HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-31 Housing Element Group 2022-02-17 Agenda Packet
AGENDA
2023-2031 SAN RAFAEL HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE
WORKING GROUP
THURSDAY, February 17, 2022, 4:00 - 6:00 PM
https://tinyurl.com/2p8phx96 (PUBLIC)
Passcode: 714105
Telephone: (669) 900-9128
Meeting ID: 831-8705-1906#
One Tap Mobile: US: +16699009128,,83187051906#
Member Log-In Information Provided Via Email
1. WELCOME
2. RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
3. ACCEPTANCE OF PRIOR MEETING SUMMARIES
A. Summary of January 20, 2022 Meeting
4. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY # 1
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Housing Needs Assessment Presentation. Staff will deliver a PowerPoint presentation on the
Housing Needs Assessment, including data trends, key findings, and implications for Housing
Element policies and programs. Recommended time allowance: 20 minutes
B. Housing Needs Assessment Discussion. The Committee will discuss the Housing Needs
Assessment and provide their perspectives on how the data and trends should shape local housing
policies and programs. State Housing Element law not only requires statistical data about
demographics and housing—it also requires consideration of the experiences and perspectives of
people who live and/ or work in the city . Please review the attached materials in advance of this
discussion. Recommended time allowance: 75 minutes
CORONAVIRUS (COVID-19) ADVISORY NOTICE
In response to Assembly Bill 361, the City of San Rafael is offering teleconference without complying with the procedural
requirements of Government Code section 54953(b)(3). This meeting will be held virtually using Zoom. The public may
participate as follows:
* Submit public comments in writing. Correspondence received by 5:00 p.m. on January 19 will be provided to the Working
Group. Correspondence received after this deadline but by 3:00 p.m. on January 20 will be conveyed as a supplement. Send
correspondence to barry.miller@cityofsanrafael.org and city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org.
* Join the Zoom webinar and use the 'raise hand' feature to provide verbal public comment, or dial-in to Zoom's telephone
number using the meeting ID and provide verbal public comment. At the January 20 meeting, public comment will be taken at
the beginning of the meeting and also at end of the meeting.
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should contact the City Clerk (email city.clerk@cityofsanrafael.org or
phone at 415-485-3066). The City will make its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much
accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with City procedures.
6. MEMBER AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
A. Housing Survey – Staff will provide an update on the Housing Survey. Recommended time
allowance: 10 minutes
B. Other Member and Staff Announcements
7. PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY #2
8. ADJOURNMENT
I, Alexis Captanian, hereby certify that on Friday, February 11, 2022, I posted a notice of the February 17
Housing Element Working Group meeting on the City of San Rafael Agenda Board.
San Rafael 2023-2031 Housing Element Working Group
Meeting #1
January 20, 2022
MEETING SUMMARY
Attendance
Members Present: Omar Carrera, Don Dickenson, Andrew Hening, Linda Jackson, Cesar Lagleva,
Amy Likover, Diana Lopez, Rina Lopez, Tom Monahan, Jon Previtali, Daniel
Rhine, Joanne Webster
Members Absent: Lorenzo Jones (excused)
Staff Present: Alexis Captanian, Alicia Giudice, Barry Miller, Jacob Noonan
(1/2) WELCOME/ RECORDING OF MEMBERS PRESENT AND ABSENT
The meeting was called to order at 4.00 PM. Roll call was taken. Members (and staff) introduced
themselves.
(3) ACCEPTANCE OF PRIOR MEETING SUMMARIES
The summary of the “Meet and Greet” event on December 14, 2021 was accepted. (Motion: Likover,
second: Jackson)
(4) INITIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no initial comments.
(5) DISCUSSION ITEMS
A. Primer on Goals, Policies, and Objectives
Barry Miller provided an overview of the terms used in the Housing Element, explaining the distinction
between goals, policies, and objectives.
B. Opening Ice Breaker: What’s Working and What’s Not
Barry Miller provided an overview of the Evaluation of the 2015 Housing Element, which had been
provided to members prior to the meeting. The Committee then was asked to respond to the following
questions:
• What program(s) in the Housing Element are working well?
• What program(s) in the Housing Element are not working and why?
• What program(s) should be added?
A discussion of these questions followed and the following comments were made:
ATTACHMENT 1
2
• Two threads are missing from the element -
o environmental justice (where structures are built)
o don’t know about the words community and neighborhood. Are they close to a freeway, is there
a sense of community, can kids walk to school, ride their bike
• What’s not working: In-Lieu fee and how it has been used needs improvement. The fe e doesn’t
generate enough funding to create a permanent funding stream. We need to look at creating a
permanent funding stream. What is working: What works: combining the DRB and PC.
• What works well: the ADU program. What doesn’t work well: recent changes to the inclusionary
ordinance, reducing the requirement by too much What we should add: a program encouraging more
energy efficient housing.
• What works well: the effort to end homelessness effort, it has been tremendous. What needs more
work: housing for special needs and supportive housing. Also, please change “senior” housing to
“older adults.”
• What’s not working: Supportive services for homeless residents (too many homeless residents have
died)—there is room for improvement around homeless services. What’s working well - community
collaboration (public/private partnerships) Eden housing at Vivalon, and Homeward Bound. What
I’d like to add: A program to create precise plans in other areas - specifically precise plans that
streamline development of affordable and mixed income housing in neighborhoods through precise
plans.
• What’s not working: Predictability in the planning/building process. City should be proactive (rather
than reactive) on new housing laws (e.g. density bonus law and concessions). What we should add:
Look at housing overlays (to provide incentives for housing) - lay out bonuses and concession in
areas of the city.
• What’s not working: housing policies have historically be discriminatory against BIPOC. The
change to inclusionary housing requirements are a concern. There should be regular reports on this to
see if the effect that the city was aiming for actually happened or if it is just reducing affordability in
new construction. What’s working: An increased commitment to inclusivity and equity, and we
should continue to focus on this.
• What is working - mobile home park rent stabilization. What is not working is that only 2% of SR
residents benefit from this, and the rest of our renters do not. What is working: Housing conditions
and maintenance inspections: 48% of MFR rentals are inspected, is the public aware of the program?
What isn’t working: What about the rest of the units? Do residents get results of the inspections?
Can staff provide more information.
Staff responded with more information and noted that the City was on a 5-year inspection cycle.
Inspectors notify each tenant and the inspector provides a list of corrections to made. A committee
member noted that she has lived in her building for 10 years and not seen an inspection occur during that
time.
• What’s not working: Program H12d (current shelter zoning) – emergency shelters are only allowed
by right in a the industrial area and this should be broadened to more areas of the city. What’s
working: Program H12c (fee waivers)—they are working well at the front end to get projects off the
ground - we should expand this. What we could do better - report back on what we have done.
3
Provide a more proactive way to educate tenants and landlords on their rights and the City’s
programs.
• What’s not working well – I’m concerned about the recent reduction in the inclusionary housing
requirement from 20% to 10%. We have never had a challenge to provide market rate housing, we
have struggled to achieve affordable housing. What has the potential to work well: ADUs to disperse
housing in a way that blends with neighborhoods. We should explore whether folks are taking
advangage of the new laws to build home offices and guest quarters, or are they are actually working
to produce more affordable housing? What’s missing: the Element should include more reference to
sustainability, environmental resources, and avoiding environmental hazards
• What works: Program H1 (housing program review). What is not working: Program H9c (housing
opps for people with disabilities)--there seems to be confusion about disability means. We should
define this (are we referring to developmental disabilities?). Also, Program H3a / H3b -
neighborhood meetings and outreach. We need to expand our relations and connections to include
ALL residents, make sure our participation is authentic, and improve our connections with residents,
leaders, and businesses in all geographic areas.
• What is working: The recent 10% inclusionary change is very helpful to help projects pencil out, in
light of higher construction and development costs.
• The Chamber of Commerce supported the change to 10% because of high costs and slow
construction. This is something that shouod be evaluated and reevaluated over time to see if its
achieving its intended purpose (staff noted that the effects of this change were being tracked and
would be reported out to Council on a regular basis).
• I also concur the earlier comments that development costs are soaring, and further agree that we need
to track the effects of the changes to our inclusionary requirement. It is also important to focus local
dollars on local projects. This is necessary to ensure full financing and make affordable projects more
viable.
An opportunity for public comment was provided, and the following additional comments were made:
• The City should have moved to 15% inclusionary rather than 10%. In-lieu fees need to be higher, and
we should make sure that the 10% that is required is provided on site.
• Disappointed that the ADU ordinance did not prohibit ADUs on narrow streets and in fire-prone
areas. Also, if the City is committing to sustainability, then it should not allow mature trees to be
taken down for new housing.
C. New Housing Goals for San Rafael
The Working Group reviewed the two existing goals in the San Rafael Housing Element, as well as goals
from other Housing Elements that had been provided by staff. Group members were asked to comment
on potential new goals for San Rafael and the following comments were made:
• In their earlier comments, many of the Working Group members spoke about strengthening the
housing element around sustainability—we should keep that in mind as we formulate new goals.
4
• Goals should focus on things that are “Attainable” as well
• Better collaboration with housing developers (more public/private partners); goal of diversifying the
neighborhoods: bring BIPOC into historically white neighborhoods through new housing/
homeownership; break the cycle of poverty in segregated areas.
• Can staff provide the data from the Othering and Belonging Institute? (Staff noted that this would be
provided as part of the “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” analysis)
• Surprised that the existing Element only had 2 goals. We need 5-7 goals that are more well rounded to
cover all the interests and issues at stake. Look at the San Leandro example: (increase supply and
ownership, healthy environment in all housing, calling out specific populations, goals for
homelessness services, commit to housing consistent with RHNA)
• Some of the examples given byt staff read like laundry lists so perhaps we don’t that many but more
than what we have. We should add something about energy efficiency / climate change. Sustainable
housing (in this context, this means: amount of energy used, water used wisely). Requirements phased
in so it is affordable over time.
• Can we model our goals on the Santa Monica example? It touches on most of the major issues and
the wording works will for San Rafael.
• A city that is not segregated, racial, ethnically, economically, and that is connected (transit oriented )
throughout the community
• Look at sustainability in how the building is built as well as the systems and operations. Larger,
denser housing is more sustainable from an energy and resources perspective. Having more people
near transit who are not auto dependent is going to be more sustainable. Also, predictability and ease
in process is imperative to the developer (by-right processes, streamlined processes are key). Use the
word “predictability” in one of the goals.
• Need a goal of racial integration in existing neighborhoods. Poverty and inequity is a policy choice.
We need to show how BIPOC communities benefit from housing.
• Sustainability is also about how many miles someone needs to drive to reach a high quality job.
Building cities that are more walkable, more pedestrian oriented, with mass transit. Our goals should
center on equity.
• Equitable housing for all. We whould increase supply of housing for all people over the term of this
Element. People are moving away from San Rafael and we need to focus on fairness for BIPOC,
seniors, others - so that everyone has a place and everyone can continue to live here. Sustainability -
how will we resolve power outages and environmental events that cause loss of energy for vulnerable
populations.
• We should recognize housing as a human right. This was first mentioned in the 1930s by FDR, and
recently by the current administration. This may sound loaded, but perhaps we can include that we
are striving toward that.
5
• I support all of the inclusivity and diversity comments. But how does the group see this working on a
practical level? As a developer, I cannot select by race or ethnicity - how do we implement these
equity goals in a real world context?
• When it comes to housing, this is a structural issues. The financing and banking institutions are the
gateway to breaking past patterns and need to be involved as stakeholders in effecting real change.
• Inclusionary requirement is a key to bringing equity as well
• I envision a world where the permitting of development is more predictable and land is zoned for a
mix of multi-family as well as single family. Multi-family is less expensive to build and creates
opportunities for a wider range of households to get into homeownership, including lower income
households and people of color.
• I agree with the broad concepts around equity --- If I were a woman of color with children I want to
know that I have options in all neighborhoods of this city. At the same time, we need to be careful as
we streamline our processes because another one of our goals is to maintain San Rafael’s character.
We don’t need to sacrifice the community for the sake of streamlining our permitting. Regarding
financing, we should find more affordable options. If families want to be homeowners, we should
figure out ways to make that possible.
• City of San Leandro has a goal to maximize programs that benefit residents of the city. There are not
enough policies and protections right now to help folks to stay in their housing. This means loams,
legal advocacy, and investing in education, and our capacity to support people. Every community
should be contributing to this (equity needs to be a regional effort).
• If we increase overall supply, we will create more opportunities for people of color to live here. So
many projects end up being “under built” because of public opposition. Part of this discussion is
changing the political will so that we can achieve a community where we can all live, workers, kids,
older folks etc. This means more multi-family housing.
• Fruitvale neighborhood in Oakland is a good case study for partnerships between the City and non-
profits to develop housing. The crisis is huge and needs to be addressed intentionally through
public/private partnerships.
• Appreciates all the panelists comments and agree with a vast majority of the comments.
• One of the benefits of doing Precise Plans/ Area Plans is to address the earlier comment about
safeguarding the neighborhoods. The Downtown plan is very prescriptive with respect to design
standards.
An opportunity for public comment was provided, and the following additional comments were made:
• With respect to increasing generational wealth and home ownership rates, the new Habitat project in
Novato provides an excellent example. I echo the earlier comments around conserving community
character and aesthetics. We can improve access to housing without sacrificing the qualities we
value.
• Youth in Arts and Y-Plan will be engaging elementary school kids at Laurel Dell in the SR Housing
Element. Their work will parallel the work the Working Group is doing, and they are looking for
6
ways that the youth can add valuen to this process. The students are looking at the Canal area and
seeking aspirational solutions to address the housing challenge.
(6) MEMBER AND STAFF ANNOUNCEMENTS
Jacob Noonan and Alexis Captanian provided an update on a Resident Survey to be launched in February
2022.
Barry Miller indicated the dates of upcoming meetings.
A Committee member suggested a potential field trip to the Habitat project in Novato, and a coordinated
effort to work with the Laurel Dell students.
(7) PUBLIC COMMENT OPPORTUNITY #2
Because public comments were taken following agenda Item 5(B) and 5(C), there were no further
comments offered at this point.
(8) ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 PM.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 1
Housing Needs Assessment
1.0 Introduction
The Housing Needs Assessment provides the foundational data for San Rafael’s Housing
Element, including its policies and programs. It provides a comprehensive assessment of the
community’s existing housing needs and evaluates the demographic and housing trends that
shape those needs. The Assessment ensures that the City is not only planning for its fair share
of the region’s future housing needs as required by State law, but also responding to its own
local needs.
The contents of the Needs Assessment are prescribed by California Government Code Section
65583(a). The Assessment is organized into the following sections:
• Population and Employment Profile
• Household Profile
• Special Needs Populations
• Housing Stock Characteristics
• Forecasts and Regional Housing Needs
The Needs Assessment is supplemented by Housing Element Appendix A, which focuses
specifically on the State mandate to “affirmatively further fair housing” (AFFH). The State
published guidance for conducting the AFFH analysis in April 2021, including detailed reporting
and mapping requirements.
Much of the demographic and household data in the Needs Assessment is derived from the
United States Bureau of the Census. The Bureau publishes both the decennial census and the
American Community Survey (ACS). Data from Census 2020 is cited where it is available, but
only some of this data had been released at the time this Needs Assessment was prepared.
Most of the citations reference the ACS data, which is based on a five-year average of
conditions from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2019.1 The ACS data is based on surveys
that are administered to roughly three percent of the city’s residents each year (or about 15
percent over five years). While the data has a margin of error since it represents a sample and
not the entire population, it provides useful benchmarks for evaluating how the city has changed
since the 2010 Census.
Other data sources include a Housing Element “data package” prepared by ABAG; data from
the US Department of Housing and Urban Development, the California Department of Finance,
the Employment Development Department (EDD), the County of Marin, and Marin Housing
Authority; and various private industry sources such as Zillow. The regional forecasts and
Regional Housing Needs Allocation data are from ABAG.
1 At the time this Needs Assessment was prepared, available 2020 Census data was limited to total population and households by
race and ethnicity, housing units, and vacancy rates.
This document includes Sections 1-4
of the Needs Assessment. Sections 5-
6 will be completed and distributed
the week of 2/14
ATTACHMENT 2
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 2
2.0 Population and Employment Profile
This section addresses demographics in San Rafael, with a focus on change over time and
conditions in San Rafael relative to Marin County and nearby communities. It covers population,
age characteristics, race and ethnicity, language, and educational attainment. It also includes a
profile of the labor force and employment conditions. All of these variables can affect the type
and amount of housing that is needed in a community.
2.1 Population Growth and Trends
As of the 2020 Census, San Rafael had 61,271 residents, an increase of 6.1 percent since 2010
and an increase of 9.3 percent since 2000. The rate of growth was significantly higher between
2010 and 2020 than it was between 2000 and 2010. However, San Rafael grew much more
rapidly during the second half of the 20th Century than it did in either of the last two decades.
Chart 1 shows the city’s population growth since incorporation. The City’s population tripled
between 1950 and 1970 and increased by 44 percent between 1970 and 2000.
As illustrated in Table 1, the City’s growth rate since 2000 has been higher than the countywide
average and higher than all but two cities in Marin County. Only Novato and Corte Madera grew
at a faster rate. Between 2010 and 2020, San Rafael gained more residents than any other city
in the county—it’s net gain of nearly 3,558 people represented 36 percent of the countywide
increase. As explained later in this chapter, growth was primarily driven by larger household
sizes and declining vacancies, as very little new housing was added over the decade.
Chart 1: San Rafael Population Growth, 1870-2020
Source: US Census
841 3,290
5,934 8,022
13,848
38,977
48,404
61,271
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
70000
1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020City Population
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 3
Table 1: County and Local Population Growth, 2000-2020
Jurisdiction 2000 2010 2020 % Change
2000-2020
San Rafael 56,063 57,713 61,271 9.3%
Belvedere 2,125 2,068 2,126 0.0%
Corte Madera 9,100 9,253 10,222 12.3%
Fairfax 7,319 7,441 7,605 3.9%
Larkspur 12,014 11,926 13,064 8.7%
Mill Valley 13,600 13,903 14,231 4.6%
Novato 47,630 51,904 53,225 11.7%
Ross 2,329 2,415 2,338 0.4%
San Anselmo 12,378 12,336 12,830 3.7%
Sausalito 7,152 7,330 7,269 1.6%
Tiburon 8,666 8,962 9,146 5.5%
Marin County 247,289 252,409 262,321 6.1%
Source: US Census, 2000, 2010, and 2020
2.2 Age Distribution
Table 2 shows a breakdown of population by age in 2000, 2010, and 2020. Chart 3-1 shows age
distribution graphically, using slightly different age cohorts. The data source for Chart 2 is the
ABAG housing data package, which uses 2015-2019 ACS data for its 2020 estimates.
The past decade has seen a significant increase in the number of school-aged children, a steady
decline in the young adult (25-44) population, relative stability in the middle age (45-64) cohort, and
an increase in the older adult (65+) population. Despite citywide growth, San Rafael has 3,500
fewer residents aged 25-44 in 2020 than it did in 2000. The decline in this population is at least
partially driven by high housing costs and the lack of housing options for younger adults.
The changes between 2010 and 2020 were different than those that occurred between 2000 and
2010. The first decade of the century saw rapid growth in the 55-64 population and only slight
variations in the number of children. The second decade of the century saw much more rapid
growth in the 65-74 group, largely due to the aging of the 55-64 cohort. The number of persons
over 85 declined between 2010 and 2020, while the number of “early seniors” grew by 37 percent.
The growth in school-age population between 2010 and 2020 has been very significant. The city
has over 1,900 more children aged 5-17 in 2020 than it did in 2010. As this population enters
young adulthood in the next decade, they face limited prospects for finding affordable housing in
their hometown.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 4
Table 2: Population by Age, 2000 to 2020
Age
Group
2000 2010 2020(*)
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Pre-School (Under 5 yrs) 3,271 5.8% 3,590 6.2% 3,382 5.8%
School Age (5-17 yrs) 7,726 13.8% 7,664 13.3% 9,556 16.3%
College Age (18-24 yrs) 4,462 8.0% 4,834 8.4% 4,278 7.3%
Young Adults (25-44 yrs) 18,661 33.3% 16,915 29.3% 15,100 25.7%
Middle Age (45-65 yrs) 13,888 24.8% 15,574 27.0% 15,144 25.8%
Early Seniors (65-74 yrs) 3,628 6.5% 4,327 7.5% 5,917 10.1%
Late Seniors (75+yrs) 4,427 7.9% 4,809 8.3% 5,398 9.1%
TOTAL 56,063 100.0% 57,713 100.0% 58,775 100.0%
Median Age 38.5 40.2 41.1
Source: US Census, 2000-2010, December 2020 American Community Survey [ACS], 2015-2019
(*) 2020 totals are based on ACS 2015-2019 data and therefore do not match the 2020 Census.
Chart 2: Age Distribution of San Rafael’s Population, 2010-2019
Source: ABAG Housing Data Package, 2021 (derived from US Census and ACS data)
3.3k6.0k6.2k9.3k9.4k8.6k5.2k3.6k3.0k1.4k3.6k5.9k6.6k8.4k8.5k8.1k7.5k4.3k2.8k2.0k3.4k7.6k6.2k7.0k8.1k8.4k6.8k5.9k3.7k1.7k0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
10,000
Age 0-
4
Age 5-
14
Age
15-24
Age
25-34
Age
35-44
Age
45-54
Age
55-64
Age
65-74
Age
75-84
Age
85+Population2000 2010 2019
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 5
The growth in the youth population over the last 10 years has given San Rafael a different age
profile than the rest of Marin County. While the median age in the city has been increasing,
Marin County’s rate of increase has been faster. The county median was 41.3 in 2000, 44.5 in
2010, and 46.8 in 2019. The City’s median increased from 38.5 to 41.1 during the same time
span. The gap between the city median age and the county median age was 2.8 years in 2000
but grew to 5.7 years by 2019.
There is significant variation in age at the neighborhood level. Figure 1 shows the percentage of
residents under 18 by Census Tract in San Rafael (several of these tracts include residents in
the unincorporated area as well). In Gerstle Park/ Downtown, only 13 percent of the residents
are under 18. By comparison, 38 percent of the residents in the “Core Canal” census tract
(1122.01) are under 18. Less than one percent of the population in the Core Canal census tract
is over 75. By comparison, about 17 percent of the residents in Tracts 1082 (Terra Linda
South), 1060.01 (Smith Ranch), and 1102 (Peacock Gap) are over 75. Many of these residents
have lived in San Rafael for decades and are “aging in community” in the homes where they
raised their families.
Figure 1:
Percent of Population Under 18 by Census Tract
Source: US Census, ACS 2020. City of San Rafael.
> 30%
21-30%
17-20%
< 17%
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 6
2.3 Race and Ethnicity
San Rafael is the most diverse city in Marin County and has become more diverse in the last
decade. Race and ethnicity are considered separate and distinct variables by the Census. The
primary racial groups identified are White, Black/African American, Asian, Native
Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Native American (including Alaska Native), Multi-racial, and Other.
Census choices for ethnicity are “Hispanic/Latino” or “Non-Hispanic/Latino.” The Census
further reports the number of Hispanic and Non-Hispanic residents in each racial group.
Table 3 compares the racial composition of San Rafael in 2010 and 2020. This side-by-side
comparison requires further explanation due to recent changes in the way the Census classifies
Latino residents. Specifically, the percentage of residents selecting “Other” as their race
increased from 14.8 percent in 2010 to 20.8 percent in 2020, while the percentage indicating
they were multi-racial increased from 5.1 percent in 2010 to 12.4 percent in 2020. The
percentage of residents indicating they were Native American tripled, from 1.2 percent in 2010
to 3.7 percent in 2020. Much of this change reflects new guidance from the Census, particularly
for Latino residents who were formerly identified as “White” by the Census.
Based on Census data, the percentage of White San Rafael residents declined from 70.6
percent of the population in 2010 to 54.6 percent in 2020. Black residents declined from 2.0
percent to 1.7 percent, while the percent of Asian residents increased from 6.1 percent to 6.6
percent. Among the 7,583 residents indicating they were multi-racial, 58 percent were “White
plus Other” and 16 percent were “Asian plus Other.” About 7 percent indicated they were
“three or more races.”
Table 3: Racial Composition in 2010 and 2020
Racial Group
2010 2020
Number Percent Number Percent
White 40,734 70.6% 33,427 54.6%
African American/ Black 1,154 2.0% 1,065 1.7%
Native American/ Alaskan 709 1.2% 2,246 3.7%
Asian 3,513 6.1% 4,073 6.6%
Pacific Islander/ Hawaiian 126 0.2% 156 0.3%
Other Racial Group 8,513 14.8% 12,721 20.8%
Two or More Races 2,964 5.1% 7,583 12.4%
TOTAL 57,713 100.0% 61,271 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2010 and 2020
Table 4 shows changes in ethnicity—specifically, the number and percentages of Hispanic/
Latino residents—between 2000, 2010 and 2020. The table shows consistent growth in the
Latino population during this period, with the percentage increasing from 23.4 percent in 2000
to 34.3 percent in 2020. The number of Latino residents in San Rafael increased by roughly
8,000 during the 20-year period, while the number of non-Latino residents dropped by 2,800.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 7
Table 4: Hispanic/Latino Population, 2000-2020
2000 2010 2020
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Hispanic/Latino 13,113 23.4% 17,302 30.0% 21,038 34.3%
Non-Hispanic 43,019 76.6% 40,411 70.0% 40,233 65.7%
Total 56,132 100.0% 57,713 100.0% 61,271 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2000, 2010 and 2020
Table 5 combines race and ethnicity to provide a more nuanced demographic profile of San
Rafael as of 2020, along with a comparison of San Rafael to Marin County as a whole. In 2020,
Non-Hispanic White residents made up 51.5 percent of San Rafael’s population, down from 59
percent in 2010. Countywide, the Non-Hispanic White population was 66 percent in 2020. The
percentage of Latino residents is 18 percent countywide, with 43 percent of all Latinos in Marin
County residing in the city of San Rafael. San Rafael has a slightly higher percentage of Asian
residents than the County and a slightly lower percentage of African-American residents.
The nine-county Bay Area is more diverse than either San Rafael or Marin County, with
significantly larger percentages of African-American and Asian residents. The region as a whole
is 35.8 percent Non-Hispanic White. Relative to the region, San Rafael has higher percentages
of White and Hispanic residents.
Table 5: Race/Ethnicity in San Rafael and Marin County in 2020
Racial Group
San Rafael Marin County Bay Area
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Hispanic/Latino (any race) 21,038 34.3% 49,410 18.8% 1,931,226 24.7%
Non-Hispanic 40,233 65.7% 212,911 81.2% 5,898,623 75.3%
White 31,585 51.5% 173,149 66.0% 2,803,374 35.8%
Black/African-American 1,024 1.6% 6,120 2.3% 435,488 5.6%
Native American 145 0.2% 555 0.2% 18,475 0.2%
Asian 4,015 6.6% 16,175 6.2% 2,152,509 27.5%
Pacific Islander/ Hawaiian 145 0.2% 457 0.2% 43,341 0.6%
Other Racial Group 507 0.8% 2,040 0.8% 50,367 0.6%
Two or More Races 2,837 4.6% 14,415 5.5% 395,069 5.0%
TOTAL 61,271 100.0% 262,361 100.0% 7,829,849 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2020
An evaluation of race and ethnicity within subareas of San Rafael, including maps showing
Census Block Group data, may be found in Appendix A (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing).
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 8
2.4 Language
Language can be an important factor in securing safe, stable, affordable housing. Residents
who are not fluent in English may have a harder time navigating the rental market or
understanding their rights as tenants or prospective homebuyers. They also may face
discrimination in the market and work in lower wage jobs that make it harder to afford decent
housing. Data on language can help the City of San Rafael determine the need for translation
services, including printed and web-based materials in commonly spoken languages other than
English.
According to Census (ACS) data for 2015-2019, 36.1 percent of San Rafael’s residents spoke a
language other than English in their homes, and 18.7 percent of the city’s residents spoke
English “less than very well.”2 Approximately 2.2 percent of the city’s residents (roughly 1,200
people) did not speak English at all. Census data indicates that 92 percent of this population
speaks Spanish.
After English, Spanish is by far the most commonly spoken language in San Rafael. The Census
indicates that 25 percent of the city’s residents speak Spanish at home, including 40 percent
who are bilingual and speak English “very well.” Of the remaining 60 percent, about half speak
English “not well” or “not at all.” This population may require language assistance to access
City services.
Census data also shows significant differences in language across age groups. Among
residents 65 or over, 83 percent speak only English at home and 5 percent speak Spanish.
Among residents under 18, 51 percent speak only English at home while 41 percent speak
Spanish. Nearly half of the city’s children are bilingual, speaking English “well” or “very well”
and also speaking a second language. Most of the City’s residents with limited English are in
the 18-64 age group, with 23 percent of this population speaking English “less than very well.”
Most of this population spoke Spanish, but at least 15 percent spoke other languages.
Table 6 shows the principal languages of “linguistically isolated” San Rafael residents. The
percentage of San Rafael residents who speak English “less than very well” is more than double
the countywide average of 8.1 percent. The city has been an immigrant gateway for several
decades, with 27 percent of San Rafael’s residents born in another country. Among the city’s
foreign-born residents, 20 percent entered the United States after 2010 and 29 percent entered
between 2000 and 2009. As shown in Chart 3, the principal countries of origin among foreign-
born residents are Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador, China, India, and the UK.
Census (ACS) data indicates that Chinese is the second most commonly spoken language in the
city among residents with limited English. This is a change from the 2000 and 2010 Censuses,
when Vietnamese was the second most common language among linguistically isolated
residents.
2 American Community Survey (ACS), 2015-2019, for all residents 5 and over.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 9
Table 6: Linguistic Isolation in San Rafael, 2015-2019
Primary Language Spoken
Residents speaking English “less than very well”
Number Percent of all Residents in City
Spanish 8,374 15.1%
French 68 0.1%
German 49 0.1%
Russian, Polish, other Slavic 154 0.3%
Other Indo-European (*) 432 0.8%
Korean 46 0.1%
Chinese 488 0.9%
Vietnamese 294 0.5%
Tagalog 100 0.2%
Other Asian/Pacific language (**) 163 0.3%
Arabic 43 0.1%
Other and Unspecified 142 0.3%
TOTAL 10,310 18.7%
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019
(*) includes Hungarian, Scandinavian languages, Portuguese, Italian, Hungarian, Farsi, etc.;
(**) includes Japanese, Thai, Laotian, etc
.
Chart 3: Country of Origin for Foreign-Born San Rafael Residents
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019
4987
2412
1191
769 605 532 393 381 342 323 321 279 231 208 201 176 172 167 142 134
1968
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 10
2.5 Employment
The State Employment Development Department estimated that in November 2021, San Rafael
had 31,200 residents in the labor force with 2.6% unemployment. This compared to an unemploy-
ment rate of 2.9% in Marin County and 5.4% Statewide. The local unemployment rate was 12.3%
in April 2020 at the height of pandemic-related lockdowns and has normalized since then.
The 2015-2019 American Community Survey collects data on occupations for residents in each
jurisdiction and metropolitan area in the country. Data for San Rafael, Marin County, and the
nine-county Bay Area is shown in Charts 4 and 5. Chart 4 indicates the percentage of residents
employed in different economic sectors for each area. Relative to the County, San Rafael has
slightly higher percentages of residents in health and educational services and slightly lower
percentages in financial and professional services. Relative to the region, the city has a lower
percentage of residents in manufacturing, wholesale, and transportation and comparable
percentages in other sectors.
Chart 4: Resident Employment by Industry: San Rafael, Marin County, and Bay Area
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019. ABAG, 2021
7%6%6%
27%31%26%
32%30%
30%
3%4%
4%
10%10%17%
10%9%9%
10%9%8%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
San Rafael Marin County Bay AreaShare of Employed ResidentsAgriculture & Natural Resources Construction
Financial & Professional Services Health & Educational Services
Information Manufacturing, Wholesale & Transportation
Retail Other
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 11
Chart 5: Resident Employment by Occupation: San Rafael, Marin County, and Bay Area
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019. ABAG, 2021
While Chart 4 shows data by industry, Chart 5 provides data by occupation. Occupation tends
to be a better indicator of income and the ability to afford housing. Almost half of the city’s
employed residents worked in management, business, science, and arts occupations, slightly
below the percentages for the county and region as a whole. San Rafael had a slightly higher
percentage of its residents in service occupations. The other categories shown in the Chart are
comparable to the county and regional levels.
Chart 6 indicates that 40 percent of the city’s employed residents work within San Rafael.
Another 29 percent work elsewhere in Marin County and 30 percent commute to another
county. Of those commuting to jobs outside Marin County, roughly two thirds work in San
Francisco. Only six percent of the city’s employed resident work in the East Bay, while three
percent work elsewhere in the North Bay and two percent work on the Peninsula or in Silicon
Valley.
48%55%50%
7%
5%
7%
6%
5%9%
18%
20%19%
20%15%16%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
San Rafael Marin County Bay AreaShare of Employed ResidentsService Occupations
Sales And Office Occupations
Production, Transportation, And Material Moving Occupations
Natural Resources, Construction, And Maintenance Occupations
Management, Business, Science, And Arts Occupations
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 12
Chart 6: Place of Work for Employed San Rafael Residents
Chart 7: Place of Residence for Persons Working in San Rafael
Conversely,
San Rafael
40%
Other Marin
29%
East Bay
6%
San
Mateo/
Santa
Clara
Cos
2%
Napa-
Solano-
Sonoma
3%San Francisco
18%
Other
2%
Source: US Census Transportation Planning Package, 2019
San Rafael
27%
Other Marin
30%
Contra Costa Co
9%
Alameda Co
5%
Other North Bay
21%
San Francisco
5%
San Mateo/ Santa Clara
1%Other
2%
Source: US Census Transportation Planning Package, 2019
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 13
Conversely, Chart 7 shows the place of residence for persons who work in San Rafael. The data
reflects conditions prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is acknowledged that some of these
employees may now be working remotely. Nonetheless, as of 2019, there were more people
working in San Rafael than employed residents living in San Rafael. About 27 percent of those
working in the city also live in the city. Another 30 percent commute in from elsewhere in Marin.
About 21 percent commute to San Rafael from other North Bay counties (particularly Sonoma
County) and 14 percent commute from the East Bay.
High local housing costs make it difficult for a large share of the local workforce to live in San
Rafael. The mean travel time to work for San Rafael residents in 2015-2019 was 29 minutes,
which is approximately equal to the regional average. Persons commuting to San Rafael
generally had longer commutes than the regional average, and travel options to local
workplaces (other than driving) are limited. Through its recently adopted General Plan 2040,
the City has established targets to reduce vehicle miles traveled and provide additional local
housing options for those who work in San Rafael. This will require significant investment in
affordable housing, as many local jobs do not provide sufficient wages to afford market-rate
housing in the city.
Table 7 provides a profile of jobs in San Rafael and Marin County by industry sector. In 2019,
35 percent of all jobs in Marin County are located in San Rafael. The largest sector of San
Rafael’s economy is health care and social assistance, with 18 percent of all jobs. This is also
the largest sector of the county economy. About 13 percent of the city’s jobs are in retail trade,
which is a larger share than the county as a whole. Construction makes up 9 percent of the
city’s jobs. Other major sectors are professional, scientific, and technical services, and
educational services, each representing 8 percent of all local jobs. Relative to the county, San
Rafael has a higher share of public administration jobs and a lower share of hospitality jobs.
Chart 8 shows the number of jobs in the city over time. The total was only marginally higher in
2018 than it was in 2002. There was a substantial dip in the number of jobs between 2008 and
2012 as a result of the recession. The City gained back roughly 5,000 jobs between 2012 and
2018, causing increased housing demand and lower vacancy rates. The greatest employment
increases since 2010 have been in health and education services. Retail, professional, and
government jobs have seen moderate declines.
Census data indicates that 47 percent of the jobs in San Rafael paid an annual wage of $50,000
or less. This includes jobs in restaurants, retail stores, health care, transportation, construction,
and other service industries, as well as part-time employment. Wages at this level are well
below the level necessary to afford to live in the city.
San Rafael is a regional employment center and the largest job center in Marin County. The
ratio of jobs to households in San Rafael is 1.76, which is higher than the regionwide ratio of
1.47 and significantly higher than the county ratio of 1.09. Table 8 shows the largest employers
in San Rafael as of 2020, according to the City’s Comprehensive Financial Report. These 10
employers represent 15 percent of the jobs in the city.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 14
Table 7: Jobs by Sector, San Rafael and Marin County, 2019
San Rafael Marin County
Number % of total Number % of total
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting 3 0.0% 504 0.4%
Mining, Quarrying, Oil and Gas Extraction 0 0.0% 3 0.0%
Utilities 53 0.1% 671 0.6%
Construction 3,582 9.1% 7,959 7.0%
Manufacturing 883 2.3% 4,831 4.2%
Wholesale Trade 989 2.5% 2,640 2.3%
Retail Trade 5,087 13.0% 13,497 11.9%
Transportation and Warehousing 1,129 2.9% 1,671 1.5%
Information 835 2.1% 2,625 2.3%
Finance and Insurance 947 2.4% 2,868 2.5%
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 599 1.5% 2,173 1.9%
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 3,137 8.0% 9,396 8.3%
Management of Companies and Enterprises 1,474 3.8% 2,415 2.1%
Administration and Support, Waste Mgmt.,
Remediation 1,808 4.6% 6,711 5.9%
Educational Services 3,129 8.0% 10,468 9.2%
Health Care and Social Assistance 7,151 18.2% 18,253 16.0%
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 650 1.7% 3,260 2.9%
Accommodation and Food Services 2,983 7.6% 11,745 10.3%
Other Services 2,140 5.5% 5,925 5.2%
Public Administration 2,639 6.7% 6,140 5.4%
TOTAL 39,218 100.0% 113,755 100.0%
Source: US Census, 2021. “On the Map” application (https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/)
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 15
Chart 8: San Rafael Employment, 2002-2018
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics, Workplace Area Characteristics (WAC) files, 2002-2018
Table 8: Largest Employers in San Rafael, 2020
Employees
Kaiser Permanente 2,014
Bio-Marin Pharmaceuticals 950
San Rafael School District 700
Dominican University 421
City of San Rafael 410
Guide Dogs for the Blind 227
EO Products 150
Toyota Marin 141
Bucklew Programs 103
Lighthouse 100
Source: 2020 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (May 2021)
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
JobsAgriculture & Natural Resources Arts, Recreation & Other Services
Construction Financial & Leasing
Government Health & Educational Services
Information Manufacturing & Wholesale
Professional & Managerial Services Retail
Transportation & Utilities
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 16
3.0 Household Profile
A household is defined as all persons living in a housing unit. Families are a subset of
households, and include persons living together related by blood, marriage or adoption. Another
subset is “Singles,” which consists of a single person living alone. Finally, “Other” households
are unrelated people residing in the same dwelling unit. Group quarters, such as dormitories or
convalescent homes are not considered households. Household characteristics influence the
demand for different types of housing and provide metrics for evaluating housing conditions and
needs in a community.
3.1 Total Households and Household Size
Chart 9 shows the number of households in San Rafael between 1980 and 2020. There were
23,339 households in the city in 2020, an increase of 575 households since 2010. The rate of
household increase has been slow since 2000, with an annual increase averaging just 0.2
percent. During the 1980s and 1990s, the average annual rate of increase was more than four
times higher.
In 2020, San Rafael had 59,470 residents in households and 1,801 residents in group quarters.
The average number of persons per household (PPH) was 2.55. This is a substantial increase
since 2010, when the average PPH was 2.44. Prior to 2010, the average was 2.42 in 2000 and
2.31 in 1990. Larger average household sizes are an indicator of an increased number of
children per household and the decreased affordability of housing, causing some households to
“double up” and a larger number of adult children to remain at home. It is also a reflection of
demographic changes, including the growth of multi-generational and larger Latino and Asian
families in the city.
Chart 9: Total Number of Households, 1980 to 2020
Source: US Census, 1980-2020
18,757
20,389
22,371
22,764
23,339
17500
18500
19500
20500
21500
22500
23500
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 17
Chart 10: Household Type in San Rafael, Marin County, and Bay Area
Source: ACS, 2015-2019. ABAG, 2021
3.2 Household Characteristics
Chart 10 (above) shows household type in San Rafael, Marin County, and the Bay Area in 2015-
2019. Relative to the County and region, the city has a larger percentage of single person
households and a smaller percentage of married couple family households. One in every three
San Rafael households is a single person living alone.
Approximately 29 percent of the city’s households have children under 18 living at home. This
includes 4,555 married couples, 553 cohabitating couples, 261 single fathers, and 973 single
mothers. Among married couple families with both parents present, 43 percent have children
under 18 living at home. Roughly 34 percent of the city’s households include at least one
resident over 65 years old. Nearly half of these households consist of single persons over 65
living alone.
9%8%10%
4%4%5%
45%51%51%
8%7%9%
33%30%25%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
San Rafael Marin County Bay AreaPercent of HouseholdsFemale-Headed Family Households Male-headed Family Households
Married-couple Family Households Other Non-Family Households
Single-person Households
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 18
3.3 Group Quarters Population
The non-household population in the city included 421 persons in skilled nursing facilities, 509
persons in student housing (dormitories, etc.), 166 persons in correctional facilities, 38 persons
in institutional facilities, and 667 persons in other non-institutional facilities (emergency shelters,
etc.). The group quarters population has been relatively stable since 2000.
3.4 Tenure
Tenure refers to the financial arrangement under which a household occupies a dwelling unit.
The two basic types of tenure are tenancy, where an occupant pays rent to a landlord, and
ownership, where the occupant owns their home. Table 9 shows the number and percentage of
renters in San Rafael in 2000, 2010, and 2019. The city has been trending toward a higher
percentage of renters over the last two decades, with the percentages of each group now
almost even. In 2000, 46 percent of the city’s households were renters. That rose to 48 percent
in 2010 and 50 percent in 2019.
Table 9: Household Tenure, 2000 to 2019
Tenure 2000 2010 2019
Owner Occupied 12,025 11,909 11,706
Renter Occupied 10,346 10,855 11,727
Totals 22,371 22,764 23,433
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010, American Community Survey 2015-2019, ABAG 2021
In Marin County as a whole, 36 percent of the households are renters. Regionwide, the
percentage is 44 percent. San Rafael’s higher percentage is indicative of a larger stock of multi-
family units, and a larger population of lower income households relative to Marin County.
Roughly 30 percent of the county’s renters live in San Rafael, although the city has 22 percent of
the county’s population.
Tenure data can be further analyzed by age and race. In general, renters are significantly
younger than owners. Among households under 45 years old, only 24 percent are homeowners
while 76 percent are renters. Among households over 54 years old, 66 percent are
homeowners while 34 percent are renters. The age cohort with the highest rate of home
ownership is 75-84, with a 75 percent ownership rate.
Table 10 shows tenure by racial and ethnic group in the city. Among White households, the
home ownership rate is 61 percent. Among Latino households, it is 14 percent and among
Black households it is 13 percent. Statewide the home ownership rate is 68 percent for White
households, 49 percent for Latino households and 41 percent for Black households. The
significantly lower rates among Latino and Black households in San Rafael reflects disparities in
income among racial groups, as well as historic lending and sales practices that made it difficult
for non-White groups to own property in the city.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 19
Table 10: Housing Tenure by Race and Ethnicity
Tenure Owners Renters Total Percent
Owners
Non-Hispanic White 9,950 6,484 16,434 61%
Hispanic/Latino 601 3,687 4,288 14%
Black/African-American* 50 321 371 13%
Asian/Pacific Islander (API)* 934 765 1,699 55%
Other/ Multi-Racial* 316 2,949 3,265 10%
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010, American Community Survey 2015-2019, ABAG 2021
Note: Data for Black, API, and Other/Multi-racial includes Hispanic residents as well as non-Hispanic residents. Thus, the categories
shown in this table are not mutually exclusive and the sum exceeds the total number of households in the city.
3.5 Income
Income is the single most important factor in determining housing affordability. Upper income
households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, while lower income
households are more constrained.
Definition of Income Categories and Affordability
The State and federal government have developed metrics for classifying households into
income categories. These metrics are used to define what is considered an “affordable”
housing unit and to determine eligibility for housing subsidies and assistance programs. All
metrics are benchmarked against the areawide median income, or AMI, which is calculated at
the county level. The metrics are further adjusted based on the number of persons in each
household.
Table 11 shows the standardized income groups used by the State of California and the
Association of Bay Area Governments for planning purposes, including local Housing Elements.
Some city, state, and federal programs may use different definitions of each income category or
may use a geography other than the county when calculating “areawide median income” (AMI).
“Affordable housing cost” is defined by State law as being not more than 30 percent of gross
household income. “Severe” overpayment occurs when households pay 50 percent or more of
their gross income for housing. “Housing cost” in this context includes rent or mortgage
payments, utilities, property taxes, and homeowners (or renters) insurance. The income limits
for each category are updated annually by the California Department of Housing and
Community Development.
For each income category, a sliding scale is used based on the number of persons per
household. This recognizes that larger households must dedicate greater shares of their
incomes for food, health care, transportation, and other expenses. Because the income
categories are calculated by county, there are different benchmarks for affordability across
California.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 20
Table 11: State (HCD) Definition of Annual Income Limits for Marin County
Income
Category
% of Area
Median
Income (AMI)
Number of Persons in the Household
1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely
Low 0-30% AMI <$38,400 <$43,850 <$49,350 <$54,800 <$59,200 <$63,600
Very Low 31-50% AMI $63,950 $73,100 $82,250 $91,350 $98,700 $106,000
Low 50-80% AMI $102,450 $117,100 $131,750 $146,350 $158,100 $169,800
Moderate 80-120% AMI $125,650 $143,600 $161,550 $179,500 $193,850 $208,200
Above
Moderate 120%+ AMI $125,650+ $143,600+ $161,550+ $179,500+ $193,850+ $208,200+
Source: CA Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021
Table 12: Upper Limit of Affordable Monthly Housing Costs Based on 2021 Income Ranges
Income
Category
% of Area
Median
Income (AMI)
Number of Persons in the Household
1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely
Low 0-30% AMI <$960 <$1,096 <$1,234 <$1,370 <$1,480 <$1,590
Very Low 31-50% AMI $1,599 $1,828 $2,056 $2,284 $2,468 $2,650
Low 50-80% AMI $2,561 $2,928 $3,294 $3,659 $3,953 $4,245
Moderate 80-120% AMI $3,141 $3,590 $4,039 $4,488 $4,846 $5,205
Source: City of San Rafael, 2021
Between 2013 and 2021, the median income for a household of four in Marin County increased
from $103,000 to $149,600, an inflation rate of 45 percent. In 2021, a household of four earning
less than $146,350 was considered “lower income.” A household of two earning less than
$117,100 would likewise be considered “lower income.”
Table 12 indicates the monthly housing cost that would be considered “affordable” for
households of different sizes in each income category. Using the state’s definition of
affordability, a low-income household of four in Marin County would be able to afford a monthly
housing cost of $3,659. A very low-income household of four could afford a monthly housing
cost of $2,284. If these households are paying in excess of this amount they are considered to
be “overpaying” or “cost-burdened.” In Marin County, most lower income households pay
significantly more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent or mortgages. Many lower income
wage earners commute long distances to areas with more affordable housing for this reason.
Market rate ownership housing in San Rafael is generally not affordable to low or very low
income households. With an income of $146,350, a household of four could potentially spend
$3,659 a month on housing without experiencing a cost burden. Assuming a 10 percent down
payment, 3.2 percent interest rate, and a monthly allowance of $1,400 monthly for taxes,
insurance, utilities, and HOA dues, the threshold for an “affordable” home would be about
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 21
$550,000. Where there are some condominiums in the city at this price point, they are generally
smaller units and may not be suitable for a family of four.
There are more options for “moderate income” households, particularly in the condominium
market. Many condominiums are “affordable by design” to moderate income households,
providing ownership and equity-building opportunities to a segment of the market that has very
few options in most Marin County communities.
Similarly, market-rate rental apartments in the city generally meet affordability guidelines for
moderate income households. Some market-rate rental apartments and accessory dwelling
units in San Rafael also meet affordability criteria for low-income households; however, these
units are often too small for larger households. Market-rate rental apartments in the city are
above the affordability price point for very low income households, with some exceptions. Very
low income households typically “overpay” for housing or double up, with multiple wage earners
in a single household.
Income Characteristics in San Rafael
The median income in San Rafael in 2019 was $91,742. Half of all households in the city earn
more than this amount, and half earn less. This is an increase of 29 percent from the median
reported in the last Housing Element, which was based on 2011 data. The countywide median is
$110,843, which is an increase of 24 percent since 2011. Relative to Marin County, San Rafael
has a significantly larger percentage of lower-income households. Countywide, 21 percent of all
households earned less than $50,000 a year; in San Rafael, the figure was 29 percent. There are
more than 3,100 households in San Rafael earning less than $25,000 a year, representing 13
percent of all households in the city. Chart 11 compares city and county incomes.
The federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) maintains data on income
distribution using the annual income limits cited in Table 11. This is known as the CHAS—or
Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy---data, and it is used in the administration of
various federal housing programs. The CHAS data range for moderate income is 80-100
percent of median, which is different from the 80-120 percent used in the RHNA and by HCD.
Data for San Rafael for the 2014-2018 period shows the following income distribution:
# of households (% of total)
Extremely Low Income (less than 30% AMI) 4,160 (18%)
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI) 3,070 (13%)
Low Income (50-80% AMI) 3,505 (15%)
Low-Moderate Income (80-100% AMI) 2,060 (9%)
Above Median Income (more than 100% AMI) 10,185 (44%)
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 22
Chart 11: Comparative Income Distribution: San Rafael and Marin County
As noted above, approximately 47 percent of the City’s households are lower income, using the
countywide median income as a benchmark. There are more than 7,000 households in San
Rafael who meet the federal definition of very low income, including over 4,000 who meet the
federal definition of extremely low income. By comparison, in the nine-county Bay Area, 39
percent of all households meet the lower income definition.3 The higher percentage of San
Rafael is at least partially due to the fact that the city is located in a very affluent county, with a
median income above the regional average.
There are significant disparities in income in the city across household type, tenure, and race.
The 2015-2019 ACS reported that the median income for married couple families in San Rafael
was $154,800, while the median income for non-family households was $57,000. Family
households tend to have multiple income earners, making it easier to afford housing in the city.
While some non-family households include multiple wage-earners, many are single persons
living alone.
Table 12 shows income by tenure. Owner-occupied households had a median income of
$141,212, which was more than double the median income of $61,595 reported for renters.
More than 41 percent of all renter households had incomes below $50,000 a year, compared to
16 percent for owner households. Nearly half of all homeowners had annual incomes exceeding
$150,000 a year, compared to just 16 percent for renter households.
3 One the reason the percentage of lower income households in San Rafael is so much higher than the regional average is that the
thresholds vary from county to county. A lower income household in Marin County would be considered an “above moderate”
income household in Sonoma County and “moderate” income in the East Bay.
>$20,000,
10%
$20-35K,
9%
$35-50K,
10%
$50-75K,
14%
$75-
100K,
10%
$100-
150K,
16%
$150K+,
32%
>$20,000,
6%
$35-50K,
9%
$50-75K,
13%
$75-
100K,
11%
$100-
150K,
18%
$150K+,
38%
San Rafael Marin County
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 23
Table 12: Household Income Distribution by Tenure
Income Category Owners Renters Total % Marin
County % Households % Households %
Less than $20,000 557 4.8% 1,888 16.1% 10.4% 6.3%
$20,000-$34,999 729 6.2% 1,281 10.9% 8.6% 6.2%
$35,000-$49,999 666 5.7% 1,666 14.2% 10.0% 8.6%
$50,000-$74,999 1,031 8.8% 2,139 18.2% 13.5% 13.1%
$75.000-$99,999 987 8.4% 1,248 10.6% 9.5% 11.2%
$100,000-$149,999 2,067 17.7% 1,584 13.5% 15.6% 17.5%
$150,000 or more 5,669 48.4% 1,921 16.4% 32.4% 37.9%
Total Households 11,706 100.0% 11,727 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Median Income $141,212 $61,595 $91,742 $110,843
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019
Table 13 shows median income by race. In 2019, the median income for non-Hispanic White
households was more than double the median for Hispanic and Black households. As noted in
Table 10, Hispanic and Black households also have much lower rates of home ownership in the
city. Although the sample size is small and the margin of error is high, persons identifying as
Native American had the lowest average incomes in the city, with a median of $40,343. This
includes indigenous populations from Latin America, as well as Native North Americans.
Table 13: Household Income by Race and Ethnicity
Racial/ Ethnic Group Median Income
Non-Hispanic White $115,318
Hispanic/Latino (any race) $55,332
Black/African-American* $48,453
Asian/Pacific Islander (API)* $95,893
Multi-Racial $100,875
Some Other Race $52,006
American Indian/Alaska Native $40,343
Source: American Community Survey, 2015=2019
Note: Data for Black, API, American Indian, and Other/Multi-racial includes Hispanic residents as well as non-Hispanic residents.
Thus, Hispanic persons who also identify as Black, Asian, Native American, and Multi-Racial are double counted in these estimates.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 24
Relationship Between Income and Housing Costs
As indicated above, median income increased by 24 percent between 2011 and 2019. Median
housing costs increased at a faster rate, meaning that a greater share of income goes to
housing costs for most San Rafael households. Table 14 shows the typical wages in the Bay
Area for select occupations. It also shows the maximum monthly housing costs (including
utilities) for these households based on federal standards. The analysis indicates that lower
income occupations generally do not provide sufficient income to afford the median priced
apartment in San Rafael. Likewise, moderate income occupations do not provide sufficient
income to afford most homes in the city. The situation changes for households with multiple
wage-earners, but in some cases, these households are living in housing units that are not large
enough to meet their needs.
3.6 Cost-Burdened Households
As noted above, households are considered to be cost-burdened if they are spending more than
30 percent of their incomes on housing. Overpayment for housing occurs in all income groups
but is more challenging for lower income households given the limited resources to pay for
other household expenses.
Data from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey indicates that 43 percent of all San
Rafael households are considered cost-burdened. This includes 21 percent who are “severely”
cost-burdened (paying more than 50 percent of their incomes on housing). An analysis of the
ACS data indicates the following additional findings:
• The percent of cost-burdened households in San Rafael has actually decreased since the
last Housing Element. The 2015-2023 Element indicated that 47 percent of all households
were cost burdened in 2010 compared to 44 percent today. This may be due to the fact that
the region was in the midst of a recession in 2010, and an economic boom in 2019. It also
does not reflect the rapid run-up in prices since 2019, and the economic hardships created
by the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Renters are considerably more cost-burdened than owners—and the gap is growing wider.
As shown in Table 15, 55 percent of the city’s renters were cost-burdened compared to 32
percent of owners. About 21 percent of the city’ renter households were severely cost-
burdened, compared to 14 percent of homeowners. In the prior Housing Element 53
percent of the city’s renters were cost-burdened, compared to 42 percent for owners. The
percentages have gone up for renters and down for owners.
• Among homeowners, cost burdens were significantly higher for households with mortgages
than for those without. Roughly 38 percent of all owners with mortgages were cost-
burdened, compared to 17 percent for owners without mortgages. There are 561 owner
households with no mortgages that still pay more than 30 percent of their incomes on
housing, presumably on taxes, utilities, HOA dues, and similar costs. More than 1,900
homeowners (representing 16 percent of all homeowners) in the city earn less than $50,000
a year. These households may have limited disposable income for home maintenance and
repair.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 25
Table 14: Bay Area Wages for Select Occupations, 2020
Occupation
Annual Wage Max. Monthly Housing
Allowance Considered
“Affordable”
Extremely Low Income
Fast Food Worker $34,000 $850
Dishwasher $34,440 $861
Home Health Aide $34,470 $862
Cashier $34,480 $862
Retail Salesperson $37,750 $944
Child Care Worker $38,090 $952
Very Low Income
Waiter/ Waitress $40,850 $1,021
Security Guard $42,090 $1,052
Janitor/Cleaner $42,250 $1,056
Pre-School Teacher $43,700 $1,093
Maid/ Housekeeper $44,640 $1,116
Landscaping Worker $45,160 $1,129
Nursing Assistant $48,420 $1,211
Office Clerk $49,650 $1,241
Dental Assistant $53,510 $1,338
Bookkeeping Clerk $55,350 $1,384
Truck Driver $57,790 $1,445
Maintenance and Repair Worker $58,140 $1,454
Bus Driver $61,810 $1,545
Low Income
Auto Mechanic $64,630 $1,616
Carpenter $75,800 $1,895
Graphic Designer $80,820 $2,021
Carpenter $75,800 $1,895
Elementary School Teacher $86,200 $2,155
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for San Francisco-Oakland Metropolitan Area,
May 2020
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 26
Table 15: Percent of Income Spent on Housing Among Owners and Renters
Percent of Income
Spent on Housing
Owners Renters Total
Number (*)
% of
Total Number (*)
% of
total Number (*)
% of
total
Less than 30 % 7,940 68.0% 5,107 45.2% 13,047 56.8%
30-50% 2,155 18.5% 2,927 25.9% 5,082 22.1%
More than 50% 1,574 13.5% 3,264 28.9% 4,838 21.1%
TOTAL 11,669 100.0% 11,298 100.0% 22,967 100.0%
Source: ACS, 2015-2019
(*) Excludes 37 owners and 429 renters that were “not computed”
Table 16: Cost Burden by Income Level
Income Group
Not Cost Burdened
(less than 30% of
income used for
housing)
Cost-Burdened
(30-50% of income used
for housing)
Severely Cost-
Burdened
(more than 50% of
income used for
housing)
Number (*)
% of
Total Number (*) % of total Number (*)
% of
total
Extremely Low
(less than 30% AMI) 630 4.7% 639 14.4% 3,050 64.3%
Very Low
(30-50% AMI) 1,005 7.4% 975 22.0% 935 19.7%
Low
(50-80% AMI) 1,675 12.4% 1,230 27.7% 520 11.0%
Low-Mod
(80-100% AMI) 1,410 10.4% 600 13.5% 165 3.5%
More than 100% AMI 8,815 65.1% 989 22.3% 75 1.6%
TOTAL 13,535 100.0% 4,433 100.0% 4,745 100.0%
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (for 2013-2017); ABAG, 2021
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 27
• Lower income households are more cost-burdened than higher income households (see
Table 16). This is intuitive, but the magnitude of the difference is exponential. Among
extremely low income households, 64 percent were severely cost-burdened. For low
income households, 11 percent were severely cost-burdened. For households with incomes
above the areawide median, only 1.6 percent were severely cost-burdened. Some
extremely low income households may be in danger of losing their housing as rents increase
and as their employment situation changes. Most of these households do not have savings
to cover gaps in employment.
• Chart 12 compares cost-burdened households in San Rafael with cost-burdened households
in Marin County and the nine-county Bay Area. Households in San Rafael were more likely
to be cost-burdened, in part due to the higher percentage of renters in the city relative to the
county and region. The rate of “severe” cost-burden was also higher in San Rafael (21
percent of all households) than in the county (18 percent) and region (16 percent).
• As indicated in Chart 13, non-Hispanic White households in San Rafael were less likely to
face a housing cost-burden than other households. Only 34 percent were paying more than
30 percent of their incomes on housing. The comparable figures for other racial/ ethnic
groups were 38 percent for Asian households, 56 percent for Black households, and 60
percent for Latino households. Nearly 40 percent of the city’s Latino households pay more
than half their household incomes on housing costs.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 28
Chart 12: Cost Burdened Households in San Rafael, Marin County, and Bay Area
Source:
American Community Survey, 2015-2019. ABAG, 2021
Chart 13: Cost Burdened Households by Race and Ethnicity
56%59%62%
22%21%20%
21%18%16%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
70.0%
80.0%
90.0%
100.0%
San Rafael Marin County Bay AreaPercent of Households0%-30% of Income Used for Housing 30%-50% of Income Used for Housing
50%+ of Income Used for Housing Not Computed
65%62%62%
44%38%
18%23%19%
35%
21%
16%13%19%21%
39%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
White, Non-Hispanic Other, Non-Hispanic Asian, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Hispanic, all races
Percent of income spent on housing
0-30%30-50%50%+
Source: American Community Survey, 2015-2019. ABAG, 2021. Excludes 255 households identified as “not computed”
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 29
3.7 Overcrowding
The Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by 1.01 persons or more per room
(excluding bathrooms and kitchens). Units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered
to be “severely” overcrowded. Overcrowding may create health and safety issues for
occupants and stresses the condition of the housing stock. High rates of overcrowding are
often an indicator of an inadequate supply of larger affordable units for lower-income families
and multi-generational households, particularly immigrant households.
The incidence of overcrowding increased significantly in San Rafael in the 1980s and 90s,
growing from 1.9 percent in 1980 to 10.6 percent of all households in the city by 2000. The rate
of overcrowding declined to 6.1 percent in 2010 but has increased again over the last decade.
The 2015-2019 American Community Survey indicates that 10.9 percent of all housing units
meet the Census definition of overcrowding. This is more than double the countywide rate of
4.7 percent. However, it is lower than the statewide average of 14.8 percent.
The percentage of severely overcrowded households in San Rafael nearly doubled between
2010 and 2020, growing from 3.1 percent of all households to 6.0 percent. This is triple the
incidence in the county as a whole. In fact, there were 343 households in San Rafael with more
than 2 persons per room, which represented 77 percent of the countywide total of households in
this category. Statewide, 9.6 percent of all households live in “severely overcrowded”
conditions, which is even higher than San Rafael’s figure.
Table 17 shows overcrowding by tenure in 2010 and 2020. The table indicates significantly
higher incidences of overcrowding among renter-occupied households in both instances,
although the gap became even wider by 2020. All of the increase in overcrowding that took
place over the decade was associated with rental units. The percentage of overcrowded owner-
occupied units actually declined slightly over the decade.
In 2020, about 83 percent of all homeowners lived in housing units with less than 0.5 persons
per room. By contrast, only 48 percent of renters live in housing units with less than 0.5 persons
per room. The percentage of overcrowded rental units rose from 12 to 21 percent over the
decade. The percentage of severely overcrowded rental units rose from 6 to 11 percent.
Overcrowding is more common among lower-income households than among upper-income
households. In fact, 20 percent of all households with incomes below 50 percent AMI met the
Census definition of overcrowding. For households with incomes above the areawide median
income, only 1.6 percent were overcrowded.
Overcrowding is also far more prevalent among Latino households than among White
households. Data from the 2015-2019 ACS indicates that 50.9 percent of all Latino households
in San Rafael experience overcrowded conditions, compared to 1.3 percent among White, non-
Latino households. Data in Appendix A (Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing) illustrates this
spatially, with much higher incidences of overcrowding in the Canal neighborhood census tracts
than the rest of the city. The Canal is characterized by many one and two bedroom rental
apartments, many occupied by households of four persons or more.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 30
Table 17: Overcrowded Households, 2010 and 2020
Persons per Room
Owner Renter All
Households
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent
YEAR 2010
0.50 or less 10,438 82.8% 6044 56.1% 16,482 70.5%
0.51 to 1.00 2,069 16.4% 3394 31.5% 5,463 23.4%
1.01 to 1.50 58 0.5% 680 6.3% 738 3.2%
1.51 to 2.00 0 0.0% 566 5.3% 566 2.4%
2.01 or more 45 0.4% 85 0.8% 130 0.6%
TOTAL 12,610 100.0% 10,769 100.0% 23,379 100.0%
% Overcrowded, 2010 103 0.8% 1331 12.4% 1,434 6.1%
% Severely
Overcrowded, 2010 45 0.4% 651 6.0% 696 3.0%
YEAR 2020 (based on 2015-2019 ACS data)
0.50 or less 9,708 82.9% 5,657 48.2% 15,365 65.6%
0.51 to 1.00 1,952 16.7% 3,562 30.4% 5,514 23.5%
1.01 to 1.50 0 0.0% 1,141 9.7% 1,141 4.9%
1.51 to 2.00 33 0.3% 1,037 8.8% 1,070 4.6%
2.01 or more 13 0.1% 330 2.8% 343 1.5%
TOTAL 11,706 100.0% 11,727 100.0% 23,433 100.0%
% Overcrowded, 2020 46 0.4% 2,508 21.4% 2,554 10.9%
% Severely
Overcrowded, 2020 46 0.4% 1,367 11.4% 1,413 6.0%
Source: US Census, ACS 2011 (2006-2010 data) and ACS 2021 (2015-2019 data)
Note: the ACS data is based on a sample rather than a 100 percent count. As a result, the 2010 and 2020 estimates of households
do not align with the actual number of households reported by the decennial censuses.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 31
4.0 Special Needs Populations
Certain segments of the population may have greater difficulty finding adequate and affordable
housing due to special circumstances related to employment and income, family type and
characteristics, disability, or other household characteristics. State Housing Element law defines
“special needs” groups to include senior households, persons with disabilities, persons with
developmental disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and
people experiencing homelessness. Each of these population groups is described in the
sections that follow.
4.1 Seniors/Older Adults
For the purposes of this discussion, older adults as defined as persons over 65. This is a large
special needs group in San Rafael, with persons in this age group comprising about 20 percent
of the city’s residents. Older adults are considered to have special housing needs because they
may have fixed incomes, higher health care costs, chronic health conditions, and reduced
mobility that make it more difficult to find suitable and affordable housing.
As shown in Chart 14 below, the number of older adults in San Rafael has increased consistently
since 1990. There were more than 11,300 residents over 65 in 2019 based on Census ACS
data, an increase of 24 percent over 2010. The greatest rate of growth was the 65-74 cohort,
which increased by 36 percent over the decade. The 75-84 cohort grew by 31 percent. The
number of residents over 85 declined slightly between 2010 and 2020, dropping from 1,980 to
1,675. However, all segments of the older adult population are expected to increase in the
coming decade as the baby boom (1945-1964) generation continues to age. As the number of
older adults increases, demand for senior housing, assisted living and other forms of supportive
housing will also increase.
Chart 13: Age Distribution of Older Adults in San Rafael, 1990-2000
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1990 2000 2010 2020
65-75 75-85 85+
Source: US Census, 1990-2010,
American Community Survey, 2021
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 32
While older adults represent 20 percent of the total population, they represent a significantly
higher share of the city’s households, particularly among homeowners. In 2020, 43 percent of
the owner-occupied households in San Rafael had a head of household who was 65 or older.
About 21 percent of the renter-occupied households in the city were headed by someone 65 or
older. Older renter households were much more likely to have very low incomes, with 62
percent of San Rafael’s renters over 65 reporting incomes of less than 50 percent of the
areawide median.
Table 18 shows the distribution of older adult households by income and tenure. Just under half
(49.3 percent) of the city’s older adult households were low or very low income. San Rafael had
1,384 older adult households with annual incomes of $25,000 or less, and another 1,401 with
annual incomes of $25,000 to $50,000. While some of these households may have assets such
as their homes or retirement savings, many do not. HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability
Strategy (CHAS) data for San Rafael indicates that 61 percent of the City’s extremely low-
income seniors were spending more than half of their incomes on housing.
For older homeowners, the cost of property taxes, home maintenance, HOA fees, and other
housing costs may create financial hardship. For older renters, there is a high risk of
displacement, as rents continue to rise while monthly incomes are fixed. Small households
living on $25,000 a year can only pay rents of about $600 a month before they are considered
“cost-burdened.”
Table 18: Income and Tenure Among San Rafael Households Over 65
Income Group Owner Occupied Renter
Occupied
Total
Extremely Low (0-30% AMI) 569 990 1,559
Very Low (31-50% AMI) 670 480 1,150
Low (51-80% AMI) 740 395 1,135
Moderate (81-100% AM) 645 155 800
Above Moderate (100%+ AMI) 2,815 340 3,155
TOTAL 5,439 2,360 7,799
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS
tabulation, 2013-2017 release
Note: Definitions of Moderate and Above Moderate in this table are slightly different than HCD limits, as the source document is HUD.
Older adults face other unique housing challenges. About 28 percent of the older adult
population has one or more disabilities. These include mobility limitations that make stairs
difficult, cognitive difficulties, and self-care or independent living challenges that make it hard to
live alone. Many older adults live alone in owner-occupied housing units. Installation of grab
bars, ramps, stair lifts, and other assistance devices may eventually become necessary, and
opportunities for a live-in caregiver may be needed for some households. For lower income
owners, the cost of home maintenance may be prohibitively expensive, particularly as
decreased mobility makes it harder to complete basic maintenance tasks.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 33
A significant percentage of San Rafael’s older adults live alone. According to 2015-2019 ACS
data, there were 1,111 single males over 65 living alone and 2,813 single females over 65 living
alone in the city. Collectively, this represents 17 percent of all households in the city and 50
percent of all the one-person households in San Rafael. Among San Rafael’s 11,700 owner-
occupied housing units, 17.5 percent are owned by someone over 65 living alone. In fact, 10.8
percent---more than 1,250 units---are owned by someone over 75 living alone. This includes
older adults living in “over 55” communities such as Villa Marin and Smith Ranch, but it also
includes a substantial number of long-time residents living in single family detached homes.
Policies to promote second units, including conversion of unused bedrooms to "junior second
units", can enhance utilization of the existing housing stock and provide the economic and social
support to better allow older adults to age in place.
While assisted living provides an option for some older residents requiring a supportive housing
environment, lower income individuals and couples often cannot afford the cost of these
facilities. A survey of 23 assisted living facilities in Marin County indicated an average monthly
cost of $5,822 (roughly $70,000 a year).4 Personalized care is an additional cost above the
basic charge for housing and meals.
The State of California Community Care Licensing Division identifies 29 operational Residential
Care Facilities for the Elderly (RCFEs) in San Rafael, although a few of these facilities are outside
the city limits and have San Rafael addresses. RCFEs provide care, supervision, and assistance
with daily living activities and may also provide incidental medical services. RCFEs in ZIP codes
94901 and 94903 provided capacity for 919 residents. A majority of the facilities are single
family homes being used for group care—16 of the facilities have six or fewer residents. Several
larger assisted living facilities have recently been approved or are under construction in San
Rafael, and at least one larger facility (Nazareth House) closed in early 2021.
Addressing the diverse housing needs of San Rafael's senior population will require strategies
which foster independent living (such as accessibility improvements and accessory dwelling
units), as well as strategies which encourage supportive living environments for seniors of all
income levels and abilities. Programs to assist extremely low and very low income seniors with
housing can help close the affordability gap. For example, this could include grants for home
maintenance and repair, rent subsidies, and easily accessed information about home sharing.
In 2017, a leadership team of local advocates initiated a partnership with the City to ensure that
San Rafael remains a thriving, intergenerational, age-friendly community. The leadership team
prepared a Strategic Action Plan in 2018-2020 and presented that Plan to the City Council and
community in 2021. The Action Plan identifies housing as being one of the seven “domains” of
an age-friendly community and notes the universal importance of housing in influencing the
quality of life and independence of older people. The Action Plan further identifies the need to
be more inclusive in planning for the housing needs of older adults, recognizing existing
patterns of poverty and segregation in the city.
San Rafael’s Age-Friendly Action Plan calls out a number of specific issues to be resolved
through housing policies and programs. These include:
4 Caring.com, 2021
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 34
• Existing homes that no longer meet the needs of their occupants or the community
• Residential care facilities that are not affordable
• A dearth of affordable housing opportunities for older people and their caregivers
Goals, actions, and potential partners have been identified to address these issues. These will
be reflected in the revised goals, policies, and programs in the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
4.2 Persons With Disabilities
A disability is defined as a long-lasting condition that impairs an individual’s mobility, ability to
work, or ability to care for themselves, encompassing physical, mental, and emotional
disabilities. Disabled persons have special housing needs related to fixed incomes, shortage of
affordable and accessible housing, limited mobility, higher health care costs, and the need for
supportive services. Disabilities can hinder access to housing as well as the income needed to
pay for housing.
Disabled Population
The 2015-2019 American Community Survey (ACS) indicates that 8.4 percent of San Rafael’s
residents (4,881 persons) have one or more disabilities. The percentage of residents with a
disability is slightly lower in San Rafael than it is in Marin County (10%) and the Bay Area as a
whole (11%).
Table 19 indicates the nature of the disability reported by age group. The incidence of disability
is much higher for older adults than for the population at large. About one in four residents over
65 have a disability and about 35 percent of all residents over 75 have a disability. By contrast,
the rate is just 5 percent for persons who are 18-64 and 2 percent for persons under 18.
Table 19: Percent of San Rafael Residents with a Disability
Disability Type Under 18 18-64 Over 65 Total
Hearing Difficulty 1.2% 1.1% 11.0% 3.0%
Vision Difficulty 0.6% 0.6% 4.5% 1.4%
Cognitive Difficulty 0.7% 2.7% 7.2% 3.2%
Ambulatory Difficulty 0.6% 2.3% 12.1% 4.0%
Self-care Difficulty 0.4% 1.4% 6.1% 2.2%
Independent Living Difficulty N/A 2.4% 10.5% 4.3%
Any Disability 1.9% 5.4% 25.5% 8.4%
Source: ACS, 2015-2019
Note: Individuals may report more than one disability on their Census forms, so the same persons may appear in multiple rows.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 35
The Census recognizes six disability types in its data tabulation: hearing, vision, cognitive,
ambulatory, self-care, and independent living. These categories are not mutually exclusive and
disabled residents may have more than one of these conditions. As shown in Table 19, the
most common disability for the population at large is ambulatory (one which prevents or
impedes walking). There were 2,184 residents with such a disability, including 1,226 over 65.
Hearing disabilities were relatively common for persons over 65, affecting 1,206 residents (11
percent of all seniors). Vision disabilities affected 1.5 percent of the population, including 4.5
percent of the older adult population.
There were 1,953 residents who reported an independent living disability, representing 40
percent of all disabled persons. For this population, the ability to travel outside the home may
create added expenses or require on-site care, both of which may reduce the availability of
money for housing. An independent living disability may also affect other family members who
may be caregivers and have added expenses related to health care and supervision.
About one third of the city’s disabled adult residents are employed. ACS data for 2015-2019
indicates that there were 797 disabled adults (ages 18-64) in the labor force, including 615 who
were employed and 182 who were unemployed. Another 1,046 were not in the labor force. The
development of housing serving employed adults with disabilities must take other factors into
consideration such as transportation to work.
Persons with Development Disabilities
In 2010, the California legislature passed SB 812 which requires the Housing Element to
specifically analyze the housing needs of persons with developmental disabilities and to identify
resources available to serve this population. “Developmental disability" refers to a group of
conditions that originates before an individual is 18 years old, continues indefinitely, and
constitutes a substantial disability for that individual. The definition includes mental retardation,
cerebral palsy, epilepsy, and autism. The California Department of Developmental Services
(DDS) provides the governing framework for service delivery, including data collection,
oversight, and regulation.
In the 1960s, the State of California created a network of regional centers to assist persons
with intellectual disabilities and their families in locating and developing services for their special
needs. Today there are 21 regional centers in the state, serving over 300,000 individuals. The
Golden Gate Regional Center (GGRC) serves the counties of Marin, San Francisco, and San
Mateo. GGRC’s goals are to minimize institutionalization of developmentally disabled persons
and their dislocation from family and community; and to enable this population to lead more
independent and productive lives.
GGRC served 10,653 persons throughout their service area in 2020-2021, about half of whom
were children and half of whom were adults. Within San Rafael ZIP codes 94901 and 94903, the
Center provided services to 504 residents with developmental disabilities (206 in ZIP Code
94901 and 298 in ZIP Code 94903). About 36 percent of the Center’s San Rafael clients were
under 18. Table 20 indicates the number of GGRC clients by age and location in the city.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 36
Table 20: Developmentally Disabled Residents Served by GGRC w/in San Rafael Zip Codes
ZIP Code 0-17
18 or
older Total
94901
(S. of Puerto Suelo)
111 95 206
94903
(N. of Puerto Suelo)
69 229 298
Total 180 324 504
Source: California Department of Developmental Services, 2021
The California Department of Developmental Services indicated the living arrangements for San
Rafael’s developmentally disabled residents were as follows in 2021:
• 57% lived with the home of a parent, guardian, or family member
• 19% lived independently in their own home or in housing with supportive services
• 16% lived in a community care facility or residential care home
• 5% lived in an intermediate care or skilled nursing facility
• 3% lived in a foster care home or other setting
In 2021, San Rafael had 20 licensed adult residential care facilities, providing supportive housing
for up to 135 adults with developmental or other disabilities. These are primarily small board
and care facilities operating in single family homes with capacities of four to eight persons
(California Department of Social Services, 2021).
Housing Needs for Residents with Disabilities
Special housing needs vary depending on the type of disability a person has. For example,
those with mobility limitations may require accessibility improvements such as grab bars and
lower counter heights, while those with mental health issues may require supportive services
and counseling. Senior housing units are usually designed to meet the needs of those with
mobility impairments, but design for other disabilities (sight, sound, etc.) is less common. In
general, proximity to transit and supportive services, and the ability to accommodate group
living opportunities, are important considerations. Incorporating ‘barrier-free’ design in new
multifamily housing (as required by California and federal Fair Housing laws) is important to
provide the widest range of choices. Affordability is also critical, as people with disabilities may
be living on a fixed income.
Senate Bill 520 requires localities to analyze potential and actual constraints upon the
development, maintenance and improvement of housing for persons with disabilities and to
demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints which hinder the locality from
meeting the housing needs for persons with disabilities. The City of San Rafael regularly
evaluates its zoning ordinance, building codes, and other policies to identify and eliminate
potential barriers to the construction of housing for people with disabilities. Additional
information on constraints to certain housing types will be presented in Chapter 5 of the Housing
Element.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 37
San Rafael has adopted reasonable accommodation procedures for persons with disabilities.
These relate to zoning, permit-processing and building laws, and access to this information by
the public. Chapter 14.26 of the Municipal Code (2005) identifies who is authorized to request
reasonable accommodation provisions, what the application requirements are, and what findings
are needed to grant the request. The procedures allow modification to regular development
standards as needed to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
The City has also adopted regulations for group homes that comply with State regulations and
support community-based housing options for disabled residents. San Rafael does not require
minimum distances between group homes and allows licensed residential care facilities for
disabled residents by right in single family zones. There are no occupancy standards in the
zoning code that are apply specifically to unrelated adults. Examples of affordable projects with
disabled housing in San Rafael include the 11-unit low income Ecology House (opened in 1994),
which is a national model for people with environmental sensitivities.
The City’s zoning code complies with all facets of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). San
Rafael allows displacement of required on-site parking if needed to accommodate ADA
accessibility facilities (ramps, etc.). It allows reduced parking standards for housing serving
persons with disabilities. The Building Division administers Title 24 provisions consistently for all
disabilities-related construction and responds to complaints regarding any violations.
Organizations serving people with disabilities in San Rafael include Buckelew Programs, Casa
Allegra Community Services, Lifehouse, Guide Dogs for the Blind, and the Marin Center for
Independent Living (MCIL). MCIL offers essential services to San Rafael residents with
disabilities, a majority of whom are low or very low income. These services include independent
living skills and peer support, information and assistance, housing preservation, housing referral
and navigation, landlord and tenant facilitation, home modifications, advocacy and assistance,
and disaster relief. The need for affordable housing options for persons with physical, mental,
and developmental disabilities is significant and growing.
For those with developmental disabilities, the Golden Gate Regional Center has identified a
number of community-based housing types that are appropriate. These include licensed
community care facilities and group homes; supervised apartment settings with support
services; and adult residential facilities for persons with special health care needs. For persons
able to live more independently, rent subsidies, affordable housing, and housing choice
vouchers can reduce cost-burdens while providing safe, secure housing.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 38
4.3 Large Families
Large households, defined as households with five or more persons, typically consist of families
with children and extended families. The State of California has identified this population as
having special needs due to the limited availability of affordable and adequately sized housing
units in many communities. In San Rafael, large families are more likely to live in overcrowded
conditions, particularly among apartment renters who face high costs and limited options. Large
families are also more likely to be cost-burdened with respect to housing due to their higher
food, health care, transportation, child care, and similar expenses.
Table 21 provides data on large families in San Rafael in 2000, 2010, and 2020.5 The number of
households with five or more persons has been relatively stable since 2000, increasing slightly
between 2000 and 2010 and decreasing slightly between 2010 and 2020. In 2020, 8.6 percent
of the city’s households had five or more members. This compares to 7.1 percent for Marin
County as a whole and 10.8 percent for the entire Bay Area.
Table 21: Large Households in San Rafael by Tenure, 2000 to 2020
2000 2010 2020 % of all households
considered “large”
Tenure 1-4 5+ 1-4 5+ 1-4 5+ 2000 2010 2020
Owner 11,388 637 11,289 620 11,162 544 5.3% 5.2% 4.6%
Renter 8,875 1,471 9,225 1,630 10,252 1,475 14.2% 15.0% 12.6%
TOTAL 20,263 2,108 20,514 2,250 21,414 2,019 9.4% 9.9% 8.6%
Source: US Census, 2000 and 2010; ACS, 2015-2019
Large families in San Rafael were disproportionately more likely to be renters than owners. Of
the city’s roughly 2,000 large households, 73 percent were renters and 27 percent were
homeowner. This balance does not align with the characteristics of the renter- and owner-
occupied housing stock, resulting in high instances of overcrowding among low-income renters.
Only about 18 percent of the city’s rental units have three or more bedrooms compared to 78
percent of the owner-occupied housing stock. Many large family renters are unable to afford a
home large enough to meet their needs.
Large households in San Rafael are also more likely to have very low incomes than smaller
households in the city. According to 2013-2017 CHAS data from the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, 57 percent of all San Rafael’s large households earned less
than 50 percent of the areawide median income. This compared to 31 percent for households
with one to four members.
The limited incomes among many larger households creates greater housing hardship, as these
families often have other essential expenses that limit the income available for housing. Suitable
5 2020 data is from the American Community Survey for 2015-2019, which was published in 2021.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 39
rental options for large, lower income households are limited. Most affordable and rent-
restricted housing for families is comprised of one and two bedroom units. Affordable three-
bedroom units often have waiting lists which make them unavailable even for qualified
applicants. There is a strong and urgent need for three-bedroom rental units at rents that are
affordable to lower income households in the city.
4.4 Female-Headed Households
Single-parent households require special consideration and assistance because of their greater
needs for child care and other expenses for dependent household members. In particular,
female-headed households with children may have lower incomes than their male counterparts,
limiting housing affordability. In most communities, female-headed households are considered
to be at greater risk of displacement, poverty, and housing overpayment. Additionally, systemic
discrimination against single mothers with children can make it more challenging difficult to find
suitable rental housing, especially in a competitive market.
The 2015-2019 American Community Survey identified 2,110 female-headed families in San
Rafael, accounting for 15.4 percent of the families (and 9.0 percent of all households) in San
Rafael. Roughly 64 percent of these households were renters, which is a higher percentage
than the population at large. In addition, 65 percent had children under 18 living at home,
including 22 percent with children under six years old. In addition, there are 4,595 single (one
person) female-headed households in San Rafael, representing nearly one in every five
households in the city. This includes many residents over 65, including persons with special
needs and/or limited incomes.
Median income for female-headed households with children under 18 was $51,875 in 2015-
2019, whereas it was $180,904 for married couples with children and both spouses present.
2015-2019 ACS data indicates a poverty rate of 14.7 percent in San Rafael for single mothers
with children, compared to 6.8 percent for all families. The Census also disaggregates this data
by race, indicating a poverty rate of 35.7 percent for Latino mothers with children living at home
and no spouse present. The data also indicates that 55 percent of single mother households
have one income, 12 percent have no income, and 33 percent have at least one other person in
the household who is a wage earner.
A sub-population of female-headed households may also need assistance related to domestic
violence. The Center for Domestic Peace, located in Downtown San Rafael, provides
emergency and transitional housing for women and a safe place to live when leaving an abusive
partner and establishing a new life. The Center provides a confidential refuge for abused women
and their children, as well as food, clothing, housing assistance, childcare, and transportation. It
also operates Second Step, a transitional living facility for women and their children with access
to counseling and supportive services. Center for Domestic Peace also provides legal
assistance to abused women and provides education and educational and violence prevention
programs.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 40
4.5 Farmworkers
State law requires that housing elements evaluate the needs of farmworker housing in the local
jurisdiction. Farmworkers are traditionally defined as persons whose primary incomes are
earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. This includes laborers in fields,
processing plants, and support activities. It also includes seasonal workers, including those who
may rely on migrant housing during their period of employment. According to the US
Department of Agriculture Census of Farmworkers (2017), there were 697 permanent and 577
seasonal farmworkers in Marin County. This data is not broken down to the city level but is
primarily associated with persons employed on farms and ranches outside the urbanized part of
Marin County.
The 2015-2019 American Community Survey identified 304 San Rafael residents employed in
agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and mining. Among those employed in agriculture, most
work in wholesale and horticultural businesses rather than on farms or ranches. Additionally,
the California Department of Education indicates there are no migrant worker students in the
San Rafael or Miller Creek school systems (there are 11 in Marin County as a whole). Most of
the county’s agricultural employees reside in West Marin County rather than in the urban tier of
cities along the 101 corridor. To the extent that agricultural workers may desire to live in San
Rafael, their need for affordable housing would be similar to that of other lower income persons,
and affordable housing in the city would serve farmworkers as well as others employed in low-
wage jobs.
4.6 Persons Experiencing Homelessness
The State of California has identified persons experiencing homelessness as a special needs
group. This include persons who are living in a supervised publicly or privately operated shelter
that provides for temporary living, and persons with a nighttime residence that is a public or
private place not designed for (or ordinarily used as) sleeping accommodation, including a car,
park, abandoned building, bus or train station, airport, or campground.
State law requires an analysis of the needs of unhoused residents and an estimate of the need
for emergency shelter in each jurisdiction. SB 2 (2008) requires that cities use this estimate to
identify zoning districts where emergency shelters are allowed as a permitted use. While
planning for the unhoused population is principally conducted by the Marin County Department
of Health and Human Services, ending homelessness is a shared goal that requires
interjurisdictional coordination. The City of San Rafael plays an essential role by creating
development opportunities for housing serving extremely low-income residents, including
transitional and supportive housing, and by working with non-profit partners to deliver services
and guide all residents toward permanent, stable housing.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 41
Population Count of Persons Experiencing Homelessness
The most reliable source of information for evaluating the homeless population in Marin County
is the biennial Marin Point in Time Homeless Count.6 The Marin County Department of Health &
Human Services, in partnership with housing and service providers, faith-based groups and
schools, leads this effort locally. The Point in Time Count is a census of persons experiencing
homelessness, conducted across the country according to a method consistent with U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirements. In addition to meeting
HUD requirements, Marin County also conducted a survey of residents living in vehicles in
February 2021.
At the time of this publication, the most recent “Point in Time Count” for Marin County was
completed on January 27-28, 2019. The Count is as a one-day snapshot of unduplicated
numbers of homeless families and individuals in sheltered, unsheltered and other locations. It is
in no way a complete census of homeless. The Count includes two components: (1) an
enumeration of persons unsheltered individuals and families, such as those sleeping outdoors,
in tents, and in vehicles; and (2) an enumeration of persons living in emergency shelters,
transitional housing facilities, and other temporary shelters. The methodology includes a
detailed survey of each individual counted, with special attention provided to specific
subpopulations.
The Point in Time Count is an essential part of securing federal funding for homeless services. It
also helps policy makers and service providers plan and implement services that meet the
needs of the local homeless population. The Count also allows for evaluation of progress toward
meeting measurable objectives, helps raise awareness of homelessness, and allows an
evaluation of the status of specific subpopulations.
The 2019 survey counted 1,034 homeless residents in Marin County. This represented a slight
decline from 2015 (1,309) and 2017 (1,117), despite substantial increases in homelessness in
the Bay Area and California during this period. Most of the decrease was associated with a
decline in the number of residents living in emergency shelters and transitional housing; the
number of unsheltered residents dropped slightly between 2015 and 2017 and did not change
between 2017 and 2019.
Countywide, approximately 32 percent of the homeless population was sheltered and 68
percent was unsheltered in 2019. Chart 14 shows the place where the individuals counted
were residing on the night of the count.7
Table 22 presents a breakdown of the population experiencing homelessness by jurisdiction in
Marin County. In response to the question “In what city/area did you stay in last night?,”
approximately 25 percent of the unhoused population identified San Rafael. Relative to prior
surveys the percentage identifying San Rafael has been decreasing over time. In the 2013
survey, 48 percent of Marin County’s unhoused population was counted in San Rafael.
6 Refer to the Homeless Count and Survey Comprehensive Report for a detailed description of count methodology and findings.
The Survey is ordinarily conducted every two years, but was not carried out in January 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. It
is scheduled to be conducted on February 17, 2022.
7 This data is for the entire County and not San Rafael alone.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 42
Chart 14: Location Where Unhoused Residents were Counted in 2019 (countywide)
Source: Marin County Point in Time Count, 2019 (countywide percentages)
17%
15%
25%
15%
12%12%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
Housing
Vehicle Tent Boat On the Street Abandoned
Bldg
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 43
Table 22: Community Where Unhoused Residents were Counted, 2019 (countywide)
City/Location on Night Prior to
the Count
# Unsheltered # Sheltered TOTAL
North Marin/Novato 147 163 310
Central Marin 277 94 371
San Rafael 161 94 255
San Anselmo 20 0 20
Corte Madera 39 0 39
Fairfax 5 0 5
Larkspur 28 0 28
Mill Valley 8 0 8
Unincorporated 16 0 16
South Marin 144 0 144
Sausalito 25 0 25
Richardson Bay Anchor
Outs
103 0 103
Belvedere/Tiburon 0 0 0
Unincorporated 16 0 16
Unincorporated West Marin 140 0 140
Domestic Violence Shelter
(location not reported)
0 69 69
TOTAL 708 326 1,034
Source: Marin County Point in Time Count, 2019
Between 2015 and 2019, San Rafael experienced a larger decrease in the number of unhoused
residents than the County as a whole. There were 349 persons counted in San Rafael in 2015,
318 in 2017, and 255 in 2019. In 2019, about 37 percent of these persons were in shelters and
63 percent were unsheltered. The percentage of sheltered residents is somewhat higher in the
city than the county average, as the city includes a disproportionate share of the countywide
shelter capacity.
The Point-in-Time Count included the following findings about persons experiencing
homelessness:
• Half (50%) of the countywide unhoused population is 25-49 years old. 31% is over 50 and
19% is 24 or under, including 9% who are children.
• 67% of the countywide unhoused population is male; 33% is female
• 66% of the countywide unhoused population identifies as White. 17% is Black/African-
American, although Black/African-American residents represent just 2% of Marin County’s
total population
• 19% identify as Latino, which is close to the countywide percentage of Latino residents
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 44
• The percentage of residents who were experiencing homelessness for the first time
decreased from 35% in 2017 to 30% in 2019
• 70% of those counted had experienced homelessness for one year or more
• Nearly three-quarters were living in Marin County when they became homeless
• 47% had been in Marin County for 10 years or longer
• 49% cited economic issues as the primary condition that led to homeless; 36% cited
relationship issues, 16% cited mental health issues, and 14% cited substance abuse issues
• 73% cited a need for rental assistance to get into permanent housing; 42% desired housing
placement assistance
• 34% worked at least part-time—12% had full-time jobs
• 84% identified as straight; 11% identified as LGBT and 4% identified as other
• 28% had spent at least one night in jail or prison in the last year
• 39% had at least some college education
In addition, many of those without housing are experiencing health problems. These include
psychiatric and emotional conditions (42%), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (35%),
chronic health problems (28%), and physical disabilities (25%).
Homeless Subpopulations and Service Needs
The detailed surveys conducted for the 2019 Marin Homeless Point in Time Count provided
information on specific sub-populations including chronically homeless, veterans, families,
unaccompanied children under the age of 18, young adults (18-24), and older adults (60+).
Chronically Homeless. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development defines a
chronically homeless individual as someone who has experienced homelessness for a year or
longer, or who has experienced at least four episodes of homelessness totaling 12 months or
more in the last three years, with a disabling condition that prevents them from maintaining
housing. This is one of the most vulnerable populations in the community, with high mortality
rates and health care costs. These costs are often significantly higher than the cost of providing
individuals with permanent housing and supportive services.
Countywide, the number of chronically homeless persons declined by 28 percent between 2015
and 2019. However, this was the highest need segment of the population, with 65 percent
reporting a chronic health condition and 62 percent reporting PTSD. This population was also
twice as likely as the non-chronically homeless population to have been incarcerated in the prior
12 months. Multiple services, including general health and behavioral health services, are
needed to assist this population.
Veterans. Veterans represent 10 percent of the unhoused population in Marin County. Many
veterans experience conditions that make them more vulnerable to homelessness. Based on
the point-in-time data, this sub-population is more likely to be unsheltered and more likely to be
chronically homeless than the unhoused population at large. Marin’s unhoused veterans were
also more likely to be disabled, more likely to be incarcerated, and less likely to use supportive
services such as free meals, bus passes, and health services, than the unhoused population at
large.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 45
Families. There were 54 homeless families identified in Marin’s point in time count, with 147
persons. This population was largely sheltered, more likely to access services, and more likely
to be homeless due to personal relationship issues than the unhoused population at large.
About two-thirds of the county’s unhoused population reported employment.
Unaccompanied Children and Transition Age Youth. There were eight children under 18 and 99
unaccompanied persons aged 18-24 experiencing homelessness in the county, representing
about 10 percent of the unhoused population. Half identified as LGBTQ and 30 percent had
experience in the foster care system. About 89 percent were living in Marin County at the time
they became homeless. About 88 percent had a high school degree or GED.
Older Adults. There were 320 Marin County residents over 50 who were identified as unhoused
in the point-in-time survey in 2019. Economic issues were identified as their leading cause of
homelessness, and 86 percent had been homeless for at least one year. Older adults were
more likely than other subpopulations to express a need for rental assistance and affordable
housing.
Population in Vehicles
In February 2021, the Marin County Continuum of Care conducted a vehicle count to assess the
current state of homelessness in the county. Since the 2021 biennial count had been
postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, this interim census provided a tool for measuring
progress since 2019. The survey identified 486 persons living in vehicles countywide, an
increase of 91 percent since 2019. About 60 percent of this population was living in RVs or
vans.
The 2021 survey identified 127 persons living in vehicles in San Rafael, representing 26 percent
of the countywide total. This figure was more than double what it was in 2019 (58) but was not
as high as it was in 2017 (154). The findings reinforce the continued need for permanent
affordable housing, as well as a need for safe parking areas for those experiencing
homelessness and living in vehicles.
Inventory of Available Resources
SB 2 requires the Housing Element to include an inventory of the housing resources available
within the community, including emergency shelters, transitional housing, and supportive
housing. The 2020-2024 Marin County Consolidated Plan provides an estimate at the county
level, summarized below in Table 23. An inventory of resources in San Rafael follows.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 46
Table 23: Facilities and Housing for Homeless Households in Marin County, 2020
Emergency Shelter
Beds
Transitional
Housing Beds
Permanent Supportive
Housing Beds
Year-Round
(Current and
New)
Voucher/
Seasonal/
Overflow
Current and
New
Current
and New
Under
Development
Family Beds (Households
with adults and children)
55 3 159 155 0
Individual Beds (Adults only) 149 6- 38 492 10
Chronically Homeless 0 0 0 492 28
Veterans 0 0 0 16 0
Unaccompanied Youth 0 0 0 0 0
Source: Marin County 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan
The Marin County Continuum of Care’s “Response to Homelessness in Marin County” (2019)
indicates that emergency shelter beds are available to 194 people countywide, with 55 beds
reserved for families and 139 beds reserved for individuals. This is based on federal definitions
of “emergency shelter.” The County uses a slightly less rigid definition of emergency shelter in
its planning and identified 266 dedicated beds for chronically homeless persons as of 2018. The
countywide Consolidated Plan indicates that the most severe shortages in the County are for
supportive housing for persons with multiple disorders.
The principal resources within San Rafael include emergency shelters and supportive and
transitional housing operated by non-profit service providers, such as Buckelew Programs, the
Center for Domestic Peace, Center Point, Inc., EAH, Homeward Bound, and St. Vincent de Paul.
Homeward Bound and the Center for Domestic Peace both operate emergency shelters. The
Homeward Bound facilities include the Family Center at 430 Mission Avenue, which can
accommodate up to nine families, and the Carmel Hotel at 830 B Street, which includes 10
emergency shelter beds. Homeward Bound is also replacing its 55-bed shelter at 190 Mill
Street with a new facility that will provide 40 beds for homeless adults and 32 units of permanent
supportive housing for very low income households. An interim facility at 3301 Kerner is serving
as a temporary shelter while construction proceeds.
The Center for Domestic Peace operates at undisclosed locations and serves victims of
domestic violence and sex trafficking and their children. There are also transitional housing
facilities for persons recovering from drug and alcohol addiction. These include the Helen Vine
Recovery Center at 291 Smith Ranch Road (30 beds, operated by Center Point), The Manor at
603 D Street (40 beds, operated by Center Point), and the Women and Children’s facility at
1601 Second Street.
Homeward Bound also manages 26 supportive housing units at the Carmel Hotel (830 B Street)
and 20 supportive housing units for persons with mental health issues at The Palm Court (199
Greenfield). There are also 33 units of supportive housing for disabled residents at 1103 Lincoln
(12 units), 7 Mariposa (10 units) and 410 Mission (11 units), operated by EAH Housing. Finally,
the Marin Housing Authority operates 40 units of housing for disabled persons and income-
eligible seniors at 5 Golden Hinde in North San Rafael.
DRAFT
Housing Needs Assessment * February 10, 2022 partial draft Page 47
The City is participating in the Project HomeKey Initiative, a statewide program that is funding
the acquisition of underused hotels, offices, and other commercial buildings and their
rehabilitation as housing for extremely low-income persons. Project HomeKey funds have been
used by the County of Marin to acquire and renovate 3301 Kerner Boulevard, a former office
building that had become largely vacant. Once completed, this project will provide 44
permanent deeply subsidized housing units with on-site supportive services.
Unmet Need for Emergency Shelter
While San Rafael has a disproportionately large share of the county’s emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and supportive housing, these facilities tend to operate at full or near
capacity. There were 161 unsheltered residents at the time of the last Point in Time Count,
suggesting an unmet need for 161 shelter beds. Although additional shelter capacity is being
created through the Mill Street project, this will replace an existing facility rather than creating a
net gain in shelter beds. The City is making advances toward increasing the supply of
transitional housing with the addition of 44 units at 3301 Kerner and 32 units at the Mill Street
project.
Chapter 5 of the Housing Element addresses the availability of sites for potential future
emergency shelters. The Chapter demonstrates that the City has the land capacity to meet the
existing need. There is a continued need for programs to make such projects more feasible by
closing the gap between project costs and available funding and revenue sources.