Fred Allebach
Member Sonoma Valley Housing Group
Member Santa Rosa/ SoCo NAACP
12/25/23
Abstract
By objective measure and reasonable analysis, lower Sonoma Valley south of Kenwood has 3,757 DUC-status households which amounts to 9,371 DUC-status people. This is 40% of the lower valley unincorporated population. These DUCs are comprised of various communities of interest: mobile home park residents, seniors, white working class, and immigrant/ 1st generation Latino working class. These same communities of interest cross over into the adjacent and contiguous City of Sonoma where DUCs become DACs.
A detailed, cross-Block Group view of local DUCs is the most accurate for seeing where populations and COIs are on the ground.
This study has multiple policy implications for the coming Springs Specific Plan, land use and zoning issues on Arnold Drive and elsewhere, the LAFCO Plan West SoCo DUC study, for possible future City annexations, for AFFH law to address City and Valley segregation, for ground-truthing City/ County Housing Elements, and for General Plans.
Findings
Ø 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. Despite margins of error, this shows a LOT of people and households with DUC status in lower SV.
Ø The unincorporated County in SV has discreet communities of interest with DUC status, these are: MHP residents, seniors, white working class, immigrant/ 1st generation Latinos. These same communities of interest cross over into the adjacent and contiguous City of Sonoma where DUCs become DACs.
Ø The Latino community of interest is centered in the central Springs area and crosses into contiguous El Verano, Springs East, Mission Highlands and City BGs.
Ø Tract 1503.05 (Boyes/ Fetter’s) shows up over and over again as an area with much lower opportunity. The core DUC area in Tract 1503.05 is located in BGs 3 and 4, Central Boyes ad Fetter’s. Contiguous to this core DUC area are BGs 1 and 2 of 1503.04, the El Verano Tract. Tract 1503.05 BG2, Mission Highlands is also contiguous to the core DUC area. The latter BGs all have the highest percent MHI < 80% state MHI. Smaller percentages of the same COI blend into the City of Sonoma west side.
Ø The recent LAFCO MSR for the City Sonoma found a DUC area within the northwest portion of the City’s SOI. Besides Maxwell Park this SOI area is a small neighborhood centering on Melrose Ct of @ 35 lots south of Verano Ave and east of Hwy 12. This area is a small piece of Census Tract 1502.05 BG2, where a portion meets DUC status: from 2021 Census Reporter website: 31% are under $50K median household income and 39.3% are under $60K. 4% (66 people) of this DUC show membership the low-income Latino community of interest, part of a larger whole community of interest that is contiguous to the City of Sonoma.
Ø Temelec, Tract 1503.03 BG4 has 52.1 households < than 80% state MHI; this is clearly DUC status. Senior and MHP communities of interest blend into and are contiguous to the City MHPs and central west side BGs. 41.3% of households in Sonoma MHPs have DAC status; 55.4% of households on the City central west side have DAC status.
Ø A white working-class community of interest is harder to demonstrate. Of the percent of lower MHI SV residents who meet DUC status, those who are not Latino, senior, or MHP residents can be assumed to be white working class.
Ø The wealthiest, whitest SV BGs are Sonoma Mtn, Eldridge, Glen Ellen, Eldridge, Springs northeast, and Boyes south. This correlates well with AFFH Data Viewer 2.0 and TCAC maps.
Conclusion: These findings are evidence that the County has DUCs in SV and that these DUCs are unified with DACs in the adjacent and contiguous City of Sonoma. This has implications for: the coming Springs Specific Plan, land use and zoning issues on Arnold Drive and elsewhere, the LAFCO Plan West SoCo DUC study, for possible future City annexations, for AFFH law to address City and Valley segregation, for ground-truthing City/ County Housing Elements, and for General Plans.
The following sections flesh out the background information data, and methodology of this piece.
Unincorporated Sonoma Valley DUCs from US Census 2022 5-Year ACS survey update
DUC = disadvantaged unincorporated community at 80% and below of state median household income. This study shows percent of unincorporated lower Sonoma Valley (SV) Census Block Groups (BGs), households, and persons with DUC status. See accompanying reference map with BG location and numbering, and Excel chart. Many thanks to Iris Lombard for setting up the Excel charts and for her feedback.
The state has different metrics for DUCs and DACs depending on what agency is doing the measuring. If LAFCO or the County wanted to prove it has populations with DAC status, it could given the example of this study. If it does not, why not? On what assumptions will we see the facts one way or another? What would be the upside and downside of an analysis that shows more, or less DUCs in the unincorporated SV? Why would people not want to see DUCs?
A DUC, by DWR and LAFCO standards, is measured by community of interest with household income below 80% state median household income (MHI). A DAC is the same but in incorporated areas. LAFCO also adds other criteria for minimum DUC qualification including: 10 registered voters or a cluster of 10 homes where the MHI is less than 80% state MHI, and that by SB-244 a DUC can be “all or a portion of a community with an annual MHI less than 80% of state MHI.”
80% CA state MHI
CA State MHI is $91,905 with latest 2022 Census update
80% is $73,524
80% SoCo MHI
SoCo MHI is $99,266 with latest 2022 Census update
80% is $79,413
A SoCo COLA is called for to accurately represent SV DUCs and DACs
Since SoCo MHI is $5,889 higher than state MHI, the real cost of living here is $5,889 higher. A COLA of $5,889 is justified to account for the higher SoCo COL
Data access
Click on this link to access the Census ACS data from the Census Reporter website. Drag map with cursor to locate various BGs; place cursor over BG and click to open data for that BG. Zoom in and out 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
MHI stats are the latest available from recently released updated ACS US Census sources, from the Census Reporter website.
To calculate percent of a BG < 80% state MHI: Using the above data access link, scroll to BG MHI, click show data, then click view table. Add up percent lines up to the $60 - $74,999 line. 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 sometime 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 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, they actually hide and mask critical differences on the ground. Thus, a BG level of analysis is worth undertaking bc it shows more fine-grained population patterns.
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.
Acronyms
ACS US Census American Community Survey
SV Sonoma Valley
LAFCO Local Agency Formation Commission
BG US Census block group
DWR CA Dept of Water Resources
DAC disadvantaged community
DUC disadvantaged unincorporated community
MHI median household income
COLA cost of living adjustment
COL cost of living
SoCo Sonoma County
MHP mobile home park
USA urban service area
AFFH Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
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
No comments:
Post a Comment