DOCSLIB.ORG

Alameda County HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice February 2015 Bae Urban Economics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Alameda County HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice February 2015 Bae Urban Economics bae urban economics Alameda County HOME Consortium Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice February 2015 bae urban economics February 9, 2015 Ms. Linda Gardner, Director Ms. Kelly Thiemann, HCD Manager Alameda County Housing and Community Development Department 224 West Winton Avenue, Room 108 Hayward, CA 94544 Dear Linda and Kelly, We are pleased to provide you with this final 2015 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for the Alameda HOME Consortium of Jurisdictions. It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff. Sincerely, Janet Smith-Heimer, MBA Managing Principal San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 1285 66th St. 803 2nd St., Suite A 488 South Hill St., Suite 301 1400 I St. NW, Suite 350 49 West 27th St., Suite 10W Emeryville, CA 94608 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Washington, DC 20005 New York, NY 10001 510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486 www.bae1.com Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ I Key Findings ................................................................................................................................. ii 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Purpose of the Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ....................................... 1 1.2 Methodology .......................................................................................................................... 2 1.3 Organization of the AI ............................................................................................................ 3 2. BACKGROUND DATA .......................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Demographic Data................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Household Income Data..................................................................................................... 24 2.3 Employment Data ............................................................................................................... 33 2.4 Housing Profile .................................................................................................................... 36 2.5 Public and Assisted Housing .............................................................................................. 60 2.6 Linkages between Housing and Employment Centers ..................................................... 68 3. IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE....................................................................... 75 3.1 Housing Challenges for Special Needs Populations ........................................................ 75 3.2 Fair Housing Violations....................................................................................................... 81 3.3 Lending Policies and Practices .......................................................................................... 85 3.4 Access to Affordable and Subsidized Housing ................................................................. 89 3.5 Regulatory Impediments to Fair Housing Choice ............................................................. 92 4. CURRENT FAIR HOUSING PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES ................................................. 100 4.1 Programs and Activities that Promote Fair Housing Choice .......................................... 100 4.2 Programs that Support Access to Affordable Housing ................................................... 114 5. RECOMMENDATIONS TO SUPPORT FAIR HOUSING CHOICE ......................................... 120 Policy 1: Secure Federal Funding for Community Development Activities .......................... 120 Policy 2: Maintain and Implement an Updated Housing Element ....................................... 121 Policy 3: Ensure Consistency between Local Zoning Ordinances and Fair Housing Choice121 Policy 4: Support Local Fair Housing Activities and Services ............................................... 122 Policy 5: Support Special Needs Housing .............................................................................. 123 Policy 6: Support Fair Lending Practices and Access to Credit ............................................ 124 Policy 7: Continue and Expand Support for Affordable Housing Production ....................... 124 Policy 8: Support Access to Affordable and Market-Rate Housing Units ............................. 125 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEES .......................................................................... 127 APPENDIX B: LOW INCOME BLOCK GROUPS ........................................................................ 128 APPENDIX C: MINORITY CENSUS TRACTS ............................................................................. 131 APPENDIX D: RENTAL MARKET DETAIL ................................................................................. 132 APPENDIX E: AFFORDABLE HOME PRICE CALCULATOR ........................................................ 133 APPENDIX F: PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LINKAGE MAPS .................................................... 135 Table of Tables Table 2.1: Population and Household Trends, 2000-2014 ........................................................... 5 Table 2.2: Population Projections, Alameda County, 2010-2040 ................................................. 6 Table 2.3: Household Projections, Alameda County, 2010-2040 ................................................. 7 Table 2.4: Household Composition and Size, 2014 ....................................................................... 9 Table 2.5: Large Households, 2014 (a) ........................................................................................ 11 Table 2.6: Female-Headed Households with Children, 2014 ...................................................... 12 Table 2.7: Age Distribution, 2014 ................................................................................................. 14 Table 2.8: Persons with Disabilities, Civilian Non-Institutionalized, 2008-2012 ....................... 15 Table 2.9: Race and Ethnicity, 2014 ............................................................................................. 16 Table 2.10: Language Spoken at Home for Population 5+ years old, 2014 .............................. 22 Table 2.11: Household Income Distribution, 2014 ...................................................................... 25 Table 2.12: Percent Extremely Low-, Very Low-, and Low-Income by Household Type, 2007- 2011 (a) .......................................................................................................................................... 27 Table 2.13: Poverty Status, 2014.................................................................................................. 28 Table 2.14: Major Employers, Alameda County, 2014 ................................................................ 33 Table 2.15: Job Projections, Alameda County, 2010-2040 ......................................................... 35 Table 2.16: Housing Unit Type, 2014............................................................................................ 37 Table 2.17: Tenure Distribution of Occupied Units, 2014 ........................................................... 38 Table 2.18: Housing Stock Age, 2014 .......................................................................................... 39 Table 2.19: Housing Conditions, 2008-2012 ............................................................................... 41 Table 2.20: Residential Units Permitted by Building Type, Consortium, 2004-2014 ................ 42 Table 2.21: Residential Units Permitted by Jurisdiction, 2004-2014 ......................................... 43 Table 2.22: Multifamily Residential Units Permitted by Jurisdiction, 2004-2014 ..................... 44 Table 2.23: Single Family Residential Units Permitted by Jurisdiction, 2004-2014 .................. 44 Table 2.24: Median Sale Price by Jurisdiction, 2014 (a) ............................................................. 47 Table 2.25: Rental Market Trends, 2009 – 2014 (a) .................................................................. 49 Table 2.26: Affordability of Market-Rate Single-Family Homes and Condominiums, Q2 2014 – North County Jurisdictions ............................................................................................................. 51 Table 2.27: Affordability of Market-Rate Single-Family Homes and Condominiums, Q2 2014 – Mid-County Jurisdictions ................................................................................................................ 52 Table 2.28: Affordability of Market-Rate Single-Family Homes and Condominiums, Q2 2014 – South County Jurisdictions ............................................................................................................. 53 Table 2.29: Affordability of Market-Rate Single-Family Homes and Condominiums, Q2 2014 – East County Jurisdictions ............................................................................................................... 54 Table 2.30: Affordability of Market-Rate Rental Housing, Q2 2014 ........................................... 56 Table 2.31: Overpayment, Owner and Renter Households, 2007-2011 .................................... 57 Table 2.32: Overpayment by
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry
    Golden Gate Transit & Golden Gate Ferry 2013 Passenger Study Draft Methodology Report Conducted by: Redhill Group December 23, 2013 TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 FIELD SURVEY OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS ...................................... 1 PHONE SURVEY COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................ 2 DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN ............................................................................. 3 GOLDEN GATE TRANSIT: ............................................................................... 3 GOLDEN GATE FERRY: ................................................................................. 13 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................. 20 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................... 20 TELEPHONE SURVEY ................................................................................... 21 DATA COLLECTION: FIELD SURVEYS ........................................................... 23 RECRUITMENT .............................................................................................. 23 TRAINING ....................................................................................................... 24 DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURE ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center Plus Mixed-Use Retail Development
    Revised Traffic Study for: San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center plus Mixed-Use Retail Development Prepared for: PBS&J and the City of San Leandro Submitted by: 180 Grand Avenue, Suite 250 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 839-1742 x103; Fax: (510) 839-0871 April 06, 2010 www.dowlinginc.com Contact: Damian Stefanakis April 06, 2010 Post Buckley Shue & Jernigan 353 Sacramento Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attn: Michael Kay, Project Manager Subject: Revised Traffic Report for the San Leandro Kaiser Medical P09066 Center and Mixed-Use Retail Development Project Dear Mr. Kay, Dowling Associates is pleased to submit the revised traffic report for the San Leandro Kaiser Medical Center plus Mixed-Use Retail Development Project. The detailed calculations and volume graphics are provided in the attached Technical Appendix. Sincerely, Dowling Associates, Inc. Damian Stefanakis Debbie Chan Yueh, AICP Principal Senior Transportation Planner Table of Contents Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 6 Environmental Setting .............................................................................................................. 7 Background and Terminology .................................................................................. 7 Study Area ................................................................................................................ 8 Existing (2007) Traffic Conditions ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Final Audit Summary Report, TFCA Program Manager Fund
    BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT PROJECT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2017 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND Table of Contents Page 1. Introduction…….…….…….…………………………………………………………….…….. 1 2. Project Description …….………….………….………….………………….………….……... 1 3. Audit Process…….…….…….…….…….….………….………….………………...…….…... 3 4. Program Manager Findings…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….….. 4 Appendix: A- Health and Safety Code Sections 44241 and 44242…….…….…….…….…….…………... 7 B- Listing of Audited Projects…….…….…….…….…….…….…….…….……….…………. 11 i BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND Audit Summary Report For the Project Period Ended June 30, 2017 1 – INTRODUCTION The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District), created by the California legislature in 1955, is the state’s first regional agency dealing with air pollution. The Air District regulates stationary sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties in California. The Air District’s jurisdiction includes Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, City/County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, southern Sonoma County, and south-western Solano County. The primary mission of the Air District is to achieve ambient air quality standards designed to protect the public’s health and the environment. The Air District is governed by a twenty-two-member Board of Directors who has the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution within its jurisdiction 2 – PROGRAM DEISCRIPTION Health and Safety Code Section 44223 and 44225 authorize a surcharge on the motor vehicle registration fee (surcharge) to be used by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District) and local governments specifically for programs to reduce air pollution from motor vehicles.
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission Programming and Allocations Committee February 12, 2014 Resolution Nos. 4053, Revised, 4084, Revised and 4086, Revised Subject: Federal Grants Status Update and Revisions to the Lifeline Transportation Program Third Cycle Program of Projects. Background: As reported at the Committee’s December 2013 meeting, FTA Jobs Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) funds totaling about $2.0 million lapsed on September 30, 2013 due to delays in U.S. Department of Labor certification of the grants requesting those funds from FTA. The delays were the result of a dispute over potential conflicts between the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) and federal transit labor law. MTC submitted a letter to the FTA Administrator requesting that the lapsed funds be reinstated, but this request was denied. The lapsed JARC funds were programmed for the Lifeline Transportation Program Cycle 3 program, which funds projects that improve mobility for the region’s low-income communities, and were included in grants that had been submitted to FTA by MTC, Santa Rosa CityBus and AC Transit. In order to maintain funding for Lifeline, staff has developed a proposed plan to replace all of the lapsed funds. The plan includes the following elements, which are detailed in Attachment A: A total of $1.75 million in population-based STA funds would be allocated to subrecipients in MTC’s grant to offset the loss of FTA funds. Of the total, about $692,000 would be redirected from an allocation for the regional Means-Based Fare Study that was part of the Lifeline Cycle 3 program, and $1.05 million would come off the top of the region’s FY2013-14 Lifeline program category of population-based funds.
    [Show full text]
  • San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report City of San Leandro
    San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report City of San Leandro San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report February 2020 Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc. | i San Leandro FLEX Shuttle Expansion Plan Final Report City of San Leandro Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................1-1 Nelson\Nygaard ................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Initial Project Goals ............................................................................................................................... 1-4 2 San Leandro Demographics .............................................................................................2-1 Poverty ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Race/Ethnicity ......................................................................................................................................... 2-1 Seniors ...................................................................................................................................................... 2-1 People with Disabilities ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 Non-English Languages ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • San Francisco Bay Ferry
    San Francisco Bay Ferry 2013 Passenger Study Draft Methodology Report Conducted by: Redhill Group January 21, 2014 - THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ i LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ iii LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. iv PROJECT OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1 COMMUNICATIONS SUMMARY ......................................................................... 1 FIELD SURVEY OPERATIONS COMMUNICATIONS ...................................... 1 PHONE SURVEY COMMUNICATIONS ............................................................ 2 DETAILED SAMPLING PLAN ............................................................................. 3 SURVEY INSTRUMENTS .................................................................................. 12 FIELD SURVEY ............................................................................................... 12 TELEPHONE SURVEY ................................................................................... 13 DATA COLLECTION: FIELD SURVEYS ........................................................... 15 RECRUITMENT .............................................................................................. 15 TRAINING ......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bay Area Air Quality Management District
    BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT PROJECT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Introduction 1 Program Description 1 Audit Process 2 Program Manager Findings 3 Oversight Findings 3 Appendix: A – Health and Safety Code Sections 44241 and 44242 4 B – Listing of Audited Projects by Program Manager 7 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TRANSPORTATION FUND FOR CLEAN AIR PROGRAM MANAGER FUND AUDIT SUMMARY REPORT FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 2013 1. INTRODUCTION The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (Air District), created by the California legislature in 1955, is the state’s first regional agency dealing with air pollution. The Air District regulates stationary sources of air pollution within the nine San Francisco Bay Area counties in California. The Air District’s jurisdiction includes Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Marin County, Napa County, City/County of San Francisco, San Mateo County, Santa Clara County, southern Sonoma County, and south-western Solano County. The primary mission of the Air District is to achieve ambient air quality standards designed to protect the public’s health and the environment. The Air District is governed by a twenty-two member Board of Directors who has the authority to develop and enforce regulations for the control of air pollution within its jurisdiction. 2. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION Health and Safety Code Sections 44223 and 44225 authorize a surcharge on the motor vehicle registration fee (surcharge) to be used by the Air District and local governments to fund projects that implement transportation control measures in accordance with the 1988 California Clean Air Act and the 2010 Clean Air Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Model Documentation Report
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE TRAVEL MODEL PLAN BAY AREA 2040 UPDATE Final Documentation Report January, 2019 Prepared by: Alameda Countywide Travel Model | Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Alameda Countywide Travel Model ........................................................................................ i Plan Bay Area 2040 Update.................................................................................................................................. i Table of Contents ....................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. v Summary ................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Features .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Key Updates .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Selected Consistency Results ............................................................................................................................. 3 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2015-2016
    Adopted Budget Fiscal Year 2015-2016 June 10, 2 015 Table of Contents FY 2015-2016 Adopted Budget Introduction General Manager’s Message ........................................................................................ 1 Resolution Adopting the General Fund Operating and Capital Budget ....................... 3 Overview of Operating Budget FY 15-16 Adopted Operating and Capital Budget Summary ...................................... 9 FY 2014 to FY 2024 10-Year Forecast ...................................................................... 10 FY14-15 Mid-Year Budget vs. FY15-16 Adopted Revenue Budget Chart ............... 13 Percent Share of Operating Expenses by Use of Funds Chart ................................... 14 FY14-15 Mid-Year vs. FY15-16 Adopted Operating Expense Budget Chart ........... 15 FY14-15 Mid-Year vs. FY15-16 Adopted Budget by Department Chart .................. 16 General Fund Operating Expense Budget by Department ......................................... 17 Alameda Contra Costa Transit District Organization Chart ...................................... 18 Assumptions for Revenues and Expenses Budget FY 2015-16 ................................. 19 Adopted Budget FY 2015-16 - Position Count by Department ................................. 27 Adopted Budget FY 2015-16 - Position Summary - Count by Type ......................... 28 FY 15-16 Authorized New Positions ......................................................................... 29 FY 15-16 Operating Revenue Projections .................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • GL: JARC FY11-FY12 – Large UA (TIP ID – REG110032)
    GL: JARC FY11- FY12 – Large UA (TIP ID – REG110032) Last updated with 2017 TIP Update FTIP BACK-UP LIST FOR JARC PROGRAM - FY2011 & FY2012 PROGRAM OF PROJECTS FOR LARGE URBANIZED AREAS (REG110032) As Updated with TIP Revision 17-00 Project Total Federal Total Project No. County Subrecipient Program Year Local Share Name Description Share Cost MTC Grant (Subrecipients + Admin & Technical Assistance) 1 ALA Cycles of Change Neighborhood Bicycle Neighborhood Bicycle Centers / "Bike-go-Round" provides free bikes $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 20,000 Centers/"Bike-go-Round" - and safety training to referred low-income adults for their work 2012 Operations commute. An extension of the Lifeline Cycle 2 funded program for FY 2017 calendar year 2012. 2 ALA Cycles of Change Neighborhood Bicycle Bike-go-Round program offers bicycle education and distribution $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $ 720,000 Centers/"Bike-go-Round" services for low-income Oakland Residents to use bicycles for work commuting. The funding requested is for three years of program FY 2017 operations which would provide training for 1,500 participants and distribute 600 bikes over a three-year period. 3 ALA City of Oakland* Oakland Broadway Shuttle The Broadway Shuttle is a free downtown shuttle linking major transit $ - $ - $ - stations such as the AC Transit 20th St Hub, BART, Amtrak Capitol Corridor, and the Alameda/Oakland/SF Ferry. The route is on Broadway between Embarcadero and 27th St from 7am-7pm Mon-Th; 7am-1am FY 2017 Fri; and 6pm-1am Sat. The Lifeline request also incudes expanding weekday evening service until 10pm Mon-Thurs. 4 ALA San Leandro San Leandro "LINKS" LINKS is a free shuttle service from the San Leandro BART station to $ 60,911 $ 60,911 $ 121,822 Transportation Mgmt Shuttle businesses in West San Leandro.
    [Show full text]
  • LAST MILE TRANSIT Program Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design
    Fremont Innovation District LAST MILE TRANSIT Program Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Prepared by: Fremont Innovation District LAST MILE TRANSIT Program Feasibility Study and Conceptual Design Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 1-1 2. Statement of Purpose 2-1 3. Introduction 3-1 3.1 City of Fremont .............................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Fremont Innovation District ..........................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Warm Springs/South Fremont BART Station ...............................................................................3-4 3.4 Warm Springs/South Fremont Community Plan ..........................................................................3-4 4. Existing Conditions 4-1 4.1 Roadway, Bike, and Pedestrian Infrastructure .............................................................................4-1 4.2 Existing Transit Services and Infrastructure .................................................................................4-3 5. Future Conditions 5-1 5.1 Roadway, Bike, and Pedestrian Infrastructure .............................................................................5-1 5.2 BART Extensions into Santa Clara County ...................................................................................5-1 5.3 Future Bus Transit Services and Infrastructure .............................................................................5-2 6. Last Mile Shuttle
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix B: Existing Conditions and Market Analysis
    Appendix B Technical Memorandum #2 Existing Conditions and Market Analysis ` Existing Conditions and Market Analysis Countywide Transit Plan FINAL Technical Memo #2 Prepared for: Alameda County Transportation Commission Prepared by: Parsons Brinckerhoff With Arup North America Ltd. Cambridge Systematics Community Design + Architecture June 2015 Countywide Transit Plan Table of Contents 1.0. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 2.0. Report Methodology ................................................................................................ 2 3.0. Network Conditions .................................................................................................. 3 3.1. Transit Providers Serving Alameda County ................................................... 3 3.2. Transit in Alameda County Planning Areas .................................................. 5 A. North County ............................................................................................... 5 B. Central County ............................................................................................ 7 C. South County ............................................................................................... 8 D. East County .................................................................................................. 9 3.3. Alameda County Travel Patterns ................................................................. 10 A. Overall Transportation Patterns
    [Show full text]