs.
Added discussion
on local adoption
of 2022 Building
Code and impacts.
Section 11.3.1.11
A.4
(cont.)
Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the
element mentions typical timeframes and that
developments are subject to various reviews; it should
also describe the procedures for a typical single family and multifamily development complying with zoning.
The analysis should address the approval body, the
number of public hearing if any, approval findings and
any other relevant information. The analysis should
evaluate approval findings for impacts on approval
certainty and timing.
Added discussions
and tables on
permit type,
typical number of
hearings,
processing
procedure. Added
analysis of
approval findings.
Section 11.3 and 11.5
A.4
(cont.)
Processing and Permit Procedures (Continued): In
addition, the element must clarify whether there are
written procedures for the SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) Streamlined Ministerial Approval Process and
add a program to address these requirements, if
necessary.
Added discussion
and included in
Program 19
Section 11.3.1.9 and
Section 11.5 Program
19 A.4
(cont.)
Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
The element indicates group homes for seven or more
persons are allowed in all residential zones and subject to a conditional use permit (CUP). The element also
indicates these uses are subject to parking requirements of one space per three beds plus guest and employee
parking. The element should analyze the CUP and
parking requirements for impacts on housing for
persons with disabilities including approval certainty, objectivity, feasibility, timing and cost and add or
modify programs to address the constraint.
Analysis added to
address land use
permit
requirements;
program added to
address parking
and modification
of zoning
requirements.
Section 11.3.1.12 and
11.5 A.4
(cont.)
Other Local Ordinances: The element must analyze any
locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development (e.g.,
inclusionary requirements, short term rentals, growth
controls). While the element (p. H.3-2) explains
Measure G is primarily a growth management
requirement related to the Urban Growth Boundary,
coordinating infrastructure and promoting infill
development, it also explains that any general plan
amendment is subject to four fifths voting requirements (p. H.E-92). The element should analyze the impacts of
requiring a four-fifths vote for any general plan
amendment on housing supply, cost, timing and
feasibility and add or modify programs as appropriate
to address identified constraints.
Added process
requirements and
analysis of
Measure G; added
Program 14 to
evaluate Measure
G with clear
objectives and
timeframe to
address potential
impacts
Section 11.2.6.9,
11.3.1.3, and Program
13 and 14 in Section
11.5 2.1.e
Packet Pg. 395 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- A.4
(cont.)
Potential Nongovernmental Constraints: The element
must be revised to identify the price of land (vacant or nonvacant) and analyze requests to develop housing at
densities below those anticipated in the sites inventory, including hinderance on the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need. The element notes
projects are often approved below the maximum
allowable densities but should also discuss requests of densities below the realistic capacity assumptions in the sites inventory.
Added analysis of
land costs and
development
trends related to
densities.
Section 11.3.2
B.1 To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs
must be revised with specific commitment and discrete
timelines (e.g., at least annually or month and year).
Examples include:
• Program 1 (Neighborhood Preservation): The
Program should commit to how often outreach will be
conducted in targeted areas and consider additional
outreach methods, beyond updating a website.
• Program 2 (City Rehabilitation Grants): The Program
should commit to annually explore and pursue
additional funding.
• Program 6 (Housing Choice Vouchers): The Program
should commit to how often the City will work with
fair housing service providers to educate the
community on source of income protections (SB 329
and SB 222).
• Program 5 (Preservation of Existing Affordable
Housing Stock): The Program could commit to
proactively work with non-profit and public agencies
early in the planning period to develop a strategy, seek funding and other resources to preserve at-risk units
and support tenants.
• Program 9 (Below Market Rate Home Ownership
Program): The Program should commit to how often
the City will promote the availability of the program
and consider distribution at a broader regional level.
• Program 10 (Affordable and Special Needs Housing
Development): The Program commits to annual
outreach at community events and seeking grants to
defray outreach costs. However, the Program should
also specifically commit to annually contact affordable housing developers to identify development
opportunities, including assisting with funding or
supporting funding applications, for lower-income
households, including extremely low-income and
special needs households.
• Program 21 (Regional Partnerships for Affordable
Housing): The Program could commit to support and
assist with pursuing funding such as past efforts related to the Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) as
noted on page H.C-12.
Added specific
commitment and
discrete timelines.
Table provided for
clarity.
Section 11.5
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 396 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- B.2 As noted in Finding A3, the element does not include a complete site analysis; therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results
of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of
housing types.
Updated the site
analysis with
additional
information on
capacity of sites,
non-vacant sites,
and large sites and
updated programs
accordingly.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
Concurrent Rezoning: HCD understands the City will
be completing rezoning prior to the start of the planning period (January 31, 2023) to accommodate the RHNA,
including for lower-income households. Please be
aware, if rezoning is not completed by January 31,
2023, the element must include a program(s) to rezone
sites with appropriate zoning and development
standards pursuant to Government Code section 65583,
subdivision (c)(1), and meet all the requirements of
Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h)
and (i).
Updated to
Program 13 and 15
to acknowledge the
City’s rezone
commitment and byright approval
requirements.
Section 11.5 Program
13, Program 15
B.2
(cont.)
Large Sites: The element should include a program to
encourage the development of housing for lowerincome households on sites greater than ten acres.
Actions could include coordination with property
owners and developers to facilitate appropriate
parceling or site planning (e.g., one to five acres),
establishing incentives, priority processing and fee
reductions.
Included
narratives to
discuss San
Ramon’s large
sites and strategies
to achieve
affordability on
larger sites such as
Inclusionary
Housing
Ordinance.
Appendix 11-D (Sites
Inventory)
And Section 11.4
B.3 As noted in Finding A4, the element requires a
complete analysis of potential governmental and
nongovernmental constraints. Depending upon the
results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any
identified constraints.
Program 14 added
as requested by
HCD to consider
the impacts of
Measure G and to
review/determine
opportunities to
streamline
approvals. Added
Program 18 to
intensify and
increase housing
choices and
affordability by
raising the
baseline density
RS and RM zone
Program to update
zoning standards
that are seen as
Section 11.3 and 11.5
Program 14 and
Program 18
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 397 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023- constraints to
development.
B.4 As noted in Finding A1, the element must include a
complete analysis of AFFH. The element must be
revised to add goals and actions based on the outcomes
of a complete analysis. Goals and actions must
specifically respond to the analysis and identified and prioritized contributing factors to fair housing issues and must be significant and meaningful enough to
overcome identified patterns and trends. Actions must
have specific commitment, discrete timing or
milestones, geographic targeting and metrics or
numerical targets toward AFFH outcomes. As
appropriate, actions must address housing mobility,
new housing choices and affordability in higher
resource or higher income areas throughout the City
(e.g., a variety of choices and affordability such as
missing middle housing types in lower density single
family areas), place-based strategies for community
preservation and revitalization and displacement
protection.
Updated Appendix
to include analysis
of how the City
complies with
enforcement of
housing laws,
analysis of
regional patterns
of income and
concentrated areas
of affluence, and
discussion of local
data related to fair
housing issues.
The City has also
updated Program
24 to include
specific
commitments and
timelines for
meaningful actions
related to
furthering fair
housing.
Appendix 11-E
(Affirmatively
Furthering Fair
Housing)
And Section 11.5
Program 24
C.1 While the element includes quantified objectives for new construction, rehabilitation, and conservation by
income group; it could consider quantified objectives
for conservation beyond at-risk preservation. Examples
of programs that could be utilized include Programs 3
(Green Building), 4 (Code Enforcement), 6 (Housing
Choice Vouchers), 7 (Condominium Conversions) and
15 (Replacement Housing).
Updated Table
11.5-2 to include
quantified
objectives for
housing
conservation.
Section 11.5, Table
11.5-2
D.1 The element should discuss or commit to immediately deliver the housing element to all public agencies that provide water and sewer service.
Upon adoption of
the Housing
Element, the City
is required to
deliver the
Housing Element
to all public
agencies that
provide water and
sewer service to
the City.
Section 11.1.10
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 398 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-
Exhibit 3: Errata Revisions to the City of San Ramon 2023‐2031 Housing Element Update in Response to HCD Comments on January 12, 2023
January 12, 2023
Errata
Change
No.
HCD
Comment
on January
12, 2023
Redline Revision
1. Nonvacant
Sites:
Address
Church of
the Valley
comments
on draft
Housing
Element
(dated
June 10,
2022)
Added on Page H‐D‐23, Notes:
Church of the Valley; Previously unsuccessful Senior Care Facility; open to residential opportunity; capacity based preserving existing primary building and landscaped portions of site and developing remaining area to 75% of max density.
Property owner/developer has been seeking development opportunities on the property, with most recent plan in 2019 for a senior assisted living facility. HE update will facilitate rezone to allow housing land use and provide more flexibility that will not require a use permit for residential homes. The rezoning proposed is a residential overlay to the underlying PS zone and development standards set to facilitate residential development at 6 to 14 du/ac with parking and height standards in line with density ranges of the surrounding neighborhood.
2. Land Use
Control:
Add
analysis of
impacts on
cost,
feasibility
and ability
to achieve
maximum
densities
Edits made previously on pages H.3‐10, 3‐38, 3‐39 and Program 19. Additional summary language added to page H.3‐10 and 3‐11 as follows:
Height Limits
Residential development up to 30 units per acre has a height limit of 35 feet, able to accommodate a three‐story multi‐family structure. However, this 35‐foot limit may limit unit size, potentially constraining the development of a range of unit sizes, especially larger units suitable for family households. Therefore, this Housing Element includes a program action to increase the height limit to 40 feet.
For residential development above 30 units per acre (as in RVH) or mixed use development (as in MU), the City’s height limit is increased to 50 to 60 feet, able to accommodate a four‐story mixed use structure. For example, the recent ROEM Apartments is a four‐story development Type V construction at a density of approximately 66 units per acre. Other similar developments in Contra Costa County include 1501 N. California Boulevard in Walnut Creek. This project is also a four‐story building at about 64 units per acre. In San Pablo, the five‐story Central Avenue Housing has a density of about 67 units per acre and a height of 61 feet.
Parking Standards
Parking requirements for single‐family and multi‐family residential uses in San Ramon are summarized in Table 11.3‐3. Parking required for a prototypical 100‐unit multi‐ family residential development in San Ramon and other Tri‐Valley area communities is presented in Table 11.3‐4. San Ramon’s requirement is nearly the same as what would be required for the same development in Danville and higher than the requirement for the same development in Dublin, Livermore, and Pleasanton. Dublin and Pleasanton are located along the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) lines with stationsstopping at these cities, allowing these cities to take advantage of public transit. Although the provision of off‐street parking can increase the cost of housing, San Ramon’s standards are reasonable as requirements for multi‐family developments are equal to or less than
2.1.e
Packet Pg. 399 Attachment: A: Planning Commission Resolution 01-23, Recommending City Council approval of the General Plan Amendment for the 2023-