Fred Allebach
Member Sonoma Valley Housing Group
Member Santa Rosa/ SoCo NAACP
12/6/23
Where are Sonoma Valley (SV) concentrations of wealth and
poverty? Do municipal boundaries, land use patterns, and zoning keep and
maintain racial and class segregation in SV? What communities of interest are
at stake? Where are any DACs and DUCs?
Acronyms
ACS US Census
American Community Survey
ADU accessory dwelling unit
COI community of interest
CDC Sonoma County Community Development Commission
HCD CA Department of
Housing and Community Development
HE Housing Element
GP General Plan
BOS Sonoma County
Board of Supervisors
LAFCO Sonoma County
Local Agency Formation Commission
AFFH Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
SV Sonoma Valley
USA urban service
area
BG US Census block
group
MFH multifamily home
SFH single family
home
TCAC CA state Tax
Credit Allocation Committee
DWR CA Dept of Water Resources
SDAC severely disadvantaged community
DAC disadvantaged community
DUC disadvantaged
unincorporated community
MHI median household
income
COLA cost of living adjustment
COL cost of living
MHV median home value
SoCo Sonoma County
MA median age
MHP mobile home park
MH mobile home
BA Bachelor of Arts degree
EJ environmental justice
CEQA CA Environmental Quality Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
VMT vehicle miles traveled
MSR LAFCO Municipal Services Review
SSP SoCo Springs Specific Plan
CDC SoCo Community Development Commissions
COC
SoCo Continuum of Care
Data and Excel charts
The Excel charts in thus study were created and organized by
Iris Lombard. All data in the charts is by Block Group from the US Census, 2022
5-Year ACS survey update, the currently most recent. ACS data was obtained from
from the Census Reporter website.
One Excel chart is for the City of Sonoma. Another shows the
rest of the unincorporated Valley south of Kenwood. Two others show
unincorporated and City Block Groups respectively that meet DUC status at and
below 80% state and SoCo MHI.
The Excel charts have the raw data from which others can
study and check my conclusions and/or draw their own. This type of ACS data
needs periodic updating as new ACS figures come out.
Data access
Click on this link
to access the Census Reporter ACS BG data. Drag map with cursor to locate
various BGs; place cursor over BG and click to open data for that BG. Zoom in
and out on the map portion for a larger Valley view or street detail view. Once a BG is open, scroll down below the map
to see data for that BG. Cursor needs to be put in data section to scroll down.
Methodology (to show how COIs cross BGs in SV)
To calculate percent of a BG < 80% state MHI: Using the
above data access link, scroll to BG category MHI, click show data, then
click view table. Add up percent lines up to the $60 - $74,999 line. For
this study I took $73,524/ 80% state MHI as equivalent to
$74,999.
To calculate number of households < 80% state MHI: ask
what percent of the households < 80% MHI are of the total number of BG
households.
To calculate number of people < 80% state MHI: multiply
persons per household by number of households < 80% state MHI.
Margin of Error
Smaller units of measurement like Census BGs have larger
margins of error than Census Tracts, even though the data is the exact same at
the Tract level. Despite sometimes large margins of error in ACS BG-level data,
I believe valid and compelling patterns are shown. Margins of error can just as
well be that DUCs/ DACs are undercounted as well as overcounted.
Using Tract-only data collapses and erases valid local
demographic differences. While Tracts may technically have less of a margin of
error, using Tracts only hides and mask critical differences on the ground, a
kind of margin of error of its own. A BG level of analysis is worth undertaking
bc it shows more fine-grained population patterns and doesn’t erase real
differences.
Both BG and Tract levels need to be taken with a grain of
salt, with an eye to seeing the actual and the larger picture.
The County uses ACS data as a primary source, personal
communication from Dave Kiff, former interim Sonoma City Manager, former CDC
Director and current SoCo Homeless Services Division Director.
Block Group reference maps
Two different maps with BGs numbered are provided for the
incorporated City of Sonoma and for the SV unincorporated area south of
Kenwood. The Excel charts show the respective BG number and name.
Political aspects of what data to use
The City and County may be playing a waiting game: as more
time goes by, more lower income people and households are displaced, the less
pressure to have to address them. This waiting game may be accompanied by an
insistence to use Tract-only analysis that erases the true extent of lower SV
DUCs and DACs and/or to only recognize studies that don’t challenge the status
quo.
2024 updated MHI numbers will only increase the number of
cost burdened people, as real estate and rental costs have only gone up here
while working class income has not kept pace. Aling with an increase in
cost-burdened people is an ill-measured trajectory of displacement. If current
trends stay, SV will gradually sort to more white and more wealthy, equity and
segregation issues will thereby be externalized. Externalizing serious issues
is unsustainable.
Patterns
In lower SV, south of Kenwood, there is not an east-west
pattern of wealth disparity like there is in central Sonoma City but more one
of a creeping gentrification, of primarily white, low-density unincorporated TCAC
Highest Recourse Opportunity Areas encroaching on the lower-income core
urbanized areas, especially on a majority of Block Groups (BGs) in the Springs,
and on the City’s west side. Temelec and 7 Flags are a land use island showing
a hop scotch pattern of development, as is the 8th Street East
industrial area.
Sonoma Valley has a classic “other side of the tracks”
residential pattern with whites dominating Sonoma’s east side and foothills
unincorporated areas, and lower-income Latinos, many of DAC and DUC status,
concentrated in the Springs, in Tract 1503.05 and contiguous/ adjacent BGs.
Lower income whites and seniors are mixed into the Springs
and form a majority on the City’s central west side and mobile home park area
BGs where some meet DAC and DUC status as well. Temelec and 7 Flags are part of
an SV lower-income senior community of interest that extends into the City’s
west side.
In SV, great wealth and great poverty are in close proximity
yet separate. This is similar to the Bennet Valley-Roseland pattern along the Hwy
101 Corridor. Sonoma County as a whole shows typical US suburban segregation
patterns as noted by Richard Rothstein in his book
The Color of Law, A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated
America.
It’s noteworthy that during the BOS Redistricting process
the Bennet Valley wealthy white community of interest was unified into the SoCo
1st District. The 1st District includes SV. The
unification of the Bennet Valley community of interest served to tip the 1st
District to an even more wealthy white population compared to other SoCo BOS
districts. AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 maps support this observation.
This study looks to find and demonstrate the extent of
SV cost burdening on lower income populations and communities of interest, and
to accurately describe the location of SV DACS and DUCs. Correct DAC, DUC, and
cost-burdened household location has bearing on:
-compliance with state AFFH laws
-the current LAFCO 2023 DUC study
-the accuracy of the current LAFCO City of Sonoma MSR
-the SSP
-Land Use and Sustainability Elements in the Sonoma city and
Sonoma County GPs
-the Sonoma and County HEs and HE compliance
-City and County GP EJ and Sustainability Elements
-possible future annexations by the City of Sonoma
-fair and equitabke allocation of resources in SV
Municipalities, City and County, tend to concentrate only on
themselves; this study allows for both discreet City and County views while
also providing a whole-valley context.
This study demonstrates the need for more 100% lower-income affordable
housing in SV and shows where this housing should and shouldn’t go to address
SV race and income segregation and to meet state AFFH law. Lower income housing
should go in higher resource areas in the City and unincorporated USA and not
be packed into already lower resource areas.
A DUC
and a DAC are both measured part- or all-ways by household income below 80%
state MHI. CA DWR defines a DAC as
a community with less than 80% state MHI, period. DUCs are also measured by membership
in a discreet community of interest, at least 10 registered voters or a
cluster of 10 homes where the MHI is less than 80% state MHI. According to
SB-244, a DUC can be “all or a portion of a community with an annual MHI less
than 80% of state MHI.” DUC membership is therefore not limited to a Tract or
BG. See also SB-244
for DUC criteria. Note, DUCs are only in unincorporated areas.
The core Latino lower income community of interest in SV is
in the unincorporated Springs centering on Tract 1503.05. Members of this same
community live in contiguous BGs of Tracts 1503.04 (El Verano), 1502.05
(Mission Highlands/ City NW side), and 1503.06 (Springs east.) A white, senior,
lower income community of interest can be found in contiguous tracts, of Tract
1503.03 (Temelec) and Tract 1502.03 (MHPs/ City west side.) The Temelec DUC low-income
senior community of interest is in a BG contiguous to City of Sonoma MHPs.
“Contiguous” location is important for any City annexation
study and possible Springs/ Temelec annexation because with demonstrated
contiguous location, the City can’t ignore these DUC COIs. The City may have
incentive to not recognize the validity of this study and to minimize
contiguous DUC location bc in the event of an annexation such DUCs would become
a City responsibility. One argument against annexation is that it would cost
the City too much money.
80% CA state MHI
2022 Census update CA State MHI is
$91,905
80% is $73,524
80% SoCo MHI
2022 Census update SoCo MHI is $99,266
80% is $79,413
A SoCo COLA is called for to accurately represent SV DACs
and DUCs
Since SoCo MHI is $5,889 higher than state MHI, the real
cost of living here is higher. A COLA of $5,889 is justified to account for the
higher SoCo COL.
Lower SV and City people below 80% state MHI
9,371 unincorporated people
4,309 City people
Total: 13,680
Lower SV households below 80% state MHI
3,757 unincorporated households
2,157 City households
Total: 5,914
Finding: Unincorporated lower SV (Tracts and BGs south of
Kenwood) has 3,757 households at <80% state MHI. 3,757 households here meet
the criteria for DUC status. These 3,757 households amount to 9,371 people.
Given a total lower SV population of approximately 35,000, subtract 11,000 from
the City of Sonoma and that leaves 24,000 people. Approximately 40% of the
lower SV unincorporated population has DUC status. Add Sonoma back in and
roughly one third of lower SV households
and population are at DUC and DAC status. Despite margins of error, this shows
a LOT of people and households with DUC status in lower SV.
Finding: The City’s central west side (Tract 1502.04
BG2) qualifies as a DWR DAC and the City’s mobile home park area (Tract 1502.03
BG3) qualifies as a DAC with a SoCo COLA.
Concentrations of poverty by BGs
The top three BGs in SV with the most cost burdened
households are Central Boyes/ Fetter’s, Sonoma central west side, and Temelec.
Nine other SV BGs have mid-40%+ of the households living at
80% and below state MHI.
The most cost burdened BGs are in the Boyes and Fetter’s Hot
Springs, El Verano area, Temelec, West El Verano, and Sonoma central-west side.
Lovall Valley (north of Lovall Valley Rd) and Schellville Colony also show high
cost burdening.
The percent of Lovall Valley residents at 80% or less MHI
belies that this BG is TCAC Highest Resource Opportunity Area. The wealthy are
able to hide income for tax purposes.
Concentrations of wealth by BG
The top wealthy BGs are: Sonoma Mtn., Eldridge, Glen Ellen, and
north Springs foothills. Foothills areas are the highest dollar areas. Six
other SV BGs have mid-75%s of households living above 80% state MHI, including
the City’s east side.
The 2023 TCAC opportunity area map
correlates with ACS
data showing a growing gentrification encroaching on the SV USA, especially
into the core Latino Springs area of El Verano and Boyes/ Fetter’s BG area.
This has bearing on figuring displacement and externalized equity issues, in
City and County GPs and HEs, the SSP and other SV policy/ planning initiatives.
Land use planning
The historical intransigence of Sonoma to accept higher
density infill and the existing over-concentration of lower-income housing on
the City’s west side and in the Springs means that new lower-income housing in
SV is justified along Arnold Drive, in the SV USA, to at once address AFFH law,
the high County 6th cycle RHNA allocation, and growing SV concentrations
of wealth.
In the City itself, concentrations of west side poverty and
east/ northwest/ northeast side wealth indicate that current City HE plans to
put 88% of City 6th cycle lower-income RHNA on Hwy 12 and West Napa
St., in the already lowest income areas of the City are possibly in violation
of AFFH law for maintaining patterns of race and class segregation. See
successful lawsuit
against Clovis, CA and an HCD-approved HE.
Upshot.
Single family zoned areas are well entrenched and defended
by activated NIMBY cohorts, that have an over-represented influence on City and
County officials. The people with the highest voter registration and the most
resources dominate land use as demonstrated in SV by restrictive policies like
the City’s UGB and SV community separators. These policies artificially
constrain developable land and drive up prices in a dynamic I call the Green
Checkmate.
City UGB, green separator, and USA boundary are optional
land use constraints making for a tight, limited area where new housing can go.
Poverty and 100% AH projects are already concentrated in above-noted lower-income
areas. Any SV USA developable space (opportunity areas) is hotly contested by
status quo property owners and Greens, and tends to go mostly lower-density market
rate for housing, leave only inclusionary provisions to gain new AH units,
especially in the City where ADUs and duplexes are seen as an equity panacea.
This Green Checkmate dynamic and pressure to keep a segregated, low-density,
suburban Sleepy Hollow Stasis puts the onus for 100% AH production on upzoning
in low density, single family home areas. This upzoning has to be at a scale
able to produce serious numbers of 100% AH units, not just “soft density” with
unaffordable ADUs and plexes only.
Conclusion
There are salient patterns of wealth and poverty
concentrations in SV. Approximately one third of lower-Valley households and
population meets DAC/ DUC status with MHI below 80% of state and SoCo MHI. SV
has a history of and existing patterns of segregation.
Tract-level analysis and Tract-level framing of local
demography hides real socio-econ differences and real lower income communities
of interest. A cross-BG level of analysis is called for to properly identify
DAC and DUC communities of interest and to not erase them with mathematical/
methodological sleight of hand.
Powers-that-be have to want to see equity issues and this
starts with electeds directing staff to address the salient issues brought up
in this study. If electeds believe in UGBs and community separators and
city-centered growth, the choice is clear: serious upzoning is called for in
higher opportunity, lower density areas in the USA. If not, then allegiance to
low density land use character stands as an impediment to SV equity and
integration.
A DAC/ DUC COLA is justified for SoCo and if not, a higher
percentage of people and households in SV south of Kenwood will remain cost
burdened with no chance for any official mitigations.
The SoCo LAFCO Plan West DUC study consultant should share
their data sources and tools with the public so their findings can be
contextualized, checked, and replicated. The findings and conclusions in this
study can be compared to the Plan West DUC study.
At the lower SV level, south of Kenwood, there is not so
much an east-west pattern of segregation but more one of low-density
unincorporated TCAC Highest Recourse Opportunity Areas encroaching on
lower-income core urbanized areas.
The findings in this study can serve as data for existing
conditions in the Sonoma and County GPs and GP Land Use and Sustainability
Elements, as well as updating HEs with more accurate info. These findings also
serve to justify the need for more 100% AH projects in SV, and to locate these
projects in areas that do not exacerbate AFFH segregation issues.
The historical intransigence of Sonoma to accept higher
density infill and the existing over-concentration of lower-income housing in
the Springs means that new lower-income housing is AFFH-justified along Arnold
Drive, in the SV USA, to at once address the high County 6th cycle
RHNA allocation and growing/ encroaching concentrations of wealth.
Higher density infill through eliminating single family
zoning is also called for on the City’s east and northeast sides. ADUs that are
not objectively affordable cannot stand as a panacea for needed AH; ADUs and
small plexes are not a realistic cure for needed AH.
Land use tensions exist between social justice and
environmental preservation advocates. This is a truth versus truth moral
dilemma which Sustainability full cost
accounting needs to rectify. AFFH, social equity, and segregation many times
stand aside from environmental morals and preservationist rationales such as VMT,
nature preservation, fire evac, and putative water shortages, which are used to
justify and maintain SV segregation.
How does this tension between social justice and
environmental preservation get resolved in SV and SoCo? RHNA and AFFH are on
one hand and CEQA/ VMT/ and Green values are on the other. We are now at a
place where full cost accounting/ triple bottom line sustainability gets
checkmated by its constituent elements. Economic and environmental
sustainability pillars have dominated SV policy and planning in SV with social
justice as collateral damage. It’s time that equity and social justice takes an
equal place on the triple bottom line here. In a place where economy and
environment rule, when will equity have its day?
Bottom line: low density property owners want to protect
their investments. Land use changes that foster more integration is a pragmatic
threat to their wealth and socio-economic dominance. It’s easy enough to see
the environment and character proxy arguments used to defend an indefensible
hoarding of resources and wealth that stand counter to all universal Golden
Rule morality. If AFFH and the US proposition that all are created equal are
valid points, artificial impediments that perpetuate class and race segregation
need to be addressed and removed. This will demand that those with more and
unfairly hoarded resources start to share them out in a more substantial way,
especially in terms of inclusive land use and zoning policy.
To call inequitable and segregatory land use into question
in SV, staff, decision makers and the public will need to steel themselves to
go against what is already a structurally inequitable system. Either folks
stand up and be counted or they remain at various levels of being complicit in
maintaining an unjust society.
Map Key
1 Mission Highlands Tract
1502.05 Block Group 2
2 Springs east
foothills 1503.06 BG3
3 Springs east
1503.06 BG1
4 Springs northeast
1503.06 BG2
5 Boyes south 1503.05
BG2
6 Boyes central
1503.05 BG 4
7 Fetters 1503.05 BG3
8 ag/ separators 1503.05
BG1
9 El Verano south
1503.04 BG 4
10 El Verano 1503.04 BG3
11 El Verano central 1503.04 BG2
12 El Verano north 1503.04 BG 1
13 El Verano west 1503.03 BG3
14 Temelec 1503.03 BG4
15 Diamond A 1503.03 BG1
16 Sonoma Mtn 1503.03 BG2
17 Eldridge 1505.02 BG1
18 Glen Ellen 1505.01 BG3
19 Vineburg 1501 BG1
20 Shellville Colony 1501 BG3
21 Embarcadero 1501 BG 2
