City Council Chambers
3300 Capitol Avenue
Fremont, CA
Fremont City Council
Lily Mei, Mayor
Teresa Keng, Vice Mayor
Rick Jones, District 2
Jenny Kassan, District 3
Yang Shao, District 4
Raj Salwan, District 5
Teresa Cox, District 6
City Staff
Karena Shackelford, City Manager
Rafael Alvarado, Jr., City Attorney
Christina Briggs, Assistant City Manager
Brian Stott, Assistant City Manager
Geneva Bosques, Communications and
Legislative Affairs Director
Allen DeMers, Assistant to the City Manager
Susan Gauthier, City Clerk
Curtis Jacobson, Fire Chief
Hans Larsen, Public Works Director
David Persselin, Finance Director
Dan Schoenholz, Community Dev. Director
Suzanne Shenfil, Human Services Director
Sanford Taylor, Information Technology Director
Sean Washington, Chief of Police
Suzanne Wolf, Community Services Director
Fremont City Council
Agenda and Report
September 20, 2022
General Order of Business
1. Preliminary
• Call to Order
• Salute to the Flag
• Roll Call
2. Consent Agenda
3. Ceremonial Items
4. Public Communications
5. Scheduled Items
• Public Hearings
• Appeals
• Reports from Commissions, Boards and
Committees
6. Report from City Attorney
7. Other Business
8. Council Communications
9. Adjournment
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING THE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
This meeting is being conducted utilizing
teleconferencing and electronic means Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54953(e) (Assembly Bill
361), The live stream of the meeting may be viewed
on the City of Fremont’s website at
www.Fremont.gov/Channel27 , which also provides
a link to the live stream; or, on Comcast Channel 27.
Please note at this time, Channel 27 is only
available to Comcast cable subscribers. The public
may only view the meeting on television and/or
online and not in the Council Chamber.
Submission of Public Comments: For those wishing
to make public comments at the
September 20, 2022 Council meeting, you may
either: (1) submit your comments by email prior to
the meeting, or (2) by Spoken Public Comment
during the meeting. If you experience technical
problems with the telephonic meeting, please
contact the City Clerk’s Office at (510)284-4060 or
[email protected] .
See instructions on next page.
Agenda and Report - Fremont City Council Meeting - September 20, 2022
September 20, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 2
How to submit Public Communications / Public Comment by email prior to the meeting:
Send an email to [email protected] by 4:00 p.m. the day of the meeting. Please identify the agenda item number and meeting date in the subject line of your email or specify that it is not related to an agenda item. Emails will be compiled into files by agenda item number, distributed to the City Council and staff, and published in the City's Agenda Center on www.fremont.gov. If you wish to share an attachment/exhibit during a public comment portion of the zoom meeting, submit the pdf formatted document(s) to the email above by the noted deadline. Use the “raise hand” feature to request to speak. When called upon by the Mayor, City staff can share the document(s) while you are speaking during the time allotted.
Electronic comments on agenda items for the City Council meeting may only be submitted by email. Comments via text and social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) will not be accepted.
How to provide Spoken Public Comment during the meeting:
1) By phone 833-430-0037 (toll free). Webinar ID: 838 8683 7319. Click *9 to raise a hand to speak. 2) By online https://us06web.zoom.us/j/83886837319
a. Use a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. Mute all other audio before speaking. Using multiple devices can cause an audio feedback. b. Enter an email address and name. The name will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.
c. When the Mayor calls for the item on which you wish to speak, click on “raise hand.” Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.
d. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.
If you are an individual with a disability and need a reasonable modification or accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, or if you do not have access to email or the internet, please contact The City Clerk’s Office at (510)284-4060 or [email protected] prior to the meeting for assistance.
Order of Discussion
Generally, the order of discussion after introduction of an item by the Mayor will include comments and information by staff followed by City Council questions and inquiries. The applicant, or their authorized representative, or interested citizens, may they speak on the item; each speaker may only speak once to each item. At the close of public discussion, the item will be considered by the City Council and action taken. Items on the agenda may be moved from the order listed.
Consent Calendar
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which case the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately.
Additionally, other items without a “Request to Address the City Council” card in opposition may be added to the consent calendar. The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.
Oral Communications
Any person desiring to speak on a matter which is not scheduled on this agenda may do so under the Oral Communications section of Public Communications. Please submit your speaker card to the City Clerk prior to the commencement of Oral communications. Only those who have submitted cards prior to the beginning of Oral Communications will be permitted to speak. Please be aware the California Government Code prohibits the City Council from taking any immediate action on an item which does not appear on the agenda, unless the item meets stringent statutory requirements. The Mayor will limit the length of your presentation (see instructions on speaker card) and each speaker may only speak once on each agenda item.
The City Council Agendas may be accessed by computer at the following World Wide Web Address:
www.fremont.gov
Availability of Public Records
All disclosable public records relating to an open session item on this agenda that are distributed by the City to all or a majority of the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting will be available for public inspection in specifically labeled binders located in the lobby of Fremont City Hall, 3300 Capitol Avenue during normal business hours, at the time the records are distributed to the City Council.
Information about the City or items scheduled on the Agenda and Report may be referred to:
Address: City Clerk
City of Fremont
3300 Capitol Avenue, Bldg. A
Fremont, California 94538
Telephone: (510) 284-4060
Your interest in the conduct of our City’s business is appreciated.
September 20, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 3
Agenda
Fremont City Council Regular Meeting
September 20, 2022
City Council Chambers, 3300 Capitol Avenue, Building A
7:00 PM
1. Preliminary
A. Call to Order
B. Salute the Flag
C. Roll Call
D. Announcements by Mayor / City Manager
2. Consent Calendar
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine by the City Council and will be enacted by one motion and one vote. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember or citizen so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar and considered separately. Additionally, other items without a “Request to Address Council” card in opposition may be added to the consent calendar. The City Attorney will read the title of ordinances to be adopted.
A. Motion To: Waive Further Reading of Proposed Ordinances (This permits reading the title only in lieu of reciting the entire text.) B. Approval of Minutes - None.
C. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FREMONT AMENDING FREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 9 PUBLIC
PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 9.35 STREET RACING AND SIDESHOWS, SECTIONS 9.35.010 AND 9.35.030, AND ADDING SECTIONS
9.35.090, 9.35.100, AND 9.35.110
RECOMMENDATION: Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance amending the Fremont Municipal Code Title 9 Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 9.35 Street Racing and Sideshows, Sections 9.35.010 And 9.35.030, and Adding Sections 9.35.090, 9.35.100, And 9.35.110.
D. INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS - Adopt a Resolution Ratifying Indemnity Agreements Between the City and the County of Alameda and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Indemnity Agreements on A1 Bond Funded Affordable Housing Projects
Contact Persons:
Name: Lucia Hughes Dan Schoenholz
Title: Housing Manager Community Development Director
Dept: Housing Community Development
Phone: 510-494-4506 510-494-4438
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution ratifying the execution of the indemnity agreement between 1) the City and the County of Alameda for Doug Ford Senior Apartments and 2) Granite Ridge Apartments; authorizing the City Manager to execute similar indemnity agreements between the City and the County of Alameda September 20, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 4
for covered affordable housing projects in the development pipeline, and making findings of CEQA exemption.
E. RADIO SERVICES PROVIDED BY EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY (EBRCSA) - Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Issue Purchase Orders for Annual Operating Payments/Renewals and Execute Implementing Documents with EBRCSA for Use of the Public Safety Radio Communications System Contact Persons:
Name: Deirdre Rockefeller-Ramsey Sean Washington
Title: Police Business Manager Police Chief
Dept: Police Department Police Department
Phone: 510-790-6991 510-790-6969
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager, or designee, to issue a purchase order for the annual operating payment to EBRCSA in an amount not to exceed $329,040 for the one-year period effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 and execute implementing documents as necessary.
F. ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE AFG GRANT FUNDS FOR PARAMEDIC TRAINING - Accept and Appropriate Assistance to Firefighters Grant Funds for $663,623 for Paramedic Training
Contact Persons:
Name: Donna Do Zoraida Diaz
Title: Management Analyst II Deputy Fire Chief
Dept: Fire Department Fire Department
Phone: 510-494-4200 510-494-4200
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Accept the Assistance to Firefighters Grant in the amount of $663,623.
2. Recognize the grant revenue and appropriate it in the Federal Operating Grants Fund (Fund 199).
3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all necessary agreements or documents in connection with the grant award.
G. TASK ORDER HSD-16 TO FUSD JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT -
Authorization to Execute a Task Order to the Joint Powers Agreement with Fremont Unified School District. Task Order HSD-16 for the Provision of Mental Health, Family Support Services, Parenting Support, Adolescent Substance Use Disorder Treatment Services, Youth Development and Alternative to Suspension Services; as well as collaborate with the FUSD Wellness Centers to innovate and deliver services, and explore opportunities to assist homeless parents and their youth.
Contact Persons:
Name: Annie Bailey Suzanne Shenfil
Title: Youth and Family Services
Administrator
Director
Dept: Human Services Department Human Services Department Phone: 510-574-2111 510-574-2051
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
September 20, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 5
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the City Manager or her designee to enter into Task Order HSD-16 to the Joint Powers Agreement with Fremont Unified School District in an amount not to exceed $113,563 for Youth and Family Services Division to provide School-Based Mental Health Counseling; Why Try Cognitive Behavioral Group Counseling as an Alternative to Suspension program for At-Risk youth; Substance Use Disorder Treatment services for Adolescents at Robertson and Kennedy High Schools; and the Family Resource Center Division to provide Family Support Services (Case Management) for the 2022-2023 school year (August 16, 2022 through June 15, 2023).
3. Ceremonial Items - None.
4. Public Communications
A. Oral and Written Communications
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - None.
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY - None.
CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT
CALENDAR
5. Scheduled Items
A. RENT REVIEW ORDINANCE ANNUAL REPORT AND PROGRAM FEE – Public Hearing (Published Notice) to Review the Annual Report on the Rent Review Ordinance and Adopt the FY 2022/23 Annual Fee
Contact Persons:
Name: Robert Lopez Suzanne Shenfil
Title: CDBG Administrator Director
Dept: Human Services Department Human Services Department Phone: 510-574-2043 510-574-2051
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive the Rent Review Ordinance Annual Report;
2. Hold a public hearing;
3. Authorize a fee of $13.00 per residential rental unit in FY 2022/23 to recover the costs of the Rent Review Program; and
4. Adopt a resolution to amend the Master Fee Schedule to modify the Rent Review Program Fee.
6. Report from City Attorney - None.
September 20, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 6
7. Other Business
A. AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE - Introduce Ordinance Amending and Adding Sections to Chapter 6.10 Animal Ownership, Chapter 6.20 Licensing and Vaccinations, Chapter 6.30 Impoundment, Chapter 6.40 Animal Fancier’s Permit and Chapter 6.50 Prohibited Activities.
Contact Persons:
Name: Kelly Miott Matthew Snelson
Title: Animal Services Manager Police Captain
Dept: Police Department Police Department
Phone: (510) 790-6646 510-790-6874
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
RECOMMENDATION: Waive the first reading and introduce the proposed ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, amending Fremont Municipal Code Sections
6.10.030, 6.10.040, 6.10.070, 6.20.010, 6.30.040, 6.30.060, 6.40.030, 6.40.040, and 6.50.040, and adding Sections 6.10.130, 6.40.025, and 6.40.035.
8. Council Communications
A. Council Referrals - None.
B. Oral Reports on Meetings
9. Adjournment
September 20, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 7
ACRONYMS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments GIS Geographic Information System ACE Altamont Commuter Express GPA General Plan Amendment ACFCD Alameda County Flood Control District HARB Historical Architectural Review Board ACTC Alameda County Transportation
Commission
HBA Home Builders Association
HRC Human Relations Commission
ACWD Alameda County Water District ICMA International City/County Management Association ARB Art Review Board
BAAQMD
BART
Bay Area Air Quality Management
District
Bay Area Rapid Transit District
JPA Joint Powers Authority
LLMD Lighting and Landscaping Maintenance
District
BCDC Bay Conservation & Development
Commission
LOCC League of California Cities
LOS Level of Service
BMPs Best Management Practices MOU Memorandum of Understanding BMR Below Market Rate MTC Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
CALPERS California Public Employees’ Retirement
System
NEPA
NLC
National Environmental Policy Act
National League of Cities
CBC
CDD
California Building Code
Community Development Department
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System
CC & R’s Covenants, Conditions & Restrictions NPO Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance CDBG Community Development Block Grant PC Planning Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act PD Planned District CERT Community Emergency Response Team PDA Priority Development Area CIP Capital Improvement Program PUC Public Utilities Commission CNG Compressed Natural Gas PVAW Private Vehicle Accessway COF City of Fremont PWC Public Works Contract
COPPS Community Oriented Policing and Public
Safety
RFP Request for Proposals
RFQ Request for Qualifications
CSAC California State Association of Counties RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation CTC California Transportation Commission ROP Regional Occupational Program dB Decibel RRIDRO Residential Rent Increase Dispute
Resolution Ordinance DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report DU/AC Dwelling Units per Acre RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District SACNET
Southern Alameda County Narcotics
Enforcement Task Force EDAC Economic Development Advisory Commission (City)
EIR
EIS
Environmental Impact Report (CEQA)
Environmental Impact Statement
STIP State Transportation Improvement
Program
ERAF
(NEPA)
Education Revenue Augmentation Fund
TCRDF Tri-Cities Recycling and Disposal Facility
TOD Transit Oriented Development
EVAW
FAR
Emergency Vehicle Accessway
Floor Area Ratio
TS/MRF Transfer Station/Materials Recovery
Facility
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency UBC See CBC
FFD Fremont Fire Department VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
FMC Fremont Municipal Code WMA Waste Management Authority FPD Fremont Police Department
FRC Family Resource Center ZA Zoning Administrator
FUSD Fremont Unified School District ZTA Zoning Text Amendment
September 20, 2022 Fremont City Council Page 8
UPCOMING MEETING AND CHANNEL 27
BROADCAST SCHEDULE
Date Time Meeting Type Location
Cable
Channel
27 September 20, 2022 6:00 p.m. City Council Closed
Session Meeting
Council
Chambers Live
September 20, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
September 27, 2022 CC/FUSD Liaison Committee
Meeting *CANCELLED*
Monday,
October 3, 2022 5:30 p.m. Joint City Council/FUSD
Meeting
FUSD
Hosts Live
October 4, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council
Chambers Live
October 11, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
October 18, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
October 25, 2022 5:30 p.m. CC/FUSD Liaison Committee
Meeting
FUSD
Hosts Live
November 1, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
November 8, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
November 15, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
November 22, 2022 5:30 p.m. CC/FUSD Liaison Committee
Meeting City Hosts Live
November 29, 2022 No 7PM City Council Meeting
(5th Tuesday)
December 6, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
December 13, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
December 20, 2022 7:00 p.m. City Council Meeting Council Chambers Live
December 27, 2022 5:30 p.m. CC/FUSD Liaison Committee
Meeting FUSD Hosts Live
Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/20/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: City Clerk's Office
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Code Adoptions & Amendments
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4709) DOC ID: 4709
Updated: 9/8/2022 1:56 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 1
SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FREMONT AMENDING FREMONT MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 9 PUBLIC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 9.35 STREET RACING AND SIDESHOWS, SECTIONS 9.35.010 AND 9.35.030, AND ADDING SECTIONS 9.35.090, 9.35.100, AND 9.35.110
Contact Persons:
Name: Susan Gauthier John Harnett
Title: City Clerk Lieutenant
Div/Dept: City Clerk's Office Police Department
Phone: 510-284-4076 510- 790-6705
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: Illegal speed contests, exhibitions of speed, and sideshows pose a clear danger to the residents of the City of Fremont (“City”) and the motoring public traveling on the roadways within the City. These activities are a public nuisance and have caused fatal collisions, property damage, and traffic congestion. Current state law does not impose criminal liability for attendees or promotors of such events. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to prohibit promotion of and attendance at these illegal racing eve nts with the aim of significantly curbing this criminal activity.
The ordinance was introduced by the City Council at its September 6, 2022 meeting. The ordinance is now before the Council for adoption.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Ord. Street Racing Sideshow Ch 9.35
RECOMMENDATION: Waive the second reading and adopt an ordinance amending the Fremont Municipal Code Title 9 Public Peace, Morals and Welfare, Chapter 9.35 Street Racing and Sideshows, Sections 9.35.010 And 9.35.030, and Adding Sections 9.35.090,
9.35.100, And 9.35.110.
2.C
Packet Pg. 9
Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 1 of 5
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2022
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FREMONT AMENDING
FREMONT MUNICIPAL CO DE TITLE 9 PUBLIC PE ACE, MORALS
AND WELFARE, CHAPTER 9.35 STREET RACING AND SIDESHOWS,
SECTIONS 9.35.010 AN D 9.35.030, AND ADDI NG SECTIONS 9.35.090,
9.35.100, AND 9.35.110
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FMC § 9.35.010 AMENDED
Fremont Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.35, Section 9.35.010 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.35.010 Title.
This chapter shall be known as “the street racing and sideshows ordinance.”
SECTION 2. FMC § 9.35.030 AMENDED
Fremont Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.35, Section 9.35.030 is amended to read as follows:
Sec. 9.35.030 Definitions.
For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) “Designated streets” means the following sections of streets within the city limits of the city of Fremont:
(1) Fremont Boulevard between Gateway Boulevard and the southern dead end of Fremont Boulevard.
(2) Bayside Parkway between Gateway Boulevard and Bayview Drive. (3) Lakeview Boulevard between Gateway Boulevard and Fremont Boulevard. (4) Milmont Drive between Paige Avenue and Kato Road.
(5) Stewart Avenue between Christi Road and Boyce Road. (6) Boscell Road between Stewart Avenue and Auto Mall Parkway. (7) Boyce Road between Stevenson Boulevard and Auto Mall Parkway. (8) Dumbarton Circle between Kaiser Drive and Paseo Padre Parkway. (9) Kaiser Drive between Ardenwood Boulevard and Paseo Padre Parkway. (10) Campus Drive between Kaiser Drive and Dumbarton Circle. (11) Nobel Drive from Auto Mall Parkway to the end of the street.
Streets in addition to those listed above may be included in the list of designated streets if the city council determines by resolution, pursuant to Section 9.35.040, that any such street meets the criteria identified in California Vehicle Code § 21101.4. (b) “Sideshows” means any unlawful reckless driving or exhibition of speed as defined by
2.C.a
Packet Pg. 10
Attachment: Draft Ord. Street Racing Sideshow Ch 9.35 (4709 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-Street Racing and Sideshow
Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 2 of 5
California Vehicle Code §§ 23103 and 23109, including, but not limited to, deliberately driving in circles at high rates of speed until vehicle wheels break or lose traction with the roadway. (c) “Street race” means any unlawful speed contest, as defined by California Vehicle Code § 23109, whether or not the race is attended by persons other than the drivers racing vehicles on city streets.
(d) “Temporary street closure” means closure for not more than 18 months, pursuant to California Vehicle Code § 21101.4(b) (subject to extension) of the above-mentioned streets from the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
(e) "Reckless Driving Exhibition" shall mean any exhibition of reckless driving referred to in California Vehicle Code Section 23103, as may be amended, including but not limited to Sideshows.
(f) "Offstreet Parking Facility" is defined in subdivision (c) of California Vehicle Code Section 12500, as may be amended.
(g) "Spectator" shall mean any person who is present at a Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition, or the site of the Preparations for either of these activities, for the purpose of viewing, observing, watching, or witnessing the event as it progresses. A "Spectator" includes any person at the location of the event without regard to the means by which the person arrived. (h) A person is "present" at the Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition if that person is within two hundred (200) feet of the location of the Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition, or within two hundred (200) feet of the site of the Preparations for either of these activities. (i) "Preparations" for any Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition include, but are not limited to, any of the following acts done for the purpose of a Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition:
(1) One or more motor vehicles and persons have arrived at a predetermined location on a public street or highway or in an Offstreet Parking Facility; (2) One or more persons have gathered on, or adjacent to, a public street or highway; (3) One or more persons have gathered in an Offstreet Parking Facility; (4) One or more persons have impeded the free public use of a public street, highway, or Offstreet Parking Facility by acts, words or physical barriers; (5) One or more motor vehicles have lined up on a public street, highway, or Offstreet Parking Facility with motors running;
(6) One or more drivers is revving a motor vehicle's engine or causing the motor vehicle's tires to spin; or
(7) A person is standing or sitting in a location to act as a race starter. (j) "Scene" shall mean the location of the Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition or the location of the Preparations for the Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition.
SECTION 3. FMC §9.35.090 ADDED
Fremont Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.35, Section 9.35.090 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 9.35.090 Spectators Prohibited at Street Races and Reckless Driving Exhibition.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to:
(1) Be knowingly present as a Spectator at a Street Race conducted on a public street or
2.C.a
Packet Pg. 11
Attachment: Draft Ord. Street Racing Sideshow Ch 9.35 (4709 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-Street Racing and Sideshow
Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 3 of 5
highway; or
(2) Be knowingly present as a Spectator at a Reckless Driving Exhibition conducted on a public street or high an Offstreet Parking Facility.
(3) Be knowingly present as a Spectator where Preparations are being made for a Street Race conducted on a public street or highway; or
(4) Be knowingly present as a Spectator where Preparations are being made for a Reckless Driving Exhibition conducted on a public street or highway or in an Offstreet Parking Facility.
(b) Nothing in this Section prohibits peace officers or their agents who are acting in the course of their official duties from being Spectators at a Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition or Spectators at the location of Preparations for either of these activities.
SECTION 4. FMC § 9.35.100 ADDED
Fremont Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.35, Section 9.35.100 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 9.35.100 Encouraging Spectators to Gather at Street Races and Reckless Driving Exhibitions Prohibited.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly encourage, promote, instigate, assist, facilitate, aid, or abet:
(1) The gathering of persons as Spectators at a Street Race conducted on a public street or highway; or
(2) The gathering of persons as Spectators at a Reckless Driving Exhibition conducted on a public street or highway or in an Offstreet Parking Facility.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly encourage, promote, instigate, assist, facilitate, aid, or abet:
(1) The gathering of persons as Spectators where Preparations are being made for a Street Race conducted on a public street or highway; or;
(2) The gathering of persons as Spectators where Preparations are being made for a Reckless Driving Exhibition conducted on a public street or highway or in an Offstreet Parking Facility.
SECTION 5. FMC § 9.35.110 ADDED
Fremont Municipal Code Title 9, Chapter 9.35, Section 9.35.110 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 9.35.110 Relevant Circumstances to Prove a Violation.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, to prove a violation of this Chapter, admissible evidence may include, but is not limited to, any of the following:
2.C.a
Packet Pg. 12
Attachment: Draft Ord. Street Racing Sideshow Ch 9.35 (4709 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-Street Racing and Sideshow
Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 4 of 5
(1) That the person charged has previously participated in or been a Spectator at a Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition;
(2) That the person charged has previously aided and abetted Street Racing; (3) That the person charged has previously attended a Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition; or
(4) That the person charged was previously present at a location where Preparations were being made for a Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition, or where a Street Race or Reckless Driving Exhibition was in progress.
(5) Evidence of these prior acts may be admissible, to the fullest extent permissible by law, to show the opportunity, intent, plan, knowledge, identity, or the absence of a mistake or accident, or propensity of the defendant to be present at or attend a Street Race or a Reckless Driving Exhibition if the prior act or acts occurred within three (3) years of the presently charged offense. These prior acts may be admissible to show knowledge on the part of the defendant that a Street Race or a Reckless Driving Exhibition was taking place.
(b) In addition to the circumstances set out in subsection (a) above, and notwithstanding any other provision of law, to prove a violation of this Chapter, admissible evidence may also include, but is not limited to, any of the following:
(1) The time of day;
(2) The nature and description of the Scene, including the number and configuration of traffic lanes;
(3) The number of people at the Scene;
(4) The location of the person charged in relation to any person or group of persons present at the Scene;
(5) The number and descriptions of motor vehicles at the Scene; (6) That the motor vehicles at the Scene have been modified or altered to increase power, handling, or visual appeal;
(7) That the person charged drove or was transported to the Scene.
SECTION 6. CEQA
The City Council determines that this ordinance is exempt from and not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because, without limitation, it is not a “project” as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) and/or 15378(b)(5) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment per CEQA Guidelines Section 15601(b)(3), each as a separate and independent basis for CEQA compliance.
SECTION 7. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Fremont hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section or subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
2.C.a
Packet Pg. 13
Attachment: Draft Ord. Street Racing Sideshow Ch 9.35 (4709 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-Street Racing and Sideshow
Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 5 of 5
SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and will be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.
SECTION 9. PUBLICATION AND POSTING
The City Clerk has prepared and published at least five days before the date of adoption, this ordinance once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Fremont. A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance was posted in the office of the City Clerk since at least five days before this date of adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the ordinance to be published again with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance; and the City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of this adopted ordinance with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
The foregoing ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Fremont at the regular meeting of the City Council, held on the ___ day of __________, 2022, and finally adopted at a regular meeting of the city council held on the ___ day of__________, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
City Attorney
2.C.a
Packet Pg. 14
Attachment: Draft Ord. Street Racing Sideshow Ch 9.35 (4709 : Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance-Street Racing and Sideshow Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/20/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Housing
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4683) DOC ID: 4683
Updated: 9/15/2022 2:42 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 1
INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS - Adopt a Resolution Ratifying Indemnity Agreements Between the City and the County of Alameda and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Indemnity Agreements on A1 Bond Funded Affordable Housing Projects Contact Persons:
Name: Lucia Hughes Dan Schoenholz
Title: Housing Manager Community Development Director
Div/Dept: Housing Community Development
Phone: 510-494-4506 510-494-4438
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: The purpose of this staff report is to request City Council ratification of two indemnity agreements the City executed with the County of Alameda for the purpose of applying a City and a South County live/ work preference on two City-funded affordable housing projects.
BACKGROUND: The City of Fremont (“City”) has historically required affordable housing developers receiving City funds to give preference to those either living or working in Fremont when selecting tenants, consistent with State and Federal fair housing laws (“live/work preference.”) This preference has met the City Council’s longstanding interest in ensuring that local affordable housing funds benefit local residents and workers to the maximum extent possible.
The City Council previously approved funding for the development of Doug Ford Senior Apartments located at 4038 Irvington Avenue, Fremont and the Granite Ridge Apartments located at 3135 Medina Commons, Fremont. These affordable housing projects also received funding from Alameda County Measure A1 funds.
Alameda County Measure A1 created two significant funding sources for multi-family affordable housing projects: 1) a formula-based allocation to every city in the county; and 2) a regional pool of funds that provided dedicated allocations to be used within each sub- region of the County, including the South County (Fremont, Newark and Union City). Doug Ford Senior Apartments received A1 funds from the South County regional allocation, while Granite Ridge Apartments received A1 Funds from both the formula-based city allocation and the South County regional allocation.
The County’s Implementation Policies for Measure A1 Funds provide that if a city wishes to use a live/work preference policy for a project financed using the Measure A1 formula -based city allocation, the city must complete a study that demonstrates the occurrence of residential displacement within the city and that a city live/work preference is needed to respond to or prevent displacement. If a city wishes to use a live/ work preference policy for projects financed using the Measure A1 regional allocation, the city must complete a study that demonstrates the occurrence of residential displacement within that region and that a live/work preference is needed to respond to or prevent displacement. The city must also enter into an agreement obligating the city to defend and indemnify the County against claims or litigation that may arise in connection with such preference.
2.D
Packet Pg. 15
Staff Report (ID # 4683) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/15/2022 2:42 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 2
If a city is able to meet the criteria specified above, projects within that city financed by formula-based city allocation will be able to apply a city live/ work preference; projects within that city financed by regional allocation will be able to apply a regional preference; and projects within that city financed by both formula-based city allocation and regional allocation will be able to apply both a city preference and a regional preference on a pro rata basis.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: To satisfy the County requirement, the City commissioned the preparation of the City of Fremont Residential Displacement Study Report and the Tri-City Subregion Residential Displacement Study Report (attached). The displacement reports demonstrated that (i) the City of Fremont region has experienced and is at risk for experiencing continued significant displacement of lower-income households (ii) the Tri-City region (Fremont, Union City and Newark) has experienced and is at risk for experiencing continued significant displacement of lower-income households, (iii) a City of Fremont live/ work preference and a Tri-City regional live/work preference is necessary to prevent additional displacement of lower-income households, (iv) a Fremont preference and a Tri- City regional preference will not result in limits to access to housing by any individual protected class, and (v) the lower-income population that will be eligible for residency in affordable housing developments is more racially and ethnically diverse than the general population in the area. The reports were approved by the County on February 28, 2022 and April 11, 2022 respectively.
The indemnity agreement is intended to satisfy the County requirement for indemnification of the County by the City against claims or litigation arising in connection with the City preference and the Tri-City Regional Preference.
Based on staff’s understanding of the City Council’s desire to apply local and regional live/work preference on City-funded affordable housing projects, staff processed the execution of the indemnity agreement for Doug Ford Senior Apartments on June 15, 2022 and Granite Ridge Apartments on August 5, 2022 consistent with FMC Section
3.20.070(b)(18)(B) which authorizes the City Manager to sign indemnity agreements under $100,000 in value. Staff nonetheless believes it is prudent to obtain the City Council’s formal ratification. On that basis, staff recommends the City Council adopt the draft resolution.
In addition, staff anticipates returning to Council to seek clarifying authorization for the City Manager to execute similar indemnity agreements with the County of Alameda for covered affordable projects in the development pipeline.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This action is exempt from and not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(1), (4) and/or (5), as an administrative or fiscal activity that does not have the potential, directly or indirectly, to result in a significant effect on the environment, and/or 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will result in a significant effect on the physical environment. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA exemption as it is not defined as a “project.”
2.D
Packet Pg. 16
Staff Report (ID # 4683) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/15/2022 2:42 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
• Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final
• Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final
• Draft Resolution 2022 Ratify Indemnification
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution ratifying the execution of the indemnity agreement between 1) the City and the County of Alameda for Doug Ford Senior Apartments and 2) Granite Ridge Apartments; authorizing the City Manager to execute similar indemnity agreements between the City and the County of Alameda for covered affordable housing projects in the development pipeline, and making findings of CEQA exemption.
2.D
Packet Pg. 17
bae urban economics
Fremont Residential Displacement Study Report
Prepared for the City of Fremont
June 10, 2021
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 18
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) bae urban economics
San Francisco Sacramento Los Angeles Washington DC New York City 2560 9th St., Suite 211 803 2nd St., Suite A 448 South Hill St., Suite 701 1140 3rd St. NE, 2nd Floor 234 5th Ave.
Berkeley, CA 94710 Davis, CA 95616 Los Angeles, CA 90013 Washington, DC 20002 New York, NY 10001 510.547.9380 530.750.2195 213.471.2666 202.588.8945 212.683.4486 www.bae1.com
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ i INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 1 FREMONT DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING TRENDS OVERVIEW ................................ ................ 2 Demographic Snapshot ............................................................................................................... 2 Alameda County Income Limits ................................................................................................... 4 Income Level by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................... 5 Housing Stock............................................................................................................................... 6 DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 7 Multifamily Rent Trends ............................................................................................................... 8 Affordability of Multifamily Rental Market .................................................................................. 9 Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate ............................................................................................. 10 Home Sale Price Trends ........................................................................................................... 11 Affordability of For-Sale Housing Market ................................................................................. 12 Housing Cost Burden ................................................................................................................ 15 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................... 17 Overcrowding ............................................................................................................................. 18 Housing Choice Voucher Usage ............................................................................................... 19 Overall Residential Vacancy ..................................................................................................... 20 Change in Lower-Income Households ..................................................................................... 21 Change in Lower-Income Renter Households ......................................................................... 23 Housing Unit Type by Tenure .................................................................................................... 25 Affordable Housing Inventory ................................................................................................... 26 Recent Housing Unit Growth .................................................................................................... 27 School District Enrollment Trends ............................................................................................ 28 Special Needs Populations and Households........................................................................... 30 Displacement Risk for Special Needs Households ................................................................. 31 Commute Trends ....................................................................................................................... 33 Service Provider Survey Responses ......................................................................................... 34 Quotes from local Social Service Providers ............................................................................. 35 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 36
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 20
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
List of Tables
Table 1: Housing Units by Type, 2010-2020 .................................................................................. 6 Table 2: Affordability of Market Rate Single-Family Homes, Fremont, 2020 ............................. 13 Table 3: Affordability of Market Rate Condominiums/Townhomes, Fremont, 2020 ................. 14 Table 4: Housing Unit Overcrowding, 2015-2019 ........................................................................ 18 Table 5: Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017 ............ 22 Table 6: Renter Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017 23 Table 7: Type of Housing by Tenure, 2015-2019 ......................................................................... 25 Table 8: Change in Fremont Workers by Place of Residence, 2010-2018 ................................ 33
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 21
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
List of Figures
Figure 1: Fremont and Alameda County Demographic Snapshot ................................................. 3 Figure 2: 2020 Income Limits, Alameda County ............................................................................ 4 Figure 3: Household Income Level by Race and Ethnicity, Fremont, 2013-2017 ....................... 5 Figure 4: Average Multifamily Asking Rents, Q1 2010-Q1 2021 .................................................. 8 Figure 5: Affordability of Market-Rate Rental Housing in Fremont, 2020 .................................... 9 Figure 6: Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate, Q1 2010-Q3 2020 .................................................. 10 Figure 7: Ratio of Median Home Sale Prices to Area Median Income for a Four-Person Household, 2012-2020.................................................................................................................. 11 Figure 8: Growth in Cost-Burdened Lower Income Renter Households, 2010-2017 ................ 15 Figure 9: Cost-Burdened Fremont Lower Income Renter Households, 2013-2017 .................. 16 Figure 10: Cost-Burdened Alameda Co. Lower Income Renter Households, 2013-17 ............. 16 Figure 11: Housing Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity, Renter Households in Fremont, 2013- 2017 ................................................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 12: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) Housing Choice Vouchers, March 2010-March 2020 .............................................................................................................. 19 Figure 13: Residential Vacancy Rate, 2010-2020 ....................................................................... 20 Figure 14: Change in Lower-Income Renter Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2017 .. 24 Figure 15: Fremont 2015-2023 RHNA Progress .......................................................................... 26 Figure 16: Change in Housing Units, Fremont, 2010-2020 ........................................................ 27 Figure 17: New Housing Unit Growth by Type, 2010-2020 ......................................................... 27 Figure 18: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students by Ethnicity, Fremont Unified School District, 2019-20 ............................................................................................................................ 28 Figure 19: Fremont Unified School District Enrollment, 2014-15 to 2020-21 .......................... 29 Figure 20: Special Needs Populations and Households, Fremont .............................................. 30 Figure 21: Income Distribution by Household Type, Fremont, 2013-2017 ................................ 31 Figure 22: Housing Cost Burden Among Lower-Income Renters (up to 80% of AMI) Households in Fremont ....................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 23: Service Provider Survey Responses ............................................................................ 34
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study finds that lower -income Fremont residents have been experiencing residential displacement and are at risk of additional displacement pressure, to a greater extent than lower- income residents in Alameda County overall. The report demonstrates that re sidential displacement has occurred and is at high risk of continuing to occur without additional affordable units being prioritized for lower-income Fremont workers and residents.
KEY FINDINGS
Affordable rents for households with incomes equal to 60 percent of the area median income, the highest income level served by units funded through Measure A1 funds, are at least $400 per month lower than the average market-rate rent. For many lower -income households, the gap between the affordable rent and typical market-rate rents is significantly higher.
Lower Income
Fremont
Renters
Lower-Income
Alameda County
Renters
Housing Condition
85% 77% High housing cost burden
21% 13% Living in over-crowded conditions
High housing cost burden and overcrowding are indicators that households are struggling to afford housing and could be at risk of displacement.
The overwhelming majority of Fremont residents that would be eligible for units funded through Alameda County Measure A1 affordable housing funds are likely at risk of displacement due to high housing costs.
Market-rate rents in Fremont have increased substantially in recent years and are considerably higher than lower-income households can afford, increasing displacement risk for lower- income households.
Fremont, 57% Countywide, 44%
0%
20%
40%
60%
MARKET RATE MULTI -FAMILY RENT INCREASE
2010 TO 2020
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) ii
Percent of
Households with
Extremely Low,
Very Low,
or Low Incomes:
24% for all Fremont
households
46% for Households with
One or More Persons with
a Disability
54% for Elderly Fremont
Households
Percent of
Lower-Income
Renter Households
with a High Housing
Cost Burden:
85% for all Fremont
households
93% for Large Family
Households
Percent
of Households
with Incomes
Below Poverty Level
3% for all Fremont family
households
10% for Fremont family
households with a single
female householder
These households are more likely than other households in Fremont to have low incomes.
Additionally, lower-income renter households in Fremont with special needs are more likely than other low-income renters in Fremont to have a high housing cost burden.
In 2010, 22% of Fremont’s workforce lived in Fremont.
By 2018, the proportion had decreased to 17%.
People that work in Fremont are increasingly commuting from more affordable locations in Alameda County and elsewhere.
Lower-income households and individuals in Fremont with special housing needs, including seniors, people with
disabilities, single parent households, and large families, are disproportionately at risk for displacement.
Data on commute flows suggest that an increasing share of the City’s workforce is commuting to Fremont from other cities, a sign that people working in Fremont are having an increasingly difficult time affording housing in Fremont.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) iii
Fremont Net decrease of 450 lower-income households,
including both homeowners and renters, including
decrease of 205 lower- income renter households.
Alameda Lower-income households increased by 7,100,
County including a net increase of 5,790 lower-income renter households.
Decreases in lower-income renter households had an outsized impact on White, Black and African-American, and Hispanic and Latino households.
Disproportionately Impacted by Displacement in Fremont:
Lower-income households People with disabilities
Racial and ethnic minority groups Seniors Single-parent households Families with children Large family households
70% of the social service providers in Fremont that responded to a survey related to this study indicated that their clients have moved out of Fremont, are at risk of displacement, or are planning to move out of Fremont due to economic hardship or other reasons beyond their control.
Data suggest that many lower-income households in Fremont have likely already been displaced due to high housing costs.
Local social service providers indicate that Fremont’s most vulnerable households face considerable displacement risk and that some households have already been displaced.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 25
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) iv
Between 2017–2018 and 2020-2021 School Years:
The Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) has seen large enrollment declines at elementary schools, suggesting that younger families are being disproportionately affected. According to a recent analysis of enrollment trends at the FUSD, the enrollment declines are likely associated with housing affordability and increased housing costs. This has coincided with a gradual decrease in students receiving free or reduced-price meals, English learners, and Foster Youth, both in numerical terms and as a percent of total enrollment.
Since the 2017-18 school year, the Fremont Unified School District has experienced unexpected declines in student enrollment, indicating that families with children have been moving out of the City.
Continued increase in the City's overall population
Enrollment decreased by 2.2%
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 26
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) v
CONCLUSION
Renters in Fremont are at a greater risk of displacement than renters in Alameda County overall.
Data on commute flows, the decrease in the number of lower income households, survey results from local social service providers, and FUSD enrollment trends suggest that Fremont residents have likely already been displaced.
Lower-income Fremont renters have higher rates of high hou sing cost burden than the countywide average. Renter households in Fremont are also more likely to live in overcrowded units than are renter households in Alameda County overall . Fremont has also experienced more significant increases in market-rate rents than Alameda County overall and tends to have a lower rental vacancy rate. Fremont has experienced a decrease in lower-income households during recent years, while the number of lower -income households in Alameda C ounty has increased.
The analysis concludes that Fremont needs policies and programs that specifically support housing affordability and stability for lower income households, especially those households with incomes at or below 60% Area Median Income. For many lower-income Fremont residents, deed-restricted affordable rental housing, which is severely limited in supply, is the only housing option that could potentially provide affordability, stability, and protection from displacement.
Executive Summary graphics prepared by the City of Fremont 85%
21%
57%
+7,10074%
13%
44% -450
% OF LOWER-INCOME RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS WITH HIGH
HOUSING COST BURDEN
% OF RENTER
HOUSEHOLDS LIVING IN
OVERCROWDED UNITS
INCREASES IN MARKET-RATE
RENTS MARCH 2010 –MARCH
2021
CHANGE IN LOWER-INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS, 2010-2017
Displacement Study Highlights
Fremont Alameda County
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 1 INTRODUCTION
Displacement can have a range of negative effects at the individual, household, community, and regional levels. Often, individuals and households that are displaced must move further from their places of work, established childcare arrangements, and social support networks, while children in displaced households may experience a disruption in schooling. Widespread displacement often exacerbates inequalities in access to opportunity and patterns of segregation as lower-income households are increasingly excluded from higher -cost areas. In cities where residents have been displaced, these trends can have a negative impact on the economic, racial, ethnic, and social diversity of the local population. In addition, local employers in high-cost areas often have difficulty recruiting and retaining workers for lower-paying jobs that are necessary to support local economic activity. These trends can also lead to wo rkers commuting long distances to jobs in higher -cost communities, creating negative impacts in terms of both equity and the environment.
As a part of the City’s efforts to address displacement, the City of Fremont has instituted a local live/work policy for affordable housing developments in Fremont , which prioritizes affordable housing placements for individuals or households that live or work in Fremont. There are four affordable projects in the City of Fremont development pipeline that received funding through Alameda County Measure A1 funds . For cities to retain local preference on the Measure A1 funded affordable housing projects, Alameda County requires that cities that offer a local live/work preference prepare a displacement study to evaluate displacement trends within the jurisdiction. To respond to this requirement and in recognition of the negative impacts of displacement, the City of Fremont commissioned this study to evaluate the extent to which households in Fremont have experienced or are at risk of displacement, in order to inform City and County policies to mitigate displacement effects in Fremont.
This report provides data and analysis on various indicators that Fremont residents have been displaced or are currently at high risk of displacement. The analysis focuses on displacement impacts and displacement risk among lower -income households, consistent with the income levels served by units funded through Measure A1 funds.
The remainder of this report is divided into three chapters. The following chapter provides a brief overview of demographic and housing conditions in Fremont to provide baseline information for the displacement analysis. The next chapter provides data related to various indicators that Fremont residents have been displaced and indicators that existing Fremont residents are currently at risk of displacement. In particular, this analysis focuses on displacement impacts and displacement risk among lower-income households, consistent with the income levels served by u nits funded through Measure A1 funds. The final chapter summarizes the findings from the analysis.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 2 FREMONT DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING
TRENDS OVERVIEW
This chapter provides an overview of high-level demographic and housing conditions in Fremont and Alameda County to provide background for the displacement analysis provided in this report. The data in this section generally do not directly address whether Fremont residents have been experiencing displacement or are at risk of displacement but are instead included to provide insight to inform the displacement analysis provided in the following chapter of this report.
DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT
Fremont is demographically distinct from Alameda County a whole, with larger household sizes, higher overall household incomes, and a different distribution of the population among various racial and ethnic groups. As of 2020, Fremont had a population of approximately 231,600 residents and a total of 76,100 households, accounting for approximately 14 percent of the population in Alameda County and 13 percent of Alameda County’s households, according to data from Esri. The average household size was 3.02, much higher than the average countywide (2.73). A much higher share of households in Fremont are families (78 percent) than in the County overall (65 percent). The median age among Fremont residents was 38.5 in 2020, slightly higher than the median in Alameda County (37.9). Fremont has a large population of individuals of Asian descent, which comprise approximately 58 percent of residents in Fremont, compared to 32 percent of residents countywide. Non -Hispanic White residents represent the second largest racial or ethnic group in Fremont, comprising 21 percent of the City’s residents in 2020. Compared to t he countywide population, Fremont has a much lower proportion of Hispanic/Latino residents (14 percent) and Black/African American residents (2 percent).
Fremont has a large concentration of above moderate-income households, which comprise 59 percent of all households in Fremont compared to 44 percent of households countywide, with a correspondingly small concentration of lower -income households (24 percent ). Fremont and Alameda County have similar concentrations of moderate -income households (17 percent).
Units funded through Measure A1 funds would serve households with extremely low, very low, and low incomes, and therefore would not be available to households in Fremont with moderate or above-moderate incomes.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 3 Figure 1: Fremont and Alameda County Demographic Snapshot
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2021.
3.02 2.73
2.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10
Fremont
Alameda County
Average Household Size
13.5%
22.4%
2.2%
9.8%
21.0%
30.2%
58.0%
31.8%
5.2%
5.8%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fremont
Alameda County
Race and Ethnicity
Hispanic/Latino Black/African American White Asian All Other
21.5%
23.8%
24.3%
20.9%
27.1%
29.1%
12.5%
12.8%
14.6%
13.5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Alameda County
Fremont
Age Distribution
Under 18 18-34 35-54 55-64 65 or older
8.2%
15.5%
7.2%
11.2%
8.6%
11.6%
17.2%
17.2%
58.9%
44.4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fremont
Alameda County
Household Income Distribution
Extremely Low Income Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 30
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 4 ALAMEDA COUNTY INCOM E LIMITS
For the purpose of designing affordable housing programs and analyzing housing issues, households are often categorized as extremely low -income, very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income based on household size and how household income compares to the Area Median Income (AMI) for other households of the same size. Income limits for each household size and income group are established annually by State and Federal agencies.
In 2020, the median household income in Alameda County was $119,200 for a four -person household, $107,300 for a three-person household, $95,350 for a two-person household, and $83,450 for a one-person household. Lower income households are generally defined as those earning 80 percent of AMI or less. Figure 2 shows the maximum household income for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households of various sizes in Alameda County as of 2020, according to the income limits set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Figure 2: 2020 Income Limits, Alameda County
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); City of Fremont Housing Division; BAE, 2021.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 31
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 5 INCOME LEVEL BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Income levels for Fremont households vary by race and ethnicity. Figure 3 below shows the estimated household income distribution for households in Fremont by race and ethnicity, according to American Community Survey (ACS) data collected between 2013 and 2017 (the most recent available for this dataset), as provided in Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. Among Asian households, the household income distribution includes a larger share of households with moderate inc omes and above -moderate incomes than households in Fremont overall, with a correspondingly smaller share of lower -income households. Among all other racial and ethnic groups, the share of moderate-income and above moderate-income households is smaller than the share in Fremont overall, with a larger share of lower-income households. It should be noted that the CHAS data indicate that there are only a small number of American Indian/Alaska Native households and Pacific Islander households in Fremont, makin g the estimates for these households somewhat unreliable and subject to sampling error.
Figure 3: Household Income Level by Race and Ethnicity, Fremont, 2013-2017
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 6 HOUSING STOCK
Fremont’s existing housing stock is heavily dominated by single family units (both attached and detached), which make up 71 percent of the total cit ywide inventory. Fremont has approximately 77,300 housing units, comprising 13 percent of the countywide inventory as of 2020 (see Table 1). A significant share of the net increase in housing units in Fremont between 2010 and 2020 was due to a net increase in multifamily units, similar to Alameda County overall. However, compared to the County a larger share of the net increase in new housing units in Fremont during this period is due to an increase in single-family detached homes.
Table 1: Housing Units by Type, 2010-2020
Like Alameda County overall, Fremont is a majority-owner city. Renter households comprise 37 percent of households in Fremont, compared to 46 percent of households countywide. The average renter household size in Fremont is notably high, at 3.03 persons per household, compared to the County (2.67 persons per household).
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Fremont
Single Family Detached 43,301 58.5% 44,700 57.8% 1,399 3.2% Single Family Attached 9,933 13.4% 10,192 13.2% 259 2.6% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 2,429 3.3% 2,584 3.3% 155 6.4% Multifamily 5 or More Units 17,600 23.8% 19,107 24.7% 1,507 8.6% Mobile Home/Other 726 1.0% 726 0.9% - 0.0% Total Housing Units 73,989 100.0% 77,309 100.0% 3,320 4.5% Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Alameda County
Single Family Detached 309,306 53.2% 319,353 52.2% 10,047 3.2% Single Family Attached 44,280 7.6% 48,130 7.9% 3,850 8.7% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 65,326 11.2% 66,731 10.9% 1,405 2.2% Multifamily 5 or More Units 154,629 26.6% 169,679 27.7% 15,050 9.7% Mobile Home/Other 7,831 1.3% 7,859 1.3% 28 0.4% Total Housing Units 581,372 100.0% 611,752 100.0% 30,380 5.2% Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2020; BAE, 2020. 2010 2020
2010 2020 2010-2020 Change
2010-2020 Change
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 7 DISPLACEMENT ANALYSI S
This chapter assesses the extent to which displacement has affected Fremont households and whether Fremont households are currently at risk of displacement based on an analysis of various data sources. In the context of neighborhood change, the term “displacement” typically refers to existing residents’ involuntary movement out of the community, usually due to increases in housing costs and strong demand for housing coupled with a shortage of options for lower-income households.
While there is a shortage of data that can provide direct information on whether displacement has occurred or whether households are at risk of displacement, there are various data sources that provide information that, taken together, provide an indication of the extent to which households are impacted by displacement. Data that could indicate that households have been displaced or are at risk of displacement include:
• Significant increases in residential rents and sale prices; • Rents and sale prices that exceed the affordability threshold for lower -income households;
• Low residential vacancy rates;
• Decreases in the number of lower-income households in Fremont over time; • The presence of lower -income households for which housing costs are equal to an inordinate share of households income;
• Overcrowding in residential units; and
• A shortage of units affordable to lower-income households; • Changes in commute patterns that demonstrate an increase in workers commuting from longer distances.
The following pages present data and analysis on these indicators to assess the extent to which Fremont households are impacted by displacement. The analysis focuses on lower -income renter households, as these are the households that would be eligible for units funded through Measure A1 funds , but also provides information on other types of households . In general, renters tend to be more susceptible to displacement than homeowners because renters are generally not protected from rent increases except as stipulated in their lease agreement, which may provide no protection from increases or only relatively short -term protection. In markets with increasing residential rents and a limited supply of affordable rental housing, lower-income renters are often vulnerable to displacement as property owners increase rents to match market rates. In contrast, homeowners’ housing cost s are not impacted by changes in the housing market after the homeowner purchases the unit, which generally gives homeowners a choice as to whether they sell their homes and move elsewhere . However, homeowners can be susceptible to displacement if their economic circumstances change or if home repairs become unaffordable, making them unable to stay in their homes. If there are limited affordable options locally, these residents could be displaced to other communities.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 8 MULTIFAMILY RENT TRE NDS
Multifamily rental rates in Fremont have increased considerably in recent years, indicating that lower-income renters may be at risk of displacement due to rent increases. Between the first quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2020, the average monthly asking rent increased by $888 per unit in Fremont , or 5 7 percent, among market -rate multifamily apartment developments with five or more units. Over the same period, the countywide average monthly asking rent among these developments increased $720 per unit, or 44 percent, meaning that Fremont has been more heavily impacted by market-rate rent increases than the County overall.
As of March 1, 2021 , average asking rents were $2, 303 per unit in Fremont and $2, 235 in Alameda County overall , slightly down fro m the first quarter of 2020 . The slight decrease in average rents in Fremont and Alameda County since the beginning of 2020 are likely due in part to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Fremont, the decrease in rent is likely also due to the delivery of a large number of multifamily units in Fremont in 2020, which added a significant inventory of available units to the City’s housing supply. Rents in both Fremont and Alameda County appear to have stabilized in recent months, which is potentially an indication that further rent decreases are unlikely and that rent increases could resume over the next several months.
Figure 4: Average Multifamily Asking Rents, Q1 2010-Q1 2021
Note: Data reflect units in market rate multifamily complexes with 5 or more units. Quarter to date (QTD) 2021 reflects data as of March 1, 2021.
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2021.
Q2 2015
Q3 2015
Q4 2015
Q1 2016
Q2 2016
Q3 2016
Q4 2016
Q1 2017
Q2 2017
Q3 2017
Q4 2017
Q1 2018
Q2 2018
Q3 2018
Q4 2018
Q1 2019
Q2 2019
Q3 2019
Q4 2019
Q1 2020
$1,558
$2,446
$2,303
$1,618
$2,338
$2,235
$1,500
$1,600
$1,700
$1,800
$1,900
$2,000
$2,100
$2,200
$2,300
$2,400
$2,500
Avg. Asking Rent per Unit
City of Fremont Alameda County
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 35
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 9 AFFORDABILITY OF MUL TIFAMILY RENTAL MARK ET
Lower-income renters in Fremont are unlikely to be able to afford market -rate rents and may face displacement risk due to recent or future rent increases. Current market-rate rents in Fremont greatly exceed the affordability thresholds for lower income households in Alameda County. For households earning 60 percent of the area median income or less, average market rate rents exceed affordability thresholds by $400 per month or more. Larger lower income rental households face severe affordability challenges. For example, a housing unit that would be affordable to a family of four earning 60 percent of AMI would cost nearly $1,300 less than the current average market rent for a three-bedroom unit. Similarly, the affordable monthly rent for a family of three earning 60 percent of A MI is $800 less than the current average market rent for a two-bedroom unit.
Figure 5: Affordability of Market-Rate Rental Housing in Fremont, 2020
Notes:
(a) Market rents reflect average asking rates of units in multifamily properties with 5+ units in Fremont as of Q3 2020. (b) Maximum affordable housing costs are defined as 30% of gross monthly household income, the maximum amount that a household can spend on housing expenses without being considered cost burdened. Affordable rents account for the cost of utilities, based on Housing Authority of the County of Alameda 2020 allowances for tenant-furnished utilities and other services for a multifamily unit that uses gas cooking, heating, and water heating, as well as electricity for lights and appliances. The allowance is based on the number of bedrooms in the unit and a household is assumed to have one bedroom fewer than the number of people in the household.
Sources: California HCD, 2020; CoStar, 2021; Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, 2020; BAE, 2021. 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person
(Studio) (1 BD) (2 BD) (3 BD)
Market Rent $1,752 $2,011 $2,487 $3,138
Utilities $58 $75 $94 $117
Max. Affordable Rent Less Market Rent
30% AMI (Extremely Low Income) ($1,124) ($1,302) ($1,700) ($2,276) 50% AMI (Very Low Income) ($668) ($781) ($1,112) ($1,624) 60% AMI (Low Income) ($439) ($520) ($819) ($1,298)
80% AMI (Low Income) $18 $3 ($231) ($645)
Household (Unit) Size
$862
$1,514
$1,841
$787
$1,375
$1,669
$2,011
$2,487
$3,138
$709
$1,230
$1,491
$0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500
Rent Affordable
at 30% AMI
Rent Affordable
at 50% AMI
Rent Affordable
at 60% AMI
One-Bedroom
Market-Rate Rent
Two-Bedroom
Market-Rate Rent
Three-Bedroom
Market-Rate Rent
2 person household 3 person household 4 person household
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 36
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 10 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL V ACANCY RATE
Despite recent upticks in vacancies in 2020, the multifamily vacancy rate in both Fremont and Alameda County has been extremely low since 2010, contributing to upward pressure on rents and leaving limited options for displaced households to stay in their communities. Between 2010 and 2019, the multifamily vacancy rate averaged just 3.6 percent in Fremont and 4.0 percent in the County . Multifamily vacancy rates in 2020 and the beginning of 2021 were uncharacteristically high in both Fremont and Alameda County . Data provided by CoStar indicate recent large increases in the numb er of vaca nt apartment units in Alameda County, likely due to the economic dislocation resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. The upward trend in the vacancy rate in Fremont was more pronounced due to a large number of new units that were delivered during the first and third quarters of 2020 but has since decreased and is now lower than the countywide vacancy rate . Meanwhile, vacancy rates have also decreased in Alameda County overall, though to a lesser extent. These data indicate that the high vacancy rates in Alameda County, and particularly in Fremont, are likely temporary and not indicative of a long-term oversupply of rental housing.
Figure 6: Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate, Q1 2010-Q3 2020
Note: Data reflect units in market rate multifamily complexes with 5 or more units. Quarter to date (QTD) 2021 reflects data as of March 1, 2021.
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2021.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 37
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 11 HOME SALE PRICE TREN DS
Growth in home sale prices in Fremont and Alameda County have considerably outpaced growth in household incomes since the Great Recession, making homeownership increasingly unobtainable for many lower-income households, with home sale prices in Fremont consistently higher than sale prices in Alameda County overall. In 2012, the median single family home price in Fremont was $578,250, roughly 6.2 times the area median household income for a four - person household. Due to rapid increases in home prices, price-to-income ratios have increased significantly since 2012, peaking in 2018 at a high of 11.7 for single family homes and 7.2 for condominiums and townhomes in Fremont . As of 2020, the median sale price for condominiums and townhomes in Fremont ($800,000) was 6.7 times the area median income for a four-person household, a significant increase from 3.0 in 2012. In Alameda County, the median sale price of single-family homes sold in 2020 ($1.0 million) was 8.5 times greater than the area median income, while the median sale price of condominiums and townhomes ($665,000) was 5.6 times the median income. As a result, many lower-income households in Fremont face increasing difficulties in buying a home in Alameda County, particularly in Fremont.
Figure 7: Ratio of Median Home Sale Prices to Area Median Income for a Four- Person Household, 2012-2020
City of Fremont 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Condos/Townhomes $280,000 $395,500 $470,000 $520,000 $567,000 $647,500 $750,000 $681,000 $800,000 Single Family $578,250 $711,000 $800,000 $893,000 $945,000 $1,047,000 $1,225,000 $1,139,500 $1,250,000 Alameda County 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Condos/Townhomes $240,000 $375,000 $431,000 $480,000 $535,000 $580,000 $650,000 $625,000 $665,000 Single Family $430,000 $598,000 $665,000 $730,000 $780,000 $850,065 $929,000 $912,000 $1,012,000 Note: Median household income reflects the Alameda County areawide median income for a 4 person household.
Sources: 2020 rereport.com; California Department of Housing and Community Development; BAE, 2020.
Median Sale Price
3.0 4.2
5.0 5.6 6.1 6.6 7.2
6.1 6.76.2
7.6 8.6
9.6 10.1
10.7 11.7
10.2 10.5
4.6 8.9
8.5 5.6
0.0 2.0
4.0 6.0
8.0 10.0
12.0 14.0
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Median Sale Price to
Household Income Ratio
Ratio of Median Home Sale Price to Area Median Income
Condos/Townhomes (Fremont) Single Family (Fremont)
Condos/Townhomes (Alameda Co.) Single Family (Alameda Co.)
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 12 AFFORDABILITY OF FOR -SALE HOUSING MARKET
The vast majority of lower and moderate-income households are not able to afford to purchase a home in Fremont and therefore are unable to benefit from the relative stability and protection from displacement that homeownership provides . Rising incomes combined with a limited supply have resulted in extremely high home sale prices in Fremont. In 2020, the median home sale price was $1.25 million for single family homes and $800,000 for condominiums and townhomes. An annual household income of $218,000 or more would be needed to afford a home with a sale price of $1.25 million, making Fremont’s median home sale price substantially higher than the price that most households in Fremont or elsewhere in Alameda County can afford. Sale prices for condominiums and townhomes, which have historically provided more affordable ownership options in the City, have also become unaffordable for most moderate - income households. Compared to renters, homeowners are more protected from displacement pressures because homeowners’ housing costs are not impacted by changes in the housing market after the homeowner purchases the unit. Due to the unaffordability of for-sale housing in Fremont, most low- and moderate-income Fremont renters are unlikely to be able to buy their first home in Fremont and therefore must continue renting, foregoing the relative stability that homeownership can provide, or leave the community to purchase a home. The City has helped address these challenges through its First Time Homebuyer program, which offers income eligible first time homebuyers with opportunities to purchase homes at below market prices (BMP). There are currently 299 BMP units in the City’s inventory.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 13 Table 2: Affordability of Market Rate Single-Family Homes, Fremont, 2020
Amount
Above (Below)
Maximum 2020 Median
Income Affordable SF Sale Price
Income Level Limit (a) Sale Price (b) ($1,250,000)
Three Person Household
Extremely Low Income (up to 30% AMI) $35,250 $150,841 ($1,099,159) Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) $58,750 $251,347 ($998,653) Low Income (51-80% AMI) $94,000 $402,023 ($847,977)
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) $128,750 $550,712 ($699,288) Four Person Household
Extremely Low Income (up to 30% AMI) $39,150 $167,399 ($1,082,601) Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) $65,250 $279,164 ($970,836) Low Income (51-80% AMI) $104,400 $446,563 ($803,437)
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) $143,050 $611,810 ($638,190) Notes:
(a) 2020 household income limits for a three or four person household in Alameda County. (b) Based on an FHA mortgage with the following terms:
Percent of income for housing costs: 31%
Down payment as % of sale price: 3.5%
Annual interest rate: 3.13%
Loan term (years): 30
Upfront mortgage insurance: 1.75% of loan amount
Annual mortgage insurance: 0.85% of loan amount
Annual homeowners insurance: 0.30% of coverage amount
Annual property tax rate: 1.16% of home value
Sources: CA HCD, 2020; Federal Housing Administration, 2020; Freddie Mac, 2020; CA Dept. of Insurance; Alameda County Controller's Office, 2019-2020; rereport.com; BAE, 2020.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 14 Table 3: Affordability of Market Rate Condominiums/Townhomes, Fremont, 2020
Amount Above
(Below) 2020
Maximum Median Condo/
Income Affordable Townhome Sale
Income Level Limit (a) Sale Price (b) Price ($800,000)
Three Person Household
Extremely Low Income (up to 30% AMI) $35,250 $79,167 ($720,833) Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) $58,750 $184,058 ($615,942) Low Income (51-80% AMI) $94,000 $341,307 ($458,693)
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) $128,750 $496,482 ($303,518) Four Person Household
Extremely Low Income (up to 30% AMI) $39,150 $96,447 ($703,553) Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) $65,250 $213,088 ($586,912) Low Income (51-80% AMI) $104,400 $387,790 ($412,210)
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI) $143,050 $560,246 ($239,754) Notes:
(a) 2020 household income limits for a three or four person household in Alameda County. (b) Based on an FHA mortgage with the following terms:
Percent of income for housing costs: 31%
Down payment as % of sale price: 3.5%
Annual interest rate: 3.13%
Loan term (years): 30
Upfront mortgage insurance: 1.75%
Annual mortgage insurance: 0.85%
Annual homeowners insurance: $475
Annual property tax rate: 1.16%
Sources: CA HCD, 2020; Federal Housing Administration, 2020; Freddie Mac, 2020; CA Dept. of Insurance; Alameda County Controller's Office, 2019-2020; rereport.com; Redfin; BAE, 2020.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 15 HOUSING COST BURDEN
There has been a notable increase in the number of extremely low-income renter households that are cost burdened (paying more than 30 percent of income on housing) in Fremont since 2010. Between 2010 and 2017, the number of cost-burdened extremely low-income renter households (those with incomes below 30 percent of the HAMFI) grew by 795 households, or 40 percent. Meanwhile the number of very low-income and low-income households that were housing cost burdened was relatively stable during this period.
Figure 8: Growth in Cost-Burdened Lower Income Renter Households, 2010-2017
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2020.
Housing Cost Burden & Displacement Risk
Households are generally considered to have a high housing cost burden if they spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. For lower-income households in particular, spending more than 30 percent of income on housing costs often means that households are struggling to afford housing and are unlikely to be able to afford any future rent increases. Lower-income households with high housing cost burden are often at risk of displacement in housing markets in which prices are increasing because they are vulnerable to rent increases that would force them to move or lead to nonpayment of rent and eventual eviction.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 16 Housing cost burden among lower income renter households in Fremont is nearly universal and demonstrates that existing lower income renter households are vulnerable to the impact of future rent increases. In 2017, 85 percent of the lower income renter households (those with incomes below 80 percent of the HAMFI) in Fremont were housing cost burdened, spending more than 30 percent of their gross incomes on rent. Of the 7,900 lower income renter households that were cost burdened in 2017, 4,080 (approximately 45 percent of all lower - income renter households) were severely cost-burdened, or spent more 50 percent of their gross household incomes on rent. Lower-income renters in Fremont were more likely to have a high housing cost burden than renters in Alameda County overall. Countywide, 74 percent of lower income renter households were housing cost burdened as of 2017, with 42 percent spending more than 50 percent of their gross incomes on rent.
Figure 9: Cost-Burdened Fremont Lower Income Renter Households, 2013-2017
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2020.
Figure 10: Cost-Burdened Alameda Co. Lower Income Renter Households, 2013-17
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2020.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 17 COST BURDEN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
While housing cost burden for Fremont renters varies by race and ethnicity, the variation is likely attributable to differences in the income distribution between various groups and does not necessarily indicate differences in by race and ethnicity among lower-income renter households.
Figure 11 shows the level of housing cost burden among renter households in Fremont by race and ethnicity. The data shown is for renter households at all income levels and therefore this figure shows a smaller proportion of househo lds with high housing cost burden than shown in Figure 9 above. As shown, an estimated 37 percent of all renter households in Fremont pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing. Among Asian and Pacific Islander households, the share of renter households with a 30 -percent or higher housing cost burden is somewhat lower than the citywide average. Among all other households, the share of renter ho useholds with a 30-percent or higher housing cost burden is somewhat higher than the citywide average.
It should be noted that the CHAS data used for this analysis indicate that there are very few American Indian/Alaska Native households and Pacific Islander households in Fremont, making the estimates for these households somewhat unreliable and subject to sampling error. Despite these differences by race and ethnicity , it is likely that the prevalence of high housing cost burdens for lower-income renter households is relatively similar across racial and ethnic groups.
Figure 9 demonstrates that almost all lower -income renters in Fremont have a housing cost burden higher than 30 percent, leaving little room for variation between groups. In addition, the variation in the distribution shown below loosely corresponds to the distribution of household incomes by race and ethnicity shown in Figure 3, suggesting that most lower-income renter households in Fremont experience a high housing cost burden and associated displacement risk, regardless of race or ethnicity.
Figure 11: Housing Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity, Renter Households in Fremont, 2013-2017
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 18 OVERCROWDING
Renter-occupied households in Fremont experience extremely high levels of overcrowding, an indication that renter households in the City are struggling to find and afford housing. The U.S.
Census defines overcrowded housing units as those that are occupied by more than one person per room, and severely overcrowded units as those that are occupied by more than 1.5 persons per room. As shown in Table 4, approximately 21 percent of the renter -occupied units in Fremont were considered overcrowded between 2015 and 2019, compared to approximately 13 percent countywide. The City of Fremont also accounts for a disproportion ate share of the County’s overcrowded renter-occupied households. Just 29,775 (11 percent) of the County’s total renter-occupied units are in Fremont, yet the City accounts for approximately 18 percent of all overcrowded renter-occupied units in the County.
Table 4: Housing Unit Overcrowding, 2015-2019
City of Fremont Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Not Overcrowded 23,487 78.9% 44,409 96.7% 67,896 89.7%
Overcrowded (a) 6,288 21.1% 1,503 3.3% 7,791 10.3%
Severely Overcrowded (b) 1,822 6.1% 307 0.7% 2,129 2.8% Total Units 29,775 100.0% 45,912 100.0% 75,687 100.0%
Alameda County
Not Overcrowded 233,699 87.1% 298,053 96.5% 531,752 92.1% Overcrowded (a) 34,587 12.9% 10,838 3.5% 45,425 7.9%
Severely Overcrowded (b) 13,737 5.1% 2,681 0.9% 16,418 2.8% Total Units 268,286 100.0% 308,891 100.0% 577,177 100.0% Fremont Share of County Total
Not Overcrowded 10.1% 14.9% 12.8%
Overcrowded (a) 18.2% 13.9% 17.2%
Severely Overcrowded (b) 13.3% 11.5% 13.0%
Total Units 11.1% 14.9% 13.1%
Notes:
(a) The U.S. Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by more than 1 person per room. (b) The U.S. Census defines a severely overcrowded unit as one occupied by more than 1.5 persons per room.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data; BAE, 2020.
Renter-Occupied Owner-Occupied All Occupied Units
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 19 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCH ER USAGE
The number of households with housing choice vouchers living in Fremont has declined almost every year since 2010, likely due to rapid increases in market rents and a dwindling supply of affordable and suitable units . As of March 2020, there were approximately 1,100 voucher recipients living in Fremont, a 23 percent decline from the 1, 440 voucher recipients that lived in the City in March 2010. Fremont accounts for a disproportionate share of the total decline in the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda’s (HACA) jurisdiction since 2010. While Fremont accounts for approximately 25 percent of all housing units in HACA’s jurisdiction, the decrease of 339 voucher recipients living in Fremont accounts for 48 percent of the total decline in voucher recipients throughout HACA’s jurisdiction (see Figure 12).
High market rate rents combined with a limited supply of units make existing voucher holders in Fremont especially vulnerable to displacement from future rent increases. Voucher recipients, particularly those with disabilities, have a n extremely difficult time finding appropriate housing in markets such as Fremont where average market rents are significantly higher than the HUD FMR used to determine maximum Section 8 rents . The escalation in market rents above the HUD FMR has led some landlords to cease accepting vouchers, which has reduced the inventory of units available to voucher holders in recent years. As of February 1, there were only six listings with units available in Fremont on the gosection8 website.1 Two of the six units had asking rents higher than HACA’s maximum local rent payment standard.
Figure 12: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) Housing Choice Vouchers, March 2010-March 2020
Note: HACA's jurisdiction excludes the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Livermore, and Oakland.
Sources: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA); BAE, 2020.
1 Gosection8.com provides the largest and most accurate listing of certified voucher program rentals in markets throughout the U.S.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Fremont 1,441 1,423 1,420 1,331 1,259 1,147 1,069 1,067 1,061 1,054 1,102 HACA Total 7,139 7,293 7,537 7,563 7,352 6,944 6,540 6,490 6,535 6,443 6,437 Total Housing Choice Vouchers
0 -18 -21
-110 -182 -294 -372 -374 -380 -387 -339
0 154
398 424
213
-195
-599 -649 -604
-696 -702
-800
-600
-400
-200
0 200
400
600
Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16 Mar-17 Mar-18 Mar-19 Mar-20 Change in Number of Section 8 Vouchers Since March 2010 Fremont Total (All HACA Jurisdictions)
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 20 OVERALL RESIDENTIAL VACANCY
Due to strong demand and low levels of new construction, the residential market in Fremont has been tight since 2010. As of 2020, Fremont’s residential vacancy rate was only 3.6 percent, down from 4.0 percent in 2010. Housing market conditions in the County were also tight in 2020, with an overall estimated vacancy rate of 5.3 percent, down from 6.4 percent in 2010.
Most economists consider a residential vacancy rate of around five percent to represent a healthy level of structural vacancy that allows for turnover without indicating an oversupply of housing. The persistently low residential vacancy rate in Fremont is reflective of a significant shortage of supply to meet demand for housing in the City , contributing to housing cost increases and leaving few available options, particularly for lower-income households.
Figure 13: Residential Vacancy Rate, 2010-2020
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2020; BAE, 2020.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 47
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 21 CHANGE IN LOW ER -INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Since 2010, Fremont has lost a significant number of low -income households, suggesting that lower-income households have been displaced due to high housing costs. Fremont experienced a net decrease of 450 lower-income households (those with incomes below 80 percen t of the HAMFI) between 2010 to 2017. This is in contrast to the County, which actually saw the number of lower income households grow by 7,100 households, or 3.4 percent. This suggests that lower-income households in Fremont have been more significantly impacted by displacement pressure than households countywide. Notably, Fremont lost a total of 1,390 low -income households (those with incomes between 50 percent and 80 percent of HAMFI) and 115 very low-income households (those with incomes between 30 p ercent and 50 percent of HAMFI).
This was offset by a significant increase in extremely low -income households (those with incomes less than or equal to 30 percent of HAMFI). Between 2010 and 2017, the number of extremely low -income households in Fremont grew by 21.2 percent (1,055 households), eclipsing the rate of growth in the County (12.0 percent). However, as shown in Figure 8, these changes have coincided with a large increase in extremely low -income households with a high housing cost burden, suggesting that many of these extremely low -income households are struggling to afford their housing.
Because household characteristics change over time, the trends shown in Table 5 could be indicative of multiple simultaneous demographic changes occurring alongside displacement, rather than displacement alone . The increase in extremely low -income households and concurrent decrease in low -income households could indicate that some low -income households in Fremont became extremely low -income households during this period. These changes could also indicate that some extremely-low-income households have been successful in securing housing in affordable housing developments that were constructed during this period, though the increase in extremely low-income households with a high housing cost burden suggests that such households are few in number . While the available data do not provide enough information to fully understand the nuances of the demographic change that occurred during this period, the overall decrease in the size of the City's low-income population, coupled with other demographic changes identified in this report, suggests that at least some of the decrease in Fremont’s lower-income population has been due to displacement.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 48
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 22 Table 5: Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017
Household Income Level (a) 2010 2017 Number Percent
City of Fremont
Extremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 4,965 6,020 1,055 21.2% Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 5,395 5,280 -115 -2.1% Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 7,705 6,315 -1,390 -18.0% Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 11,790 12,630 840 7.1% High Income (>120% HAMFI) 39,105 43,385 4,280 10.9%
Total Households (b) 68,960 73,630 4,670 6.8%
Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a) 18,065 17,615 -450 -2.5% Household Income Level (a) 2010 2017 Number Percent
Alameda County
Extremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 78,920 88,375 9,455 12.0% Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 58,335 63,840 5,505 9.4% Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 73,975 66,115 -7,860 -10.6% Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 93,820 97,975 4,155 4.4% High Income (>120% HAMFI) 226,960 252,770 25,810 11.4%
Total Households (b) 532,010 569,075 37,065 7.0%
Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a) 211,230 218,330 7,100 3.4% Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. Income thresholds are defined as a percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI).
(b) Totals do not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2020. 2010-2017 Change
2010-2017 Change
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 49
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 23 CHANGE IN LOW ER -INCOME RENTER HOUSE HOLDS
The City accounted for an inordinate share of the net decrease in low-income renter households countywide between 2010 and 2017, suggesting that low-income renter households in Fremont have been disproportionately impacted by recent displacement pressures in Alameda County.
Between 2010 and 2017, Fremont and Alameda County both experienced rapid growth in high- income renter households, while losing a significant number of low -income renter households (those with incomes between 50 percent and 80 percent of the HAMFI). As shown in Table 6, Fremont experienced a net decrease of 770 low-income renter households between 2010 and 2017, equal to nearly twenty percent of the net decrease of 4,115 low -income households countywide.
Table 6: Renter Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017
Household Income Level (a) 2010 2017 Number Percent
City of Fremont
Extremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 2,765 3,250 485 17.5% Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 2,535 2,615 80 3.2% Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 3,915 3,145 -770 -19.7% Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 5,360 6,200 840 15.7% High Income (>120% HAMFI) 9,710 12,515 2,805 28.9%
Total Renter Households (b) 24,285 27,715 3,430 14.1%
Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a) 9,215 9,010 -205 -2.2% Household Income Level (a) 2010 2017 Number Percent
Alameda County
Extremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 60,905 67,065 6,160 10.1% Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 36,640 40,385 3,745 10.2% Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 42,385 38,270 -4,115 -9.7% Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 43,730 49,170 5,440 12.4% High Income (>120% HAMFI) 55,080 72,525 17,445 31.7%
Total Renter Households (b) 238,750 267,405 28,655 12.0% Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a) 139,930 145,720 5,790 4.1% Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. Income thresholds are defined as a percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI).
(b) Totals do not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2020. 2010-2017 Change
2010-2017 Change
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 50
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 24 The recent net decrease in Fremont’s lower-income renter population has had disproportionate impacts on the City’s White, Black and African American, and Hispanic and Latino populations.
Between 2010 and 2017, the number of lower-income renter households in Fremont decreased by approximately two percent overall. This decrease had a disproportionate impact of lower - income White, Black and African American, and Hispanic and Latino renter households, which decreased by 15 percent, 12 percent, and 11 percent, respectively. Meanwhile, the number of lower-income renter households from other racial and ethnic groups increased.
Figure 14: Change in Lower-Income Renter Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2017
Note: Data shown reflect the difference between ACS data collected during the 2006-2010 period and ACS data collected during the 2013-2017 period.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2020.
White
(505)
Black /
African-
American
(90)
American
Indian /
Alaskan Native
30 Asian
265
Pacific
Islander
20 Other
245
Hispanic /
Latino
(190)
All Lower
Income
Renter
Households
(225)
-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0 100
200
300
400
12%
Decrease
11%
Decrease
2%
Decrease
15%
Decrease
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 51
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 25 HOUSING UNIT TYPE BY TENURE
Of the 29,775 renter households in Fremont in 2019, nearly 40 percent (11,441 households) lived in single-family units, which can indicate an increased displacement risk in strong housing markets like Fremont. Single family units tend to be larger than multifamily units and likely fill an important role in housing larger renter households in Fremont, consistent with the relatively large household size among Fremont renters (3.03 pe rsons per household). However, renters living in single -family homes can be particularly vulnerable to displacement in strong housing markets because they are susceptible to the same potential rent increases as other renters but could also be displaced if the owner decides to sell the home while sale prices are high.
Table 7: Type of Housing by Tenure, 2015-2019
Housing Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent City of Fremont
Single Family Detached 7,640 25.7% 36,445 79.4% 44,085 58.2% Single Family Attached 3,801 12.8% 6,484 14.1% 10,285 13.6% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 2,070 7.0% 543 1.2% 2,613 3.5% Multifamily 5 or More Units 16,095 54.1% 1,711 3.7% 17,806 23.5% Mobile Home/Other 169 0.6% 729 1.6% 898 1.2%
Total Occupied Households 29,775 100.0% 45,912 100.0% 75,687 100.0% Average Household Size
Housing Type Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alameda County
Single Family Detached 58,176 21.7% 248,990 80.6% 307,166 53.2% Single Family Attached 21,185 7.9% 29,020 9.4% 50,205 8.7% Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 48,625 18.1% 9,365 3.0% 57,990 10.0% Multifamily 5 or More Units 138,711 51.7% 15,711 5.1% 154,422 26.8% Mobile Home/Other 1,589 0.6% 5,805 1.9% 7,394 1.3%
Total Occupied Households 268,286 100.0% 308,891 100.0% 577,177 100.0% Average Household Size
Note:
(a) Includes boats, RVs, vans, and any other non-traditional residences.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data; BAE, 2020.
Renters Owners
2.67 2.94 2.82
All Households
Renters Owners
3.03 3.13 3.09
All Households
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 52
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 26 AFFORDABLE HOUSING I NVENTORY
Fremont has a significant shortage of affordable units, leaving limited options for lower-income households that are priced out of market -rate rental and for -sale homes . The application process for affordable housing in Fremont is extremely competitive, with demand for affordable housing significantly exceeding the supply of affordable units. Affordable housing developments in Fremont have significant waiting lists, and many waiting lists for affordable units are currently closed due to excessive demand.
Recent development activity in Frem ont has consisted primarily of units for above moderate - income households. Although Fremont has already significantly exceeded its 2015 -2023 Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) target for above moderate-income units, it has fallen behind on its very l ow-income, low-income, and moderate -income housing production goals.
Fremont was allocated a total of 5,455 housing units across all income groups in the current RHNA cycle (2015 -2023), and as of October 2020, had already permitted more than 6,000 units. However, the vast majority (87 percent) of the permitted units to date have been above moderate-income units affordable to households with incomes over 120 percent of AMI, a situation not unique to Fremont. Southern California News Group Housing Permit Re port Card awarded Fremont a grade of C for 2019, higher than the statewide overall average of C minus on how well it is meeting its RHNA goals. Although the City is behind in meeting the RHNA goals in very-low and low-income categories, the City permitted a total of 785 affordable units as of October 2020. Slightly over half of these units were very low -income units, while 47 percent were low-income units with hundreds more affordable units in the pipeline, making a significant mitigating impact on displacement.
Figure 15: Fremont 2015-2023 RHNA Progress
Note:
(a) Data as of 10/6/2020. Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development; BAE, 2020.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 27 RECENT HOUSING UNIT GROWTH
Recent housing unit growth in Fremont has been more skewed towards single family units than recent housing unit growth in the County. According to California Department of Finance data, Fremont gained a total of 3,320 housing units between 2010 and 2020. Roughly half of the housing unit growth in Fremont since 2010 has been single family units (both attached and detached). Single family detached units in particular have accounted for a much larger share of the housing unit growth in Fremont (42 percent) compared to the County ( 33 percent). In Alameda County, recent housing unit growth has been more concentrated in multifamily units, with growth in units in buildings with five or more units accounting for roughly half of the total housing unit growth seen countywide from 2010 to 2020 . In Fremont, units in multifamily buildings with five or more units made up approximately 45 percent of the housing unit growth between 2010 and 2020.
Figure 16: Change in Housing Units, Fremont, 2010-2020
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2020; BAE, 2020.
Figure 17: New Housing Unit Growth by Type, 2010-2020
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, Table E-5, 2020; BAE, 2020.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 28 SCHOOL DISTRICT ENRO LLMENT TRENDS
The Fremont Unified School District has a large population of socioeconomically disadvantaged students, many of whom are members of racial and ethnic minority groups . Approximately 7,170 students enrolled in the Fremont Unified School District are conside red socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED), meaning that these students are eligible for the free or reduced-price meal (FRPM) program; are migrant, homeless, or foster youth; and/or do not have any parents that are high school graduate s. A significant sha re (86 percent) of the socioeconomically disadvantaged students in the Fremont Unified School District are persons of color. Hispanic and Latino students account for 41 percent of the district’s SED students, despite Hispanic and Latino residents making up just 14 percent of the citywide population.
Figure 18: Socioeconomically Disadvantaged Students by Ethnicity, Fremont Unified School District, 2019-20
Sources: California Department of Education (ED-Data); BAE, 2021.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 29 Since the 2017-18 school year, the Fremont Unified School District has experienced unexpected declines in student enrollment, indicating that families with children have been moving out of the City. Fremont Unified School District enrollment increased steadily between the 2014 -15 school year and the 2017-18 school year, with a total increase of 4.6 percent during this period.
Between the 2017-18 and 2020-21 school years, however, enrollment in the district decreased by 2.2 percent, despite continuing increases in the City’s overall population. The Fremont Unified School District has seen large enrollment declines at elementary schools, suggesting that younger families are being disproportionately aff ected. According to a recent analysis of enrollment trends at the Fremont Unified School District , the enrollment declines are likely associated with housing affordability and increased housing costs. 2 This has coincided with a gradual decrease in students receiving free or reduced-price meals, English learners, and Foster Youth, both in numerical terms and as a percent of total enrollment.
Figure 19: Fremont Unified School District Enrollment, 2014-15 to 2020-21
Note:
(a) Total enrollment is the certified California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) data count. Free and Reduced- Price Meal/English Learner/Foster Youth data was not available for the 2020-21 school year.
Sources: Davis Demographics Student Population Forecast Fall 2020/21 Report; California Department of Education (ED- Data); BAE, 2021.
2 This topic was discussed during the October 16, 2019 FUSD Board meeting (https://video.ibm.com/recorded/124274027?t=7738).
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 30 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULA TIONS AND HOUSEHOLDS
Fremont is home to thousands of special needs households and individuals , including a significant number of large families, seniors, and persons with disabilities, which are more likely to have affordable housing needs and may face considerable hardship if displaced. As of 2019, Fremont had approximately 19,215 senior households, 8,400 la rge households, and 1,675 single female headed households. More than 16,500 Fremont residents have at least one disability, including 9,080 seniors. These special populations often face unique housing problems due to physical limitations, health care cos ts, and income, which makes it more challenging for them to find and pay for housing. In addition, many special needs household rely on services and social networks in their communities and could face severe hardship if displaced. For example, single-parent households may rely on family or friends that live nearby to help with childcare or may have established other childcare arrangements locally. Individuals with disabilities may have established relationships with service providers or familiarity with local transit networks, making displacement particularly disruptive to their ability to meet critical needs. Seniors that are displaced could be forced to move away from necessary services and social networks. While displacement can negatively impact all types of households and individuals, special needs households are often disproportionately impacted by negative consequences from displacement.
Figure 20: Special Needs Populations and Households, Fremont
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data; BAE, 2020.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 31 DISPLACEMENT RISK FO R SPECIAL NEEDS HOUS EHOLDS
Special needs households in Fremont tend to have lower incomes than other households, indicating that these households may experience disproportionate displacement risk. Figure 21 shows the distribution of household income levels among all Fremont households, elderly households in Fremont ( defined by HUD as households with one or two persons, with either person 62 years of age or over), Fremont households that include at least one person with a disability, and large family households (defined as households with five or more people). As shown, elderly households and households that include at least one person with a disability are significantly more likely than average to be extremely low -income, very low -income, or low - income households, indicating that these types of special needs households could benefit disproportionately from housing that serves lower-income households. While comparable data are not available for female-headed households, ACS data collected between 2015 and 2019 indicate that 9.6 percent of female-headed family households in Fremont have incomes below the poverty level, compared to just 2.7 percent of all family households in Fremont. To the extent that lower-income Fremont households are impacted by displacement pressures , these data suggest that elderly residents , residents with disabilities , and female -headed households are significantly more likely to be impacted than the population at large.
In contrast, large family households in Fremont tend to have slightly higher incomes than average for Fremont households. However, these families are comparatively less likely to be served by the types of units that will be funded through Measure A1 funds regardless of household income level because of their need for large units.
Figure 21: Income Distribution by Household Type, Fremont, 2013-2017
Note: Data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. HUD defines an elderly household as a household with one or two persons, with either person 62 years or over.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 32 Among lower -income renter households in Fremont , elderly households and large family households are more likely to have a high housing cost burden, potentially indicating a disproportionate displacement risk for these households. Figure 22 shows housing cost burden for lower-income (80 percent of AMI or less) households in Fremont, including all lower-income Fremont households, lower -income elderly households in Fremont, and lower -income large family households. The figure shows that 93 percent of large family households that are lower- income renters pay more than 30 percent of their income for rent, compared to 8 5 percent of all lower-income renter households in Fremont. While 83 percent of lower-income elderly renter households pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing, comparable to the citywide proportion among lower-income renters, this is likely because many of these households live in affordable senior complexes. Consequently, lower-income elderly renter households that do not live in affordable housing may still be disproportionately likely to have a high housing cost burden. Approximately 57 percent of lower-income elderly renter households pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing, a significantly higher share than lower income renters overall in Fremont (45 percent). These figures indicate that at least some of Fremont’s lower - income special needs populations that rent their homes are struggling to afford housing and at a greater risk of displacement than lower-income renters in Fremont in general.
Figure 22: Housing Cost Burden Among Lower-Income Renters (up to 80% of AMI) Households in Fremont
Notes:
Data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. HAMFI stands for HUD Area Median Family Income. (a) HUD defines an elderly household as a household with one or two persons, with either person 62 years or over.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 33 COMMUTE TRENDS
Worker commute flows data shows an increasing mismatch between the City’s workforce a nd its labor force, indicating that many people working in local jobs might be having an increasingly difficult time affording housing in Fremont. The share of Fremont workers who also live in the City of Fremont has fallen significantly since 2010, a sign that housing production is not keeping pace with job growth in the City. In 2010, approximately 22 percent of Fremont’s workers lived in Fremont. A s of 2018, the share of Fremont workers residing in Fremont had declined to approximately 17 percent. Notably, there has been a significant increase in the number of Fremont workers living in more affordable cities such as Hayward, Oakland, and San Jose since 2010. Meanwhile, the share of employed Fremont residents commuting to work in Santa Clara County, San Mateo County, and San Francisco County has increased substantially since 2010.
This trend has coincided with a large increase in the number of higher income households living in Fremont.
Table 8: Change in Fremont Workers by Place of Residence, 2010-2018
Place of Residence Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Alameda County 35,928 44.3% 44,901 39.9% 8,973 25.0%
Fremont 17,465 21.5% 19,415 17.3% 1,950 11.2%
Hayward 3,044 3.8% 5,114 4.5% 2,070 68.0%
Union City 3,266 4.0% 3,894 3.5% 628 19.2%
Newark 2,455 3.0% 3,083 2.7% 628 25.6%
Oakland 1,662 2.1% 2,738 2.4% 1,076 64.7%
Santa Clara County 21,401 26.4% 31,009 27.6% 9,608 44.9% San Jose 12,040 14.9% 18,554 16.5% 6,514 54.1%
Contra Costa County 4,542 5.6% 6,206 5.5% 1,664 36.6%
San Joaquin County 2,912 3.6% 5,235 4.7% 2,323 79.8%
San Mateo County 3,129 3.9% 4,448 4.0% 1,319 42.2%
Stanislaus County 1,311 1.6% 2,332 2.1% 1,021 77.9%
San Francisco County 1,494 1.8% 2,161 1.9% 667 44.6%
All Other Counties 10,338 12.8% 16,117 14.3% 5,779 55.9% Total Fremont Workers 81,055 100.0% 112,409 100.0% 31,354 38.7% Sources: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics via OnTheMap, 2010 & 2018; BAE, 2020. 2010 2018 2010-2018 Change
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 34 SERVICE PROVIDER SUR VEY RESPONSES
Local s ervice providers report that displacement is a serious issue in Fremont , and disproportionately impacts racial and ethnic minority groups and special needs households and individuals. As part of this study , a survey was sent to dozens of representatives from local service providers to ask whether Fremont households are currently experiencing displacement or are at high risk of experiencing displacement. The service prov iders included agencies and organizations providing services to lower income households and individuals , persons experiencing homeless, elderly residents, residents with disabilities, and other vulnerable and underserved populations in Fremont as well as surrounding areas. Of the 21 service providers that responded to the survey, 15 said that their clients have moved out of Fremont due to economic hardship, are currently at risk of displacement, and/or are planning to move out of Fremont due to economic ha rdship or other reasons beyond their control . Service providers indicated that displacement pressure disproportionately impacts low -income households, with a sizeable portion of respondents also reporting that displacement disproportionately impacts racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and seniors. Some service providers also reported that displacement pressure disproportionately impacts single-parent households, large families, and families with children.
Figure 23: Service Provider Survey Responses
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 35 QUOTES FROM LOCAL SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS
Many of our clients have definitely had to move
away. Their children are the ones who are deeply
affected. Young professionals have to work 2-3 jobs
just to be able to stay in Fremont. For those who
stay in California, they are moving to the Central
Valley, others to Florida or Texas.
The only way that clients are able
to stay in the Tri-City area is if
housing such as BMR, low-income
housing becomes available.
For the apartment buildings that offer units for low
income units, the lottery is like a real-life lotto. The wait time to turn in applications is extremely long.
Opportunities in Fremont [are] almost non-existent
and sadly many of our families are leaving the area.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) 36 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City of Fremont has instituted a local live/work policy for affordable housing developments in Fremont, which the City plans to apply to four affordable housing projects in the development pipeline that have received funding through Alameda County Meas ure A1 bond funds . A live/work preference would allow individuals and households who live or work in Fremont and meet the eligibility requirements to have priority for units in these developments. Alameda County requires that cities conduct a displacemen t study in order to apply a local live/work preference to affordable housing developments funded through County Measure A1 bonds. The displacement study must demonstrate that a) Fremont residents are at greater risk of displacement than residents of Alameda County as a whole; b) current Fremont residents are being displaced; and c) a local live/work preference would prevent further displacement.
The information presented in this report demonstrates that all three of these conditions are met:
Fremont renters are at greater risk of residential displacement than renters of Alameda County overall, some lower-income Fremont residents have likely already been displaced, and a local live/work preference would help to prevent further displacement. Data on housing cost burden and overcrowding among Fremont residents strongly indicates that Fremont renters are more likely to be at risk of displacement than renters in Alameda County overall. Displacement risk disproportionately impacts households and individuals in Fremont with special housing needs, including seniors, people with disabilities, single -parent households, and large families. In addition, Fremont renters have experienced significant rent increases over the past decade, to a greater degree than renters in Alameda County as a whole. Moreover, t he number of lower- income renters in Fremont has decreased in recent years , while the number of lower -income renters in Alameda County overall increased slightly , suggesting that lower -income Fremont renters have already been disproportionately impacted by displacement . Data on commute flows, FUSD school enrollment data, and reports from local social service providers further indicate that Fremont households have been displaced, while many remaining lower-income households in Fremont continue to be vulnerable to displacement.
The findings in this report confirmed that Fremont renters are at greater risk of residential displacement than renters of Alameda County overall. Moreover, FUSD school enrollment data, commute trends, and survey responses from local social service providers are strong indicators that residential displacement has been occurring in Fremont. For many lower -income Fremont residents, a local live/work preference for affordable rental housing in Fremont is necessary to prevent displacement. Fremont’s lower-income renters are unlikely to be able to purchase a home and are therefore typically limited to renting market-rate rental units. These rental units are generally more expensive than lower -income households can afford and do not provide residents with protection from future rent increases. Even residents with Housing Choice Vouchers are often unable to find housing in Fremont due to the high cost and limited availability of rental units. These findings demonstrate the need for the City to have a local live/work preference policy for affordable rental housing, including for projects funded by Alameda County Measure A1 bonds, to mitigate displacement among Fremont’s vulnerable populations.
2.D.a
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Fremont Residential Displacement Study Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
bae urban economics
Tri-City Subregion Residential Displacement Study Report Prepared for the City of Fremont
September 17, 2021
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ i INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING TRENDS OVERVIEW ................................................................. 3 Demographic Snapshot ............................................................................................................... 3 Alameda County Income Limits ................................................................................................... 5 Income Level by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................... 6 Housing Stock............................................................................................................................... 7 DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 8 Multifamily Rent Trends ............................................................................................................... 9 Affordability of Multifamily Rental Market ............................................................................... 10 Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate ............................................................................................. 11 Home Sale Price Trends ........................................................................................................... 12 Affordability of For-Sale Housing Market ................................................................................. 14 Housing Cost Burden ................................................................................................................ 15 Cost Burden by Race and Ethnicity .......................................................................................... 19 Overcrowding ............................................................................................................................. 20 Renter Households in Single Family Units ............................................................................... 21 Housing Choice Voucher Usage ............................................................................................... 22 Change in Lower-Income Households ..................................................................................... 24 Change in Lower-Income Renter Households by Race and Ethnicity .................................... 27 School District Enrollment Trends ............................................................................................ 28 Special Needs Populations and Households........................................................................... 29 Displacement Risk for Special Needs Households ................................................................. 30 Commute Trends ....................................................................................................................... 32 Service Provider Survey Responses ......................................................................................... 33 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 34
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
List of Tables
Table 1: Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017 ............ 25 Table 2: Renter Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017 26
List of Figures
Figure 1: Tri-City Subregion and Alameda County Demographic Snapshot .................................. 4 Figure 2: 2020 Income Limits, Alameda County ............................................................................ 5 Figure 3: Household Income Level by Race and Ethnicity, Tri-City Subregion .............................. 6 Figure 4: Housing Units by Type, 2020 ........................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Average Multifamily Asking Rents, Q1 2010-Q1 2021 .................................................. 9 Figure 6: Affordability of Market-Rate Rental Housing in Tri-City Subregion .............................. 10 Figure 7: Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate, Q1 2010-Q3 2020 .................................................. 11 Figure 8: Median Single-Family Home Sale Prices, 2012-2020 ................................................. 12 Figure 9: Growth in Median Condominium and Townhome Sale Prices, 2011-2020 ............... 13 Figure 10: Minimum Qualifying Income Required to Purchase Median Sales Priced Home in 2020 ................................................................................................................................................ 14 Figure 11: Housing Cost Burdened Lower Income Households in the Tri-City Subregion, 2013- 2017 ................................................................................................................................................ 16 Figure 12: Cost-Burdened Lower Income Renter Households, Tri-City Subregion and Alameda County, 2013-2017 ........................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 13: Growth in Cost-Burdened Lower Income Renter Households, Tri-City Subregion, 2010-2017...................................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 14: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Rent Burdened Households, Tri-City Subregion, 2013-2017...................................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 15: Renter Household Overcrowding, 2015-2019 ........................................................... 20 Figure 16: Renter Households in Single Family Units, 2015-2019 ............................................ 21 Figure 17: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) Housing Choice Vouchers, March 2010-March 2020 .............................................................................................................. 23 Figure 18: Change in Lower-Income Renter Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2017 .. 27 Figure 19: Student Enrollment, 2014-15 through 2019-20........................................................ 28 Figure 20: Special Needs Populations and Households, Tri-City Subregion ............................... 29 Figure 21: Income Distribution by Household Type, Tri-City Subregion, 2013-2017 ................. 30 Figure 22: Housing Cost Burden Among Lower-Income Renters Households, Tri-City Subregion, 2013-2017...................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 23: Change in Tri-City Workers by Place of Residence, 2010-2018 ................................ 32
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study finds that lower-income1 Tri-City Subregion (i.e., Fremont, Newark, and Union City), residents have been experiencing residential displacement and are at risk of additional displacement pressure, to a greater extent than lower-income residents in Alameda County overall. The report demonstrates that residential displacement has occurred and is at high risk of continuing to occur without additional affordable units being prioritized for lower-income Tri-City Subregion workers and residents.
KEY FINDINGS
Eighty-two percent of lower-income renters in the Tri-City Subregion have a high housing cost burden, while 22 percent of Tri-City renters are living in overcrowded conditions.
These are higher proportions than in Alameda County overall, where 77 percent of lower- income renters have a high housing cost burden and 13 percent of renter households are living in overcrowded conditions. High housing cost burden and overcrowding are indicators that households are struggling to afford housing and could be at risk of displacement
Market-rate multifamily rents increased by 55 percent in the Tri-City Subregion between 2010 and 2020, faster than the countywide increase of 44 percent. At the end of the first quarter of 2020 (i.e., before the start of the COVID-19 pandemic), the average monthly rent per unit was $2,445 in the Tri-City Subregion, five percent higher than the average countywide ($2,337). Affordable rents for households with incomes equal to 60 percent of the area median income, the highest income level served by units funded through Measure A1 funds, are considerably lower than the average market-rate rent in the Tri-City
1 Throughout this report, lower income households are defined as those earning 80 percent of AMI or less.
The overwhelming majority of Tri-City residents that would be eligible for units funded through Alameda County Measure A1 affordable housing funds are likely at risk of displacement due to high housing costs.
Market-rate rents in the Tri-City Subregion have increased substantially in recent years and are considerably higher than lower-income households can afford, increasing displacement risk for lower-income households.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
ii
Subregion. For the average three-person renter household earning 60 percent of AMI, the difference between the maximum affordable monthly rent and the current market-rate monthly rent for a two-bedroom unit in the Tri-City Subregion is more than $850. Based on current average market rents, a four-person household earning 60 percent of AMI would only be able to afford a market-rate studio unit in the Tri-City Subregion.
People that work in the Tri-City Subregion are increasingly commuting to work from more affordable cities such as Hayward, Stockton, Oakland, and San Jose. San Joaquin County and Stanislaus County have experienced large percentage increases in the number of residents that commute to jobs in the Tri-City Subregion. Between 2010 and 2018, the number of Tri-City commuters increased by 78 percent in San Joaquin County and 65 percent in Stanislaus County, significantly greater increases than the overall increase in people working in the Tri-City Subregion (41 percent). Meanwhile, the share of Tri-City workers that live in in the Tri-City Subregion decreased, likely due to the widespread shortage of affordable housing options in the Tri-City Subregion.
Percent of Households
with Extremely Low, Very
Low, or Low Incomes:
27% for all Tri-City households
47% for Households with One or
More Persons with a Disability
55% for Elderly Tri-City
Households
Percent of Lower-Income
Renter Households with
a High Housing Cost
Burden:
82% for all Tri-City
households
87% for Large Family
Households
Percent of Households
with Incomes Below
Poverty Level
2.8% for all Tri-City family
households
9.5% for Tri-City family
households with a single
female householder
An increasing share of the Tri-City Subregion’s workforce is commuting to work from other more affordable locations outside of the Tri-City Subregion, a sign that Tri-City workers are having a more difficult time finding housing in the Tri-City Subregion that they can afford.
Lower-income households and individuals in the Tri-City Subregion with special housing needs, including seniors, people with disabilities, single-parent households, and large families, are disproportionately at risk for displacement.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
iii
These households are more likely than other households in the Tri-City Subregion to have low incomes, and are therefore are more likely to be eligible for affordable housing that is targeted to low-income households. Additionally, lower-income renter households in the Tri-City Subregion with special needs are more likely than other lower-income renters to have a high housing cost burden, indicating a greater need for affordable housing among these households.
As a whole, the Tri-City Subregion experienced a minimal increase (0.9 percent) in lower- income households between 2010 and 2017, while Alameda County overall experienced a larger increase (3.4 percent). The change in the Subregion’s lower-income households impacted various types of households differently, with an increase in extremely low-income households, little change in very low-income households, and a decrease in low-income households. Taken together with the other data presented in this study – such as recent increases in housing cost burden and housing cost increases – these data indicate that changes among the Subregion’s population in recent years have been due in part to lower- income households leaving the Subregion, a portion of which likely left due to displacement.
Between the 2014-15 and 2019-20 school years, student enrollment in the New Haven Unified School District declined by 11 percent, while enrollment in the Newark Unified School District declined by nine percent. An analysis performed in 2018 by the New Haven Unified School District stated that declines in student enrollment are likely related to the cost of housing. The Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) has experienced unexpected declines in student enrollment since the 2018-19 school year. According to a recent analysis of enrollment trends by FUSD, the declines in enrollment are likely associated with housing affordability and the high cost of housing in Fremont. Meanwhile, overall enrollment in public school districts elsewhere in Alameda County increased slightly Data suggest that many lower-income households in the Tri-City Subregion have likely already been displaced due to high housing costs.
All three school districts in the Tri-City Subregion have experienced declines in student enrollment in recent years, indicating that families with children have been moving out of the Tri-City area.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
iv
between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 school years and remained relatively flat between the 2017-18 and 2019-20 school years.
Disproportionately Impacted by Displacement in the Tri-City Subregion:
Lower-income households People with disabilities
Racial and ethnic minority groups Seniors Single-parent households Families with children Large families with households
75% of the social service providers that responded to a survey related to this study indicated that their clients have moved out of the Tri-City Subregion, are at risk of displacement, or are planning to move out of the Tri-City Subregion due to economic hardship or other reasons beyond their control.
Local social service providers confirm that the Tri-City Subregion’s most vulnerable households face considerable displacement risk and that some households have already been displaced.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
v
CONCLUSION
Renters in the Tri-City Subregion are at a greater risk of displacement than renters in Alameda County overall. Recent declines in some segments of the Subregion’s lower-income households, school district enrollment trends, and survey results from local social service providers suggest that Tri-City Subregion residents have likely already been displaced.
Lower-income renters in the Tri-City Subregion are more likely to have a high housing cost burden than lower-income renters countywide. Similarly, renter households in the Tri-City Subregion experience extremely high levels of overcrowding and are much more likely to live in overcrowded units than are renter households in Alameda County overall. Facing higher average market rents and lower vacancy rates, Tri-City lower-income renters are much more vulnerable to displacement than the average lower-income renter household in Alameda County.
The analysis concludes that the three cities in the Tri-City Subregion need policies and programs that specifically support housing affordability and stability for lower income households, especially those households with incomes at or below 60 percent of the Area Median Income. For many lower-income Tri-City Subregion residents, deed-restricted affordable rental housing, which is severely limited in supply, is the only housing option that could potentially provide affordability, stability, and protection from displacement.
Executive Summary graphics prepared by the City of Fremont
82%22%55%4.1%74%13%44%0.7%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%% of Lower-IncomeRenter Householdswith High HousingCost Burden% of RenterHouseholds Living inOvercrowded UnitsIncreases in Market-Rate Rents March 2010 –March 2021 Change in Lower-Income Households,2010-2017Executive Summary Key FindingsTri-City SubregionAlameda County
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
1 INTRODUCTION
Displacement can have a range of negative effects at the individual, household, community, and regional levels. Often, individuals and households that are displaced must move further from their places of work, established childcare arrangements, and social support networks, while children in displaced households may experience a disruption in schooling. Widespread displacement often exacerbates inequalities in access to opportunity and patterns of segregation as lower-income households are increasingly excluded from higher-cost areas. In cities where residents have been displaced, these trends can have a negative impact on the economic, racial, ethnic, and social diversity of the local population. In addition, local employers in high-cost areas often have difficulty recruiting and retaining workers for lower- paying jobs that are necessary to support local economic activity. These trends can also lead to workers commuting long distances to jobs in higher-cost communities, creating negative impacts in terms of equity, health, and the environment.
As a part of the City’s efforts to address displacement, the City of Fremont has instituted a local live/work policy for affordable housing developments in Fremont, which prioritizes affordable housing placements for individuals or households that live or work in Fremont.
There are three affordable projects in the City of Fremont development pipeline that received funding through Alameda County Measure A1 subregional funds. For cities to apply subregional live/work preferences to affordable housing projects using subregional A1 funds, Alameda County requires the jurisdiction to prepare a displacement study to evaluate displacement trends within the subregion. The displacement study must demonstrate that a) Tri-City Subregion residents are at greater risk of displacement than residents of Alameda County as a whole; b) current Tri-City residents are being displaced; and c) a local live/work preference would prevent further displacement. To respond to this requirement and in recognition of the negative impacts of displacement, the City of Fremont commissioned this study to evaluate the extent to which households in the Fremont/Newark/Union City subregion, herein referred to as the Tri-City Subregion, have experienced or are at risk of displacement. The Alameda County Measure A1 guidelines refer to the Tri-City area defined by Fremont, Newark, and Union City as “South County.”
This report provides data and analysis on various indicators that Tri-City residents have been displaced or are currently at high risk of displacement. The analysis focuses on displacement impacts and displacement risk among lower-income households, consistent with the income levels served by units funded through Measure A1 funds.
The remainder of this report is divided into three chapters. The following chapter provides a brief overview of demographic and housing conditions to provide baseline information for the displacement analysis. The next chapter provides data related to various indicators that Tri- City residents have been displaced and indicators that existing Tri-City residents are currently at risk of displacement. This analysis focuses particularly on displacement impacts and
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
2 displacement risk among lower-income households, consistent with the income levels served by units funded through Measure A1 funds. The final chapter summarizes the findings from the analysis.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
3 DEMOGRAPHIC AND HOUSING TRENDS
OVERVIEW
This chapter provides a high-level overview of demographic and housing conditions in the Tri- City Subregion and Alameda County to provide background for the displacement analysis provided in this report. The data in this section generally do not directly address whether Tri- City residents have been experiencing displacement or are at risk of displacement but are instead included to facilitate an understanding of the Tri-City Subregion’s unique position in Alameda County and inform the displacement analysis provided in the following chapter of this report.
DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT
The Tri-City Subregion is demographically distinct from Alameda County as a whole, with larger household sizes, higher overall household incomes, and a different distribution of the population among various racial and ethnic groups. As of 2020, the Tri-City Subregion had a population of approximately 352,400 residents and a total of 111,900 households, accounting for approximately 22 percent of the population in Alameda County and 19 percent of Alameda County’s households, according to data from Esri. The average household size in the Tri-City Subregion is 3.13, much higher than the average countywide (2.73). A much higher share of households in the Tri-City Subregion are also families (79 percent) than in the County overall (65 percent). The Tri-City Subregion is home to a large population of individuals of Asian descent, which comprise approximately 54 percent of Tri-City residents, compared to 32 percent of residents countywide. The Subregion has a much lower share of White residents (19 percent in the Subregion compared to 30 percent in the County), Hispanic/Latino residents (18 percent in the Subregion compared to 22 percent in the County) and Black/African American residents (3 percent in the Subregion compared to 10 percent in the County).
The Tri-City Subregion also has a large concentration of above moderate-income households, which comprise 55 percent of all households in the Tri-City Subregion compared to 44 percent of households countywide, with a correspondingly small concentration of lower-income households (27 percent in the Tri-City Subregion, compared to 38 percent in Alameda County).
Units funded through Measure A1 funds would serve households with extremely low, very low, and low incomes, and therefore would not be available to households with moderate or above- moderate incomes.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
4 Figure 1: Tri-City Subregion and Alameda County Demographic Snapshot Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; Esri Business Analyst, 2020; BAE, 2021.
3.132.732.50 2.60 2.70 2.80 2.90 3.00 3.10 3.20Tri-City SubregionAlameda CountyAverage Household Size
17.8%22.4%2.8%9.8%19.4%30.2%54.4%31.8%5.5%5.8%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Tri-City SubregionAlameda CountyRace and EthnicityHispanic/LatinoBlack/African AmericanWhiteAsianAll Other21.5%23.6%24.3%21.6%27.1%28.3%12.5%12.5%14.6%14.0%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Alameda CountyTri-City SubregionAge DistributionUnder 1818-3435-5455-6465 or older8.8%15.5%8.0%11.2%10.0%11.6%18.6%17.2%54.6%44.4%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%Tri-City SubregionAlameda CountyHousehold Income DistributionExtremely Low IncomeVery Low IncomeLow IncomeModerate IncomeAbove Moderate Income
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
5 ALAMEDA COUNTY INCOME LIMITS
For the purpose of designing affordable housing programs and analyzing housing issues, households are often categorized as extremely low-income, very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income based on household size and how household income compares to the Area Median Income (AMI) for other households of the same size. Income limits for each household size and income group are established annually by State and Federal agencies.
In 2020, the median household income in Alameda County was $119,200 for a four-person household, $107,300 for a three-person household, $95,350 for a two-person household, and $83,450 for a one-person household. Lower income households are generally defined as those earning 80 percent of AMI or less. Figure 2 shows the maximum household income for extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income households of various sizes in Alameda County as of 2020, according to the income limits set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
Figure 2: 2020 Income Limits, Alameda County
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); City of Fremont Housing Division; BAE, 2021.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
6 INCOME LEVEL BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Income levels for households in the Tri-City Subregion vary by race and ethnicity. Figure 3 below shows the estimated household income distribution for households in the Tri-City Subregion by race and ethnicity, according to American Community Survey (ACS) data collected between 2013 and 2017 (the most recent available for this dataset), as provided in Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data. Among Asian households, the household income distribution includes a larger share of households with moderate incomes and above-moderate incomes than households in the Tri-City Subregion overall. Among all other racial and ethnic groups, the share of moderate-income and above moderate-income households is smaller than the share in the Tri-City Subregion overall, with a larger share of lower-income households.
Figure 3: Household Income Level by Race and Ethnicity, Tri-City Subregion
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
7 HOUSING STOCK
As of 2020, the Tri-City Subregion had a total of 114,065 housing units, equal to approximately 19 percent of the countywide inventory. The City of Fremont, with approximately 77,300 units, accounts for roughly two-thirds of the total Tri-City Subregion inventory. Most of the existing housing units in the Tri-City Subregion are single family units (both attached and detached), which comprise approximately 73 percent of the housing units in the Tri-City Subregion. The share of multifamily units in the Tri-City Subregion (26 percent) is much lower than the share in the County (39 percent)
Like households in Alameda County overall, most households in the Tri-City Subregion are owners. Renter households comprise approximately 35 percent of the households in the Tri- City Subregion, compared to 46 percent of households countywide.
Figure 4: Housing Units by Type, 2020
Sources: State of California, Department of Finance, Table E-5; BAE, 2021.
Fremont New ark Union City TotalTotal Housing Units 77,309 14,917 21,839 114,065Single Family Detached 44,700 10,385 13,711 68,796Single Family Attached 10,192 1,414 2,847 14,453Multifamily 2 to 4 Units 2,584 659 804 4,047Multifamily 5 or More Units 19,107 2,459 3,461 25,027Mobile Home/Other 726 0 1,016 1,742Percent Single Family 71.0% 79.1% 75.8% 73.0%Percent Multifamily 28.1% 20.9% 19.5% 25.5%Tri-City Subregion60%52%13%8%4%11%22%28%2%1%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Tri-City Subregion Alameda CountyMobile Home/OtherMultifamily 5 or More UnitsMultifamily 2 to 4 UnitsSingle Family AttachedSingle Family Detached
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
8 DISPLACEMENT ANALYSIS
This chapter assesses the extent to which displacement has affected Tri-City households, both in absolute terms and in comparison to Alameda County as a whole, and whether Tri-City households are currently at risk of displacement based on an analysis of various data sources.
In the context of neighborhood change, the term “displacement” typically refers to existing residents’ involuntary movement out of the community, usually due to increases in housing costs and strong demand for housing coupled with a shortage of options for lower-income households.
While there is a shortage of data that can provide direct information on whether displacement has occurred or whether households are at risk of displacement, there are various data sources that provide information that, taken together, provide an indication of the extent to which households are impacted by displacement. Data that could indicate that households have been displaced or are at risk of displacement include:
Significant increases in residential rents and sale prices; Rents and sale prices that exceed the affordability threshold for lower-income households, generally defined as those earning 80 percent of AMI or less; Low residential vacancy rates;
Decreases in the number of lower-income households over time; High rates of high housing cost burden among lower-income households; Overcrowding in residential units; and
A shortage of units affordable to lower-income households; Changes in commute patterns that demonstrate an increase in workers commuting from longer distances.
The following pages present data and analysis on these indicators to assess the extent to which Tri-City households are impacted by displacement. The analysis focuses on lower- income renter households, as these are the households that would be eligible for units funded through Measure A1 funds, but also provides information on other types of households. In general, renters tend to be more susceptible to displacement than homeowners because renters are generally not protected from rent increases except as stipulated in their lease agreement, which may provide no protection from increases or only relatively short-term protection. In markets with increasing residential rents and a limited supply of affordable rental housing, lower-income renters are often vulnerable to displacement as property owners increase rents to match market rates. In contrast, homeowners’ housing costs are not impacted by changes in the housing market after the homeowner purchases the unit, which generally gives homeowners a choice as to whether they sell their homes and move elsewhere.
However, homeowners can be susceptible to displacement if their economic circumstances change or if home repairs become unaffordable, making them unable to stay in their homes.
If there are limited affordable options locally, these residents could be displaced to other communities.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 79
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
9 MULTIFAMILY RENT TRENDS
Rapid increases in multifamily rents and low levels of new construction have contributed to displacement pressures for lower-income households in the Tri-City Subregion. Between the first quarter of 2010 and the first quarter of 2020, average monthly asking rents in the Tri-City Subregion increased by 55 percent, or $868 per unit, in market-rate multifamily developments with five or more units. Over the same period, the countywide average monthly asking rent among these developments increased $715 per unit, or 44 percent. As of the first quarter of 2021, average monthly asking rents were $2,313 per unit in the Tri-City Subregion and $2,248 per unit in Alameda County overall, slightly down from the first quarter of 2020. This recent decrease in rents is likely temporary, due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Rents in the Tri-City Subregion and the County have stabilized and increased slightly in recent months, potentially an indication that further rent decreases are unlikely and that rent increases will continue over the next several months.
Figure 5: Average Multifamily Asking Rents, Q1 2010-Q1 2021
Note: Data reflect units in market rate multifamily complexes with 5 or more units.
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2021.
City ofCity ofCity ofTri-CityAlamedaSummary, Q4 2020FremontNewarkUnion CitySubregionCountyAsking RentsAvg. Asking Rent, Q1 2010 $1,577 $1,596 $1,567 $1,577 $1,622Avg. Asking Rent, Q1 2020 $2,461 $2,327 $2,394 $2,445 $2,337% Change 56.1% 45.8% 52.8% 55.0% 44.1%
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 80
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
10 AFFORDABILITY OF MULTIFAMILY RENTAL MARKET
Lower-income renters in the Tri-City Subregion are unlikely to be able to afford market-rate rents in the Subregion and may face displacement risk due to recent or future rent increases.
As shown in Figure 6, current market-rate multifamily rents in the Tri-City Subregion greatly exceed the affordability thresholds for households earning less than 60 percent of AMI. For a three-person household (the average renter household size in Tri-City), the difference between the maximum affordable rent for a household earning 60 percent of AMI and the current market-rate rent for a two-bedroom unit is $855. For a four-person household at the same income level, the maximum affordable monthly rent is $1,338 lower than the average market- rate three-bedroom rent ($3,178). Based on current average market rents, a four-person household earning 60 percent of AMI would only be able to afford to rent a market-rate studio unit in the Tri-City Subregion. This gap between affordable rents and market-rate rents indicates that many lower-income renter households in the subregion are likely vulnerable to displacement due to high housing costs. While a similar trend exists countywide, the average rent in the Tri-City subregion is slightly higher than the Alameda County average (see Figure 5), creating a slightly larger gap between affordable rents and market-rate rents in the Subregion.
Figure 6: Affordability of Market-Rate Rental Housing in Tri-City Subregion
Notes:
(a) Market rents reflect average asking rates in multifamily properties with 5+ units in the Tri-City Subregion as of Q1 2021. (b) Maximum affordable housing costs are defined as 30% of gross monthly household income, the maximum amount that a household can spend on housing expenses without being considered cost burdened. Affordable rents account for the cost of utilities, based on Housing Authority of the County of Alameda 2020 allowances for tenant-furnished utilities and other services for a multifamily unit that uses gas cooking, heating, and water heating, as well as electricity for lights and appliances. The allowance is based on the number of bedrooms in the unit and a household is assumed to have one bedroom fewer than the number of people in the household.
Sources: California HCD, 2020; CoStar, 2021; Housing Authority of the County of Alameda, 2020; BAE, 2021. $784$1,305$1,566$2,089$881$1,469$1,763$2,350$979$1,631$1,958$2,610$2,523 $2,0393 Bedroom Market Rate Rent2 Bedroom Market Rate Rent1 Bedroom Market Rate Rent$3,178$0$500$1,000$1,500$2,000$2,500$3,000$3,50030% AMI(Extremely Low)50% AMI(Very Low)60% AMI(Low)80% AMI(Low)Maximum Affordable Monthly Housing Costs2 person household3 person household4 person household
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 81
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
11 MULTIFAMILY RENTAL VACANCY RATE
Despite recent upticks in vacancies in 2020, the multifamily vacancy rate throughout the Tri- City Subregion has been extremely low since 2010, contributing to upward pressure on rents and leaving limited options for displaced households to stay in their communities. Between 2010 and 2019, the multifamily rental vacancy rate generally averaged less than five percent in the three cities and the Tri-City Subregion overall, with the exception of a few quarters directly following the construction of new units that were in the lease-up phase. Although multifamily rental vacancy rates in 2020 and the beginning of 2021 have been uncharacteristically high due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, recent data show a downward trend in Fremont, Union City, Newark, and the Tri-City Subregion overall. As of the first quarter of 2021, the multifamily rental vacancy rate in the Subregion (6.9 percent) was substantially lower than the overall multifamily rental vacancy rate in Alameda County (9.1 percent) and was exhibiting a sharp downward trend, while the vacancy rate countywide was continuing to increase. In Union City, the multifamily rental vacancy rate had fallen below five percent by the first quarter of 2021, which is typically considered a threshold that indicates a shortage of rental housing supply.
Figure 7: Multifamily Rental Vacancy Rate, Q1 2010-Q3 2020
Note: Data reflect units in market rate multifamily complexes with 5 or more units.
Sources: CoStar; BAE, 2021.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 82
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
12 HOME SALE PRICE TRENDS
Growth in home sale prices has considerably outpaced growth in household incomes since the Great Recession, making homeownership increasingly unobtainable for many lower-income households. Since 2012, the median single family home price in Alameda County has increased by $582,000, or 135 percent. During the same period, the median income in Alameda County increased by just 27 percent. Single family home sale price trends in Newark and Union City have roughly tracked overall trends in the County, while home sale prices in Fremont have been consistently higher than sale prices in Alameda County overall. As of 2020, the median sale price for single family homes in Fremont was $1.25 million. In Newark, Union City, and Alameda County, the median sale price for single family homes was just over $1.0 million.
Figure 8: Median Single-Family Home Sale Prices, 2012-2020
Sources: 2020 rereport.com; BAE, 2021.
ChangeMedian Sale Price - Single Family Homes2012-202020122014201620182020$%Fremont $578,250 $800,000 $945,000 $1,225,000 $1,250,000$671,750 116%Newark $380,000 $596,000 $740,000 $970,000 $1,015,000$635,000 167%Union City $431,000 $635,000 $775,000 $1,020,000 $1,015,000$584,000 135%Alameda Co. $430,000 $665,000 $780,000 $929,000 $1,012,000$582,000 135%Alameda Co. AMI $93,500 $93,500 $93,600 $104,400 $119,200$25,700 27%4 person HH
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 83
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
13 Sale prices for condominiums and townhomes, which have historically provided more affordable ownership options, have also increased significantly over the past decade, bringing homeownership further out of reach for many lower-income households. In 2020, the median sale price for condominiums and townhomes in Alameda County was $665,000, an increase of 177 percent from the median sale price in 2012. In the Tri-City Subregion, median sale prices for condominiums and townhomes grew by 173 percent in Union City, 186 percent in Fremont, and 215 percent in Newark between 2012 and 2020. As noted above, the median income in Alameda County increased by just 27 percent over the same period. The considerable mismatch between increases in income and increases in home sale prices has pushed homeownership further out of reach for many households during this time period. As of 2020, the median sale price for condominiums and townhomes in Fremont ($800,000) was twenty percent higher than the countywide median, while the median in Newark ($692,500) exceeded the countywide median by roughly four percent. The median sale price in Union City ($590,000) was relatively more affordable, although this sale price would still be considered unaffordable to the vast majority of lower-income households with incomes below 80 percent of AMI.
Figure 9: Growth in Median Condominium and Townhome Sale Prices, 2011-2020
Sources: 2020 rereport.com; BAE, 2021.
ChangeMedian Sale Price - Condos/Townhomes2012-202020122014201620182020$%Fremont$280,000$470,000$567,000$750,000$800,000$520,000 186%Newark$220,000$371,000$500,000$675,000$692,500$472,500 215%Union City$216,500$355,000$470,000$617,500$590,000$373,500 173%Alameda Co.$240,000$431,000$535,000$650,000$665,000$425,000 177%Alameda Co. AMI,4 person HH$93,500$93,500$93,600$104,400$119,200$25,700 27%$280,000$800,000$220,000$692,500$216,500$590,000$240,000$665,000$0$100,000$200,000$300,000$400,000$500,000$600,000$700,000$800,000$900,0002012 2014 2016 2018 2020FremontNewarkUnion CityAlameda Co.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 84
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
14 AFFORDABILITY OF FOR-SALE HOUSING MARKET
The vast majority of lower and moderate-income households are not able to afford to purchase a home in the Tri-City Subregion and are therefore unable to benefit from the relative stability and protection from displacement that homeownership provides. Compared to renters, homeowners are more protected from displacement pressures because homeowners’ housing costs are not impacted by changes in the housing market after the homeowner purchases the unit. As of 2020, the median single family home sale price was just over $1.0 million in Alameda County. As shown below, an annual household income of $183,300 or more would be needed to comfortably afford a single-family home at this sale price. The median priced single family home in Fremont, at $1.25 million, would be unaffordable to households earning less than $225,100. Even in the relatively more affordable City of Union City, a household would need to earn at least $123,900 to afford the median priced condominium or townhome.
Due to the unaffordability of for-sale housing in the Tri-City Subregion, most low- and moderate-income renters are unlikely to be able to buy their first home and therefore must continue renting, foregoing the relative stability that homeownership can provide, or leave the community to purchase a home.
Figure 10: Minimum Qualifying Income Required to Purchase Median Sales Priced Home in 2020
Sources: rereport.com; California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020; Freddie Mac, 2020; California Department of Insurance; San Mateo County Controller's Office, 2019-2020; BAE, 2021.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
15 HOUSING COST BURDEN
Most existing lower-income households in the Tri-City Subregion already spend more than 30 percent of their gross incomes on housing costs, making them extremely vulnerable to displacement from any future rent increases. In general, renters tend to experience more serious and widespread housing cost burden than owners. Of the 14,445 lower income renter households (those with incomes below 80 percent of the HAMFI) in the Tri-City Subregion, 11,880 (82 percent) are rent burdened, paying more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent.
Households in Fremont face the most severe housing affordability challenges, with approximately 85 percent of lower-income renter households spending more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent. Compared to the Tri-City Subregion overall, a lower share of the lower-income renter households in Union City are rent-burdened (75 percent). However, Union City stands out for its relatively high share of lower income owner households that are cost burdened (60 percent).
Housing Cost Burden & Displacement Risk
Households are generally considered to have a high housing cost burden if they spend more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs. For lower-income households in particular, spending more than 30 percent of income on housing costs often means that households are struggling to afford housing and are unlikely to be able to afford any future rent increases. Lower-income households with high housing cost burden are often at risk of displacement in housing markets in which prices are increasing because they are vulnerable to rent increases that would force them to move or lead to nonpayment of rent and eventual eviction.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
16 Figure 11: Housing Cost Burdened Lower Income Households in the Tri-City Subregion, 2013-2017
Note: A household is considered to be overpaying (or cost burdened) if it spends more than 30 percent of its gross income on housing.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
FremontNewarkUnion CityTotalTotal Lower Income Households17,6154,2007,20029,015Number of Lower Income Households Overpaying 12,670 2,715 4,820 20,205Percent of All Lower Income Households Overpaying 72% 65% 67% 70%Lower Income Renter Households9,0101,9303,50514,445Number of Lower Income Renter Households Overpaying 7,650 1,610 2,620 11,880Percent of All Lower Income Renter Households Overpaying 85% 83% 75% 82%Lower Income Owner Households8,6052,2703,69514,570Number of Lower Income Owner Households Overpaying 5,020 1,105 2,200 8,325Percent of All Lower Income Owner Households Overpaying 58% 49% 60% 57%Tri-City Subregion
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
17 Lower-income renters in the Tri-City Subregion are more likely to be cost-burdened than lower income renters in Alameda County overall. Approximately 82 percent of lower income renter households (those with incomes below 80 percent of the HAMFI) in the Tri-City Subregion are housing cost burdened, with 43 percent facing severe cost burdens and spending more than 50 percent of their incomes on rent. Countywide, 77 percent of lower income renter households are housing cost burdened, with 42 percent spending more than 50 percent of their gross incomes on rent.
Figure 12: Cost-Burdened Lower Income Renter Households, Tri-City Subregion and Alameda County, 2013-2017
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
18 There has been a notable increase in the number of cost-burdened lower income renter households in the Tri-City Subregion since 2010. Between 2010 and 2017, the number of cost-burdened lower-income renter households in the Tri-City Subregion increased by 1,236 households, or 12 percent. Countywide, the number of cost-burdened lower income renter households increased by five percent, or 5,465 households, during the same period. As shown in Figure 13, the City of Newark experienced rapid growth in cost-burdened lower- income renters, with the total number of cost-burdened lower income renter households increasing by 34 percent (410 households) during this period.
Figure 13: Growth in Cost-Burdened Lower Income Renter Households, Tri-City Subregion, 2010-2017
Note: A household is considered cost burdened if it spends more than 30 percent of its gross income on housing. Lower income households are defined as those earning less than or equal to 80 percent of the HAMFI.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2010 2017 Net Change % ChangeTri-City Subregion 10,644 11,880 1,236 12%Fremont 6,915 7,650 735 11%New ark 1,200 1,610 410 34%Union City 2,529 2,620 91 4%Alameda County 102,280 107,745 5,465 5%Cost-Burdened Low er Income Renter Households3,4253,4853,7344,3203,5354,02505001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,0004,5005,000Extremely Low Income(≤30% HAMFI)Very Low Income(>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI)Low Income(>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI)Cost-Burdened Lower Income Renter Households20102017
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
19 COST BURDEN BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
Among Tri-City households that would be eligible for units financed through Measure A1 funds, there is likely little to no difference between racial and ethnic groups in the prevalence of high housing cost burden and the associated risk of displacement. Figure 14 shows the racial and ethnic distribution of Tri-City renter households with a high housing cost burden as well as the distribution of lower-income renter households by race and ethnicity. As shown, the racial and ethnic distribution of renter households with a high housing cost burden essentially mirrors the distribution of lower-income renter households by race and ethnicity. While the data on rent- burdened households below are for all rent-burdened households rather than lower-income rent-burdened households specifically, the households captured in these data are mostly lower-income households, which comprise 76 percent of all rent-burdened households in the Subregion. These data suggest that the demographics of households with a high housing cost burden are similar to the demographics of lower-income renter households. Figure 12 above further supports this finding by demonstrating that almost all lower-income renters in the Tri- City Subregion have a housing cost burden higher than 30 percent, leaving little room for variation between groups.
Figure 14: Racial and Ethnic Composition of Rent Burdened Households, Tri-City Subregion, 2013-2017
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
24%23%9%8%27%27%33%35%7%7%0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Lower-IncomeRenterHouseholdsRent BurdenedHouseholdsHispanicBlack/African-AmericanWhiteAsianAll Other
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
20 OVERCROWDING
Renter households in the Tri-City Subregion experience extremely high levels of overcrowding, an indication that renter households in the Tri-City Subregion are struggling to find and afford housing. The U.S. Census defines overcrowded housing units as those that are occupied by more than one person per room and severely overcrowded units as those that are occupied by more than 1.5 persons per room. As shown in Figure 15, approximately 22 percent of the renter-occupied units in the Tri-City Subregion are considered overcrowded, compared to approximately 13 percent countywide. The overcrowding rate in Newark (27 percent) is more than double the rate in the County and well above the rate in the Tri-City Subregion as a whole.
Figure 15: Renter Household Overcrowding, 2015-2019
Note: The U.S. Census defines an overcrowded unit as one occupied by more than 1 person per room. A severely overcrowded unit is one occupied by more than 1.5 persons per room.
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data; BAE, 2021.
22%13%7%5%0%5%10%15%20%25%Tri-City Subregion Alameda CountyPercent OvercrowdedShare of Renter Households in Overcrowded UnitsPercentOvercrowdedPercent SeverelyOvercrowded15%8%AlamedaFremont New ark Union City Total CountyTotal Renter-Occupied Units 29,775 4,378 7,571 41,724 268,286Number Overcrow ded 6,288 1,178 1,618 9,084 34,587Percent Overcrow ded 21% 27% 21% 22% 13%Number Severely Overcrow ded 1,822 405 560 2,787 13,737Percent Severely Overcrow ded 6% 9% 7% 7% 5%Tri-City Subregion
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 91
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
21 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS IN SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
Forty-one percent of the Tri-City Subregion’s renter households live in single-family units, which can indicate an increased displacement risk in strong housing markets such as the Tri-City Subregion. Single family units tend to be larger than multifamily units and likely fill an important role in housing the Tri-City Subregion’s larger renter households. However, renters living in single-family homes can be particularly vulnerable to displacement in strong housing markets because they are susceptible to the same potential rent increases as other renters but could also be displaced if an owner decides to sell the home while sale prices are high. In Newark, single family rentals make up more than half of the rental housing stock. The average renter household size in Newark is also notably high, at 3.62 persons per household.
Figure 16: Renter Households in Single Family Units, 2015-2019
Sources: Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data; BAE, 2021.
AlamedaFremont Newark Union City Total CountyTotal Renter Households 29,775 4,378 7,571 41,724 268,286Number of Renter HHs in SF Units 11,441 2,234 3,284 16,959 79,361Percent of Renter HHs in SF Units 38% 51% 43% 41% 30%Average Renter Household Size 3.03 3.62 3.37 3.15 2.67Tri-City Subregion
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 92
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
22 HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER USAGE
The number of households with housing choice vouchers living in the Tri-City Subregion has dwindled since 2010 and high market rate rents combined with a limited supply of voucher- eligible units make voucher recipients in the Tri-City Subregion especially vulnerable to displacement from future rent increases. As of March 2020, there were 2,024 voucher recipients living in the Tri-City Subregion, a decline of 17 percent from the 2,443 recipients living in the Tri-City Subregion in March 2010. Voucher recipients, particularly those with disabilities, have an extremely difficult time finding appropriate housing in markets such as the Tri-City Subregion where average market rents are higher than the HUD FMR used to determine maximum Section 8 rents As of the first quarter of 2021, monthly market-rate rents in the Tri-City Subregion averaged $1,751 for a studio, $2,039 for a one-bedroom unit, $2,523 for a two-bedroom unit, and $3,178 for a three-bedroom unit. Meanwhile, the FMR for Alameda County was $1,595 for a studio, $1,934 for a one-bedroom unit, $2,383 for a two- bedroom unit, and $3,196 for a three-bedroom unit, meaning that only three-bedroom units had average market-rate rents that were consistent with the FMR. The escalation in market rents above the HUD FMR has led some landlords to cease accepting vouchers, resulting in a dwindling inventory of voucher eligible units in the Tri-City Subregion. The Tri-City Subregion accounts for a disproportionate share of the total decline in voucher recipients in the Housing Authority of the County of Alameda’s (HACA) jurisdiction since 2010. While the Tri-City Subregion was home to approximately 34 percent of all voucher holders in HACA’s jurisdiction in 2010, the decrease of 419 voucher recipients living in the Subregion accounts for 60 percent of the total decline in voucher recipients throughout HACA’s jurisdiction (see Figure 17).
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 93
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
23 Figure 17: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA) Housing Choice Vouchers, March 2010-March 2020
Note: HACA's jurisdiction excludes the cities of Alameda, Berkeley, Livermore, and Oakland.
Sources: Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA); BAE, 2020. 0-142719-106-288-422-413-440-470-4190154398424213-195-599-649-604-696-702-800-600-400-2000200400600Mar-10 Mar-11 Mar-12 Mar-13 Mar-14 Mar-15 Mar-16 Mar-17 Mar-18 Mar-19 Mar-20Net Change in Section 8 Vouchers Since March 2010Tri-City SubregionTotal (All HACA Jurisdictions)Tri-City accounted for 60% of the net decline in total HACA vouchers, despite making up just 34%of all HACA vouchers in 2010.20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020Tri-City Total 2,443 2,429 2,470 2,462 2,337 2,155 2,021 2,030 2,003 1,973 2,024HACA Total 7,139 7,293 7,537 7,563 7,352 6,944 6,540 6,490 6,535 6,443 6,437Tri-City % ofHACA TotalTotal Housing Choice Vouchers34% 33% 33% 33% 32% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 94
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
24 CHANGE IN LOWER-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Since 2010, the Tri-City Subregion has experienced significant shifts in lower-income households, suggesting that lower-income households have been displaced due to high housing costs. As shown in Table 1 below, the Tri-City Subregion experienced a small net increase of 260 lower-income households (those with incomes below 80 percent of the HAMFI) between 2010 and 2017. This change amounted to a 0.9-percent net increase in the Subregion’s lower-income population. In contrast, the number of lower-income households in Alameda County overall increased by 7,100 households, or 3.4 percent. Table 2 shows a similar trend among renter households, though with a more pronounced difference between the Subregion (0.7 percent increase in lower-income renter households) and the County (4.1 percent increase in lower-income renter households). This suggests that lower-income households have experienced more difficulty finding housing in the Tri-City Subregion than in Alameda County overall.
Despite the slight increase in lower-income households, the data in Table 1 and Table 2, as well as data presented elsewhere in this report, indicate that some lower-income households were displaced during this period, though the net impact of this displacement was counteracted by simultaneous demographic shifts that resulted in a slight net increase in lower-income households. The Tri-City subregion experienced a 17-percent increase in extremely low-income households (those with incomes less than or equal to 30 percent of HAMFI), while the number of very low-income households (those with incomes between 30 percent and 50 percent of HAMFI) increased only slightly and the number of low-income households (those with incomes between 50 percent and 80 percent of HAMFI) decreased by 11 percent. Trends were similar among Tri-City renter households. Without data that track individual households over time, it is not possible to quantify the extent to which each of these changes by income group reflect displacement, changes in households’ incomes, or new households moving into the Subregion. For example, the Subregion could hypothetically have experienced displacement of 200 lower-income households over the same period that 50 moderate-income households became low-income households due to a decrease in income and 175 lower-income households moved into the Subregion. In this case, the data would show a net increase of 25 lower-income households (50 changing from moderate to low + 175 new moving in - 200 displaced), despite that 200 households were displaced during this period. The available data do not provide enough information to fully understand the nuances of the demographic change that occurred during this period. However, the trends shown in Table 1 suggest that at least some of the changes in the Tri-City’s lower-income population have been due to displacement, particularly when coupled with the data shown Figure 18 below, which demonstrates that the racial and ethnic composition of lower-income households in the Tri-City Subregion also changed during this period. While similar trends occurred countywide, the more significant overall growth in lower-income households countywide indicate that lower-income households in the Tri-City subregion have generally experienced displacement at a greater rate than lower-income households in Alameda County overall.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 95
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
25 Table 1: Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017 Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. Income thresholds are defined as a percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI).
(b) Totals do not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
Household Income Level (a)2010 2017 Number PercentExtremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 8,125 9,510 1,385 17.0%Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 8,420 8,650 230 2.7%Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 12,210 10,855 -1,355 -11.1%Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 18,250 20,105 1,855 10.2%High Income (>120% HAMFI) 54,610 59,000 4,390 8.0%Total Households (b)101,625 108,115 6,490 6.4%Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a)28,755 29,015 260 0.9%Household Income Level (a)2010 2017 Number PercentExtremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 78,920 88,375 9,455 12.0%Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 58,335 63,840 5,505 9.4%Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 73,975 66,115 -7,860 -10.6%Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 93,820 97,975 4,155 4.4%High Income (>120% HAMFI) 226,960 252,770 25,810 11.4%Total Households (b)532,010 569,075 37,065 7.0%Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a)211,230 218,330 7,100 3.4%Alameda County2010-2017 Change2010-2017 ChangeTri-City Subregion
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 96
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
26 Table 2: Renter Households by HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI) Level, 2010-2017
Notes:
(a) CHAS data reflect HUD-defined household income limits. Income thresholds are defined as a percent of the HUD Area Median Family Income (HAMFI).
(b) Totals do not equal the sum of individual figures due to independent rounding.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
Household Income Level (a)20102017NumberPercentExtremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 4,620 5,205 585 12.7%Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 4,035 4,030 -5 -0.1%Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 5,695 5,210 -485 -8.5%Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 7,005 8,775 1,770 25.3%High Income (>120% HAMFI) 11,91515,8703,95533.2%Total Households (b)33,28039,0855,80517.4%Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a)14,35014,445950.7%Household Income Level (a)20102017NumberPercentExtremely Low Income (≤30% HAMFI) 60,905 67,065 6,160 10.1%Very Low Income (>30% to ≤ 50% HAMFI) 36,640 40,385 3,745 10.2%Low Income (>50% to ≤ 80% HAMFI) 42,385 38,270 -4,115 -9.7%Moderate Income (>80% to ≤ 120% HAMFI) 43,730 49,170 5,440 12.4%High Income (>120% HAMFI) 55,08072,52517,44531.7%Total Households (b)238,750267,40528,65512.0%Less Than or Equal to 80% HAMFI (a)139,930145,7205,7904.1%2010-2017 ChangeTri-City Subregion2010-2017 ChangeAlameda County
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 97
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
27 CHANGE IN LOWER-INCOME RENTER HOUSEHOLDS BY RACE
AND ETHNICITY
Recent changes in the Tri-City Subregion’s lower-income renter households have had disproportionate impacts on White, Black and African American, and Hispanic and Latino populations. Between 2010 and 2017, the number of lower-income renter households in the Tri-City Subregion increased slightly, by less than one percent overall. Meanwhile the number of lower-income White, Black and African American, and Hispanic and Latino renter households decreased by 5 percent, 14 percent, and 4 percent, respectively. For all other racial and ethnic groups, the number of lower-income renter households increased. These data further underscore that recent changes in the Tri-City’s lower-income population, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2 above, are likely due at least in part to some households moving out due to displacement, despite a minimal change in the number of lower-income households in the Subregion.
Figure 18: Change in Lower-Income Renter Households by Race and Ethnicity, 2010-2017
Note: Data shown reflect the difference between ACS data collected during the 2006-2010 period and ACS data collected during the 2013-2017 period.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2006-2010 & 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2020.
White(222)American Indian / Alaskan Native68 Black / African-American(206)Asian275 Pacific Islander40 Other257 Hispanic / Latino(136)-300-200-10001002003005%Decrease14% Decrease4% Decrease
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 98
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
28 SCHOOL DISTRICT ENROLLMENT TRENDS
All three school districts in the Tri-City Subregion have experienced declines in student enrollment in recent years, indicating that families with children have been moving out of the Tri-City area. Between the 2014-15 and 2019-20 school years, student enrollment in the New Haven Unified School District declined by 11 percent and enrollment in the Newark Unified School District declined by nine percent. The Fremont Unified School District (FUSD) experienced an overall increase in enrollment between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 school years but has experienced declines in student enrollment following the 2017-18 school year.
Meanwhile, enrollment in public school districts in the remainder of Alameda County increased slightly between the 2014-15 and 2017-18 school years and remained essentially flat between the 2017-18 and 2019-20 school years, indicating that the decreases in enrollment in the Tri-City Subregion school districts differ from the overall trend elsewhere in the County.
An analysis performed in 2018 by the New Haven Unified School District stated that declines in student enrollment are likely related to the cost of housing.2 Like the New Haven Unified School District, FUSD has associated the recent declines in student enrollment with increases in home prices and rents. FUSD has noted large and unexpected declines in student enrollment at elementary schools, suggesting that younger families are being disproportionately affected.3
Figure 19: Student Enrollment, 2014-15 through 2019-20
Sources: California Department of Education (ED-Data); BAE, 2021.
2 New Haven Unified School District 2018 Student Entry and Exit Analysis. 3 This topic was discussed during the October 16, 2019 FUSD Board meeting (https://video.ibm.com/recorded/124274027?t=7738).
5,6695,7585,9135,8456,0136,19611,04711,28111,61311,89312,17112,45935,43135,54435,77735,17134,85234,20805,00010,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,0002019-202018-192017-182016-172015-162014-15Newark USDNew Haven USDFremont USD
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 99
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
29 SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS AND HOUSEHOLDS
The Tri-City Subregion is home to thousands of special needs households and individuals, including a significant number of seniors, large families, single female headed households with children, and persons with disabilities, which are more likely to have affordable housing needs and may face considerable hardship if displaced. As of 2019, the Tri-City Subregion had approximately 30,670 senior households, 15,030 large households, and 2,855 single- parent female headed households. More than 26,180 Tri-City residents have at least one disability, including 14,360 seniors. These special populations often face unique housing problems due to physical limitations, health care costs, and income, which makes it more challenging for them to find and pay for housing. In addition, many special needs households rely on services and social networks in their communities and could face severe hardship if displaced. For example, single-parent households may rely on family or friends that live nearby to help with childcare or may have established other childcare arrangements locally.
Individuals with disabilities may have established relationships with service providers or familiarity with local transit networks, making displacement particularly disruptive to their ability to meet critical needs. Seniors that are displaced could be forced to move away from necessary services and social networks. While displacement can negatively impact all types of households and individuals, special needs households are often disproportionately impacted by negative consequences from displacement.
Figure 20: Special Needs Populations and Households, Tri-City Subregion
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2015-2019 five-year sample data; BAE, 2021.
Special Needs Groups Fremont Newark Union City TotalSingle Female Headed Households 1,675 414 766 2,855Large Households 8,398 2,621 4,012 15,031Households w / One or More Senior 19,215 4,054 7,400 30,669Senior (65+) Living Alone 2,864 445 844 4,153Persons w ith Disabilities 16,509 3,561 6,114 26,184Seniors (65+) w ith Disabilities 9,082 1,823 3,457 14,362Tri-City Subregion
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 100
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
30 DISPLACEMENT RISK FOR SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSEHOLDS
Special needs households in the Tri-City Subregion tend to have lower incomes than other households, indicating that these households may experience disproportionate displacement risk. Figure 21 shows the distribution of household income levels among elderly households (defined by HUD as households with one or two persons, with either person 62 years of age or over) and the households that include at least one person with a disability in the Tri-City Subregion. As shown, elderly households and households that include at least one person with a disability are significantly more likely to have lower incomes, indicating that these types of special needs households could benefit disproportionately from housing that serves lower- income households. While comparable data are not available for single parent female-headed households, ACS data collected between 2015 and 2019 indicate that 9.5 percent of female- headed family households in the Tri-City Subregion have incomes below the poverty level, compared to just 2.8 percent of all family households in the Tri-City Subregion. To the extent that lower-income households are impacted by displacement pressures, these data suggest that elderly residents, residents with disabilities, and female-headed households are significantly more likely to be impacted than the population at large.
Figure 21: Income Distribution by Household Type, Tri-City Subregion, 2013-2017
Note: HUD defines an elderly household as a household with one or two persons, with either person 62 years or over.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 101
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
31 Among lower-income renter households in the Tri-City Subregion, elderly households and large family households are more likely to have a high housing cost burden, potentially indicating a disproportionate displacement risk for these households. Figure 22 shows housing cost burden for lower-income (less than 80 percent of the HAMFI) renter households, lower-income elderly households, and lower-income large family households in the Tri-City Subregion. As shown, among all Tri-City lower-income renter households, approximately 82 percent spend more than 30 percent of their income on rent, with 43 percent paying more than 50 percent of their income on rent. Large family lower-income households are much more likely to spend more than 30 percent of their incomes on rent than lower-income renter households in the Tri- City Subregion overall. In addition, approximately 53 percent of lower-income elderly renter households pay more than 50 percent of their income on housing, a significantly higher share than lower-income renters overall (43 percent). These figures indicate that at least some of these special needs populations that rent their homes are struggling to afford housing and are at a greater risk of displacement than lower-income renters in the Tri-City Subregion overall.
Figure 22: Housing Cost Burden Among Lower-Income Renters Households, Tri- City Subregion, 2013-2017
Note: Lower income households are defined as those earning less than 80 percent of the HAMFI. (a) HUD defines an elderly household as a household with one or two persons, with either person 62 years or over.
Sources: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data; BAE, 2021.
53%31%43%26%56%39%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%ElderlyHouseholds(a)Large FamilyHouseholdsAll Tri-CityHouseholdsPercent of Households Share of Lower Income Renter Households Spending More than 30% of Income on Rent > 50% (Severely Rent Burdened)> 30%, but ≤50% (Rent Burdened)% of income spent on rent:
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 102
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
32 COMMUTE TRENDS
Worker commute flows data show a significant increase in the share of Tri-City workers commuting from locations outside the Tri-City Subregion, indicating that many people working in local jobs might be having a difficult time finding and affording housing. Between 2010 and 2018, the Tri-City Subregion’s overall workforce increased by approximately 46,490 workers, or 41 percent. As shown in Figure 23, the increase in the number of Tri-City workers living in Fremont, Union City, and Newark was significantly lower (13, 23, and 26 percent, respectively).
Meanwhile, there was a large increase in the number of Tri-City workers commuting from more affordable cities such as Hayward (62 percent), Stockton (150 percent), Oakland (70 percent), and San Jose (51 percent). At the county-level, San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties saw the largest percentage increases in Tri-City workers between 2010 and 2018. These trends are likely due to a shortage of affordable housing options in the Subregion for the local workforce.
Figure 23: Change in Tri-City Workers by Place of Residence, 2010-2018
Sources: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics via OnTheMap, 2010 & 2018; BAE, 2021. 2010 2018Total Tri-City Workers 114,535 161,022 46,487 41%Workers by Place of ResidenceAlameda County 52,012 66,804 14,792 28%Fremont 21,347 24,074 2,727 13%Hayward 5,529 8,934 3,405 62%Union City 6,327 7,759 1,432 23%Newark 4,229 5,337 1,108 26%Oakland 2,719 4,609 1,890 70%Santa Clara County 26,527 38,087 11,560 44%San Jose 14,856 22,450 7,594 51%San Joaquin County 4,149 7,403 3,254 78%Stockton 971 2,428 1,457 150%Contra Costa County 6,663 8,835 2,172 33%San Mateo County 4,999 6,890 1,891 38%Stanislaus County 1,916 3,165 1,249 65%All Other Counties 18,269 29,838 11,569 63%2010-2018 ChangeTri-City Workers28%33%38%44%65%78%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%Alameda CountyContra Costa CountySan Mateo CountySanta Clara CountyStanislaus CountySan Joaquin CountyNet Increase in Tri-City Workers by County of Residence, 2010-2018 Total Net Increase in Tri-City Workers: 41%
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 103
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
33 SERVICE PROVIDER SURVEY RESPONSES
“The only way that clients are able to stay in the
Tri-City area is if housing such as BMR, low-income
housing becomes available.”
Local service providers report that displacement is a serious issue in the Tri-City Subregion and disproportionately impacts racial and ethnic minority groups and special needs households and individuals. As part of this study, a survey was sent to dozens of representatives from local service providers to ask whether Tri-City Subregion households are currently experiencing displacement or are at high risk of experiencing displacement. The service providers included agencies and organizations providing services to lower income households and individuals, persons experiencing homeless, elderly residents, residents with disabilities, and other vulnerable and underserved populations in Fremont, Newark, and Union City. Of the 21 service providers that responded to the survey, 16 said that their clients have moved out of Fremont, Newark, or Union City due to economic hardship; are currently at risk of displacement; and/or are planning to move out of Fremont, Newark, or Union City due to economic hardship or other reasons beyond their control. Service providers indicated that displacement pressures disproportionately impact low-income households, with a sizeable portion of respondents also reporting that displacement disproportionately impacts racial and ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, and seniors. Some service providers also reported that displacement pressure disproportionately impacts single-parent households, large families, and families with children.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 104
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
34 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The City of Fremont has three affordable housing projects in the development pipeline that received Alameda County Measure A1 bond South County subregional funds. According to the County’s Measure A1 guidelines, the South County subregion consists of Fremont, Newark, and Union City, which is the area referred to as the Tri-City Subregion in this report. Alameda County requires that cities conduct a displacement study in order to apply a subregional live/work preference to affordable housing developments funded through County Measure A1 bond subregional funds. The displacement study must demonstrate that a) Tri-City Subregion residents are at greater risk of displacement than residents of Alameda County as a whole; b) current Tri-City residents are being displaced; and c) a local live/work preference would prevent further displacement. The City plans to apply this subregional live/work preference to three projects. A live/work preference would allow individuals and households who live or work in the South County subregion, and who meet eligibility requirements for units financed with Measure A1 funds, to have priority for units in these developments.
The information presented in this report demonstrates that all three of these conditions are met: Tri-City Subregion renters are at greater risk of residential displacement than renters in Alameda County overall, some lower-income Tri-City residents have likely already been displaced, and a local live/work preference would help to prevent further displacement:
a) Data on housing cost burden and overcrowding among Tri-City Subregion residents strongly indicate that Tri-City renters are more likely to be at risk of displacement than renters in Alameda County overall. Lower-income renters in the Tri-City Subregion are more likely to have a high housing cost burden than lower-income renters countywide. Similarly, renter households in the Tri-City Subregion experience extremely high levels of overcrowding and are much more likely to live in overcrowded units than are renter households in Alameda County overall. Facing higher average market rents and lower vacancy rates, Tri-City lower-income renters are much more vulnerable to displacement than the average lower-income renter household in Alameda County. In addition, Tri-City renters have experienced significant rent increases over the past decade, to a greater degree than renters in Alameda County as a whole.
b) Recent declines in the number of lower-income households, school district enrollment trends, and survey results from local social service providers suggest that Tri-City Subregion residents have likely already been displaced, while many remaining lower-income households in the Tri-City Subregion continue to be vulnerable to displacement. Displacement risk disproportionately impacts households and individuals with special housing needs, including seniors, people with disabilities, single-parent households, and large families.
c) For many lower-income Tri-City Subregion residents, a South County subregional live/work preference for affordable rental housing in Fremont is necessary to prevent displacement.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 105
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
35 Since Tri-City Subregion’s lower-income renters are unlikely to be able to afford to purchase a home, they are typically limited to renting market-rate rental units. These rental units are generally more expensive than lower-income households can afford and do not provide residents with protection from future rent increases. Even residents with Housing Choice Vouchers are often unable to find housing in the Tri-City Subregion due to the high cost and limited availability of rental units. These findings highlight the need for Fremont to have a subregional live/work preference policy for affordable rental housing, including for projects funded by Alameda County Measure A1 bonds, to mitigate displacement among vulnerable populations in Fremont and the Subregion.
2.D.b
Packet Pg. 106
Attachment: Tri-City Subregion Displacement Study_Final (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
Resolution 2022-XX Page 1 of 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FREMONT RATIFYING INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS BETWEEN
THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA AND AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS ON A1
BOND FUNDED AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS
WHEREAS, the City has historically required affordable housing developers receiving City funds to give preference to those either living or working in Fremont when selecting tenants, consistent with State and Federal fair housing laws (“Live/Work Preference”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved funding for two developments located in Fremont which received Alameda County Measure A1 Bond funds: Doug Ford Senior Apartments at 4038 Irvington Avenue, and Granite Ridge Apartments at 3135 Medina Commons; and
WHEREAS, Alameda County Measure A1 created two significant funding sources for multi-family affordable housing projects: 1) a formula-based allocation to every city in the County; and 2) a regional pool of funds that provided dedicated allocations to be used within each County sub-region, including the South County (“Tri-City”) (Fremont, Newark and Union City); and
WHEREAS, Doug Ford Senior Apartments received A1 funds from the South County regional allocation, while Granite Ridge Apartments received A1 Funds from both the formula- based city allocation and the South County regional allocation; and
WHEREAS, the County’s Measure A1 Implementation Policies provide that if a city wishes to use a live/work preference policy for a project financed using the Measure A1 formula-based city allocation, the city must complete a study that demonstrates the occurrence of residential displacement within the city and that a city live/work preference is needed to respond to or prevent displacement, and further, if a city wishes to use a live/work preference policy for projects financed using the Measure A1 regional allocation, the city must complete a study that demonstrates the occurrence of residential displacement within that region and that a live/work preference is needed to respond to or prevent displacement; and
WHEREAS, the County’s Measure A1 Implementation Policies also require that the City must enter into an agreement obligating the City to defend and indemnify the County against claims or litigation that may arise in connection with a Live/Work Preference (“Indemnity Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, the City commissioned the preparation of the City of Fremont Residential Displacement Study Report and the Tri-City Subregion Residential Displacement Study Report, which demonstrated that (i) the City of Fremont has experienced and is at risk for experiencing continued significant displacement of lower-income households (ii) the Tri-City region has experienced and is at risk for experiencing continued significant displacement of lower-income households, (iii) a City of Fremont Live/Work Preference and a Tri-City regional Live/Work Preference is necessary to prevent additional displacement of lower-income households, (iv) a Fremont preference and a Tri-City regional preference will not result in limits to access to housing by any individual protected class, and (v) the lower-income population that will be eligible for residency in affordable housing developments is more racially and ethnically diverse than the general population in the area; and
2.D.c
Packet Pg. 107
Attachment: Draft Resolution 2022 Ratify Indemnification (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
Resolution 2022-XX Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, the County approved the City of Fremont Residential Displacement Study Report on February 28, 2022, and the Tri-City Subregion Residential Displacement Study Report on April 11, 2022; and
WHEREAS, based on staff’s understanding of the City Council’s historical and ongoing desire to apply local and regional live/work preferences on City-funded affordable housing projects, the City Manager executed the indemnity agreement for Doug Ford Senior Apartments on June 15, 2022, and Granite Ridge Apartments on August 5, 2022, consistent with FMC Section 3.20.070(b)(18)(B) which authorizes the City Manager to sign indemnity agreements under $100,000 in value.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREMONT HEREBY:
1. Ratifies the execution of the Indemnity Agreement between the City and the County of Alameda f or Doug Ford Senior Apartments; and
2. Ratifies the execution of the Indemnity Agreement between the City and the County of Alameda for Granite Ridge Apartments; and
3. Authorizes the City Manager to execute similar Indemnity Agreement(s) between the City and the County of Alameda for Measure A1 Bond funded affordable housing projects in the pipeline; and
4. Finds this action is exempt from and not subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(1), (4) and/or (5), as an administrative or fiscal activity that does not have the potential, directly or indirectly, to result in a significant effect on the environment, and/or 15061(b)(3), in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will result in a significant effect on the physical environment. Each of the foregoing provides a separate and independent basis for CEQA exemption as it is not defined as a “project.”
ADOPTED ______________, 2022, by the City Council of the City of Fremont by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
2.D.c
Packet Pg. 108
Attachment: Draft Resolution 2022 Ratify Indemnification (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS)
Resolution 2022-XX Page 3 of 3
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
2.D.c
Packet Pg. 109
Attachment: Draft Resolution 2022 Ratify Indemnification (4683 : INDEMNITY AGREEMENTS) Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/20/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Police Department
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4699) DOC ID: 4699
Updated: 9/14/2022 3:08 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 1
RADIO SERVICES PROVIDED BY EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY (EBRCSA) - Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Issue Purchase Orders for Annual Operating Payments/Renewals and Execute Implementing Documents with EBRCSA for Use of the Public Safety Radio Communications System
Contact Persons:
Name: Deirdre Rockefeller-Ramsey Sean Washington
Title: Police Business Manager Police Chief
Div/Dept: Police Department Police Department
Phone: 510-790-6991 510-790-6969
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: The Fremont Police, Fire, Public Works, Community Services, and Community Development Departments, as well as the Risk Management Division of the City Attorney’s Office, currently use approximately 914 radios on the East Bay Regional Communications System Authority (EBRCSA) public safety radio system.
Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager, or designee, to issue a purchase order for the annual operating payment to EBRCSA in an amount not to exceed $329,400 for the one-year period effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 and execute implementing documents as necessary.
BACKGROUND: The EBRCSA public safety radio system was designed and built to provide coverage and interoperability to agencies in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. The system improves officer safety, eliminates duplication of overlapping independent radio systems, and provides interoperable voice communications for users. All police and fire agencies and the Sheriff’s Offices in Alameda and Contra Costa counties use the EBRCSA public safety radio system for communications. Other districts such as Ohlone Community College District, Contra Costa Community College District, Dublin-San Ramon Services District, and the University of California-Berkeley also use the EBRCSA radio system.
The EBRCSA public safety radio system provides the critical radio communications infrastructure needed by the Police and Fire Departments to deliver essential public safety services to the community and to surrounding cities in the event of a major disaster or emergency. Other City departments including Public Works, Community Services, Community Development, and City Attorney’s Office (Risk Management) currently use the EBRCSA radio system for radio communications within the respective departments, with each other, and with the Police and Fire Departments.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The annual operating payments have remained at $360 per subscriber since FY 2019/20. The EBRCSA Board of Directors will only raise the prices as large expenses are incurred due to upgrades in the system and are currently working on a 10-year cost plan.
2.E
Packet Pg. 110
Staff Report (ID # 4699) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/14/2022 3:08 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 2
In FY 2022/23, the City has approximately 914 radios on the EBRCSA public safety radio system listed in the following table:
Department/Division
Number of
Radios
Police 506
Fire 255
Public Works/Engineering, Street Maintenance, Facilities, Transportation, Streets, Sanitation, Fleet, and Hazardous Materials 91 Community Development/Building Inspection, Plans and Permits, Code Enforcement
29 Community Services/Parks Maintenance, Park Rangers, Boathouse, Environmental Services
32 City Attorney’s Office/Risk Management 1
TOTAL RADIOS 914
FISCAL IMPACT: The cost for the annual Operating Payments for the one-year period of July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, is $329,040 (914 radios at $360 per user). There are sufficient funds for the annual Operating Payments appropriated in the FY 2022/23 operating budgets for each department/division.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
ATTACHMENTS: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager, or designee, to issue a purchase order for the annual operating payment to EBRCSA in an amount not to exceed $329,040 for the one-year period effective July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 and execute implementing documents as necessary.
2.E
Packet Pg. 111
Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/20/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Fire Department
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Grants
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4706) DOC ID: 4706
Updated: 9/16/2022 12:44 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 1
ACCEPT AND APPROPRIATE AFG GRANT FUNDS FOR PARAMEDIC TRAINING - Accept and Appropriate Assistance to Firefighters Grant Funds for $663,623 for Paramedic Training
Contact Persons:
Name: Donna Do Zoraida Diaz
Title: Management Analyst II Deputy Fire Chief
Div/Dept: Fire Department Fire Department
Phone: 510-494-4200 510-494-4200
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: Staff seeks City Council authority to accept a grant in the amount of $663,623 and enter into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to appropriate and use the funds to train Fremont firefighters to advance from Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) to Paramedic.
BACKGROUND: The Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is an important component of a larger coordinated effort to strengthen the Nation’s overall level of preparedness and ability to respond to fire and related hazards. Since 2001, the AFG Program has helped to provide critically needed equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training and other resources needed to firefighters and other first responders. As of September 2, 2022, the AFG Program has awarded approximately $168 million of the fiscal year 2020 funds to first-responder organizations that needed support to improve their capability to respond to fires and emergencies of all types.
The grant award is based on a competitive process that is overseen by fire service subject matter experts. Grants are awarded to applicants whose requests best address the priorities of the AFG Program. The program is to enhance, through direct financial assistance, the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel and to provide a continuum of support for emergency responders regarding fire, medical, and all-hazard events.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: Standards of Coverage are critical in determining current and desired service levels. Therefore, in March 2020, the Fremont Fire Department retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a Standards of Coverage Assessment (SOC) which revealed that treating critical patients requires ten tasks best achieved with two or more paramedics.
In 2021 the department responded to 10,591 EMS incidents that required significant paramedic invention. The most extreme examples are those incidents are list below:
2.F
Packet Pg. 112
Staff Report (ID # 4706) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/16/2022 12:44 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 2
1. 191 cardiac arrests
2. 196 cardiac problems
3. 680 respiratory
4. 1056 traumatic
5. 279 overdoses
These significant medical emergencies demonstrate that a minimum of two paramedics per company daily would facilitate positive medical outcomes. Currently, retirements and other labor market factors have resulted in minimum staffing levels of Paramedic Firefighters in the Fremont Fire Department. Increased call volume coupled with long response times from ambulance providers places tremendous pressure on department staff. With personnel deployed on incidents throughout the state during wildland season, the impacts fall on the paramedics who are present, many of whom are mandated several days in a row to meet staffing requirements. During a recent lateral recruitment effort, only 10 percent of applications were Paramedics. As a result, the Department is looking to train internal candidates to advance from Emergency Medical Technician to Paramedic to reduce staffing strains and fatigue.
In January 2022, the Department submitted a proposal to the AFG program to cover the tuition fees, supplies, and associated personnel costs to send six current EMT-level personnel to paramedic training. Depending on the program, the training typically includes a 13-month program with a didactic and lab portion, clinical rotations, and field internships.
On August 31, 2022, the department was notified that the grant was awarded in the amount of $663,623, with a matching requirement of $66,362. This grant funding will allow the City to increase our paramedic staffing model and provide a level of service consistent with the community’s changing demographics. These funds must be used by the end of the grant term on August 29, 2024, with no financial obligation to continue the program after the performance period.
FISCAL IMPACT: Staff recommends that the City Council accept the AFG Grant award and recognize and appropriate the AFG Grant revenue in the Federal Operating Grants Fund (Fund 199). The matching fund requirement of 10%, or $66,362, will be met with the Fire Department’s FY 2022/23 adopted operating budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: N/A
ATTACHMENTS: None.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. Accept the Assistance to Firefighters Grant in the amount of $663,623.
2. Recognize the grant revenue and appropriate it in the Federal Operating Grants Fund (Fund 199).
3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute all necessary agreements or documents in connection with the grant award.
2.F
Packet Pg. 113
Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/20/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Human Services Department Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Agreements and Contracts
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4697) DOC ID: 4697
Updated: 9/14/2022 3:02 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 1
TASK ORDER HSD-16 TO FUSD JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT - Authorization to Execute a Task Order to the Joint Powers Agreement with Fremont Unified School District. Task Order HSD-16 for the Provision of Mental Health, Family Support Services, Parenting Support, Adolescent Substance Use Disorder Treatment Services, Youth Development and Alternative to Suspension Services; as well as collaborate with the FUSD Wellness Centers to innovate and deliver services, and explore opportunities to assist homeless parents and their youth.
Contact Persons:
Name: Annie Bailey Suzanne Shenfil
Title: Youth and Family Services
Administrator
Director
Div/Dept: Human Services Department Human Services Department Phone: 510-574-2111 510-574-2051
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: The purpose of this report is to recommend that the City Council approve and authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute a Task Order for FY 2022/23 under the existing Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Fremont Unified School District (FUSD).
Task Order HSD-16, in an amount not to exceed $113,563 is for the Youth and Family Services (YFS) and Fremont Family Resource Center (FRC) divisions of the Human Services Department (HSD) to provide the following services to FUSD:
A) Healthy Choices School-Based Mental Health Counseling from YFS at the schools indicated in Attachment B;
B) Staff Mental Health Counselor (LMFT from YFS) at Kennedy High School; C) Mental Health Stigma Reduction Project (funded by Kaiser Permanente) to address and reduce stigma associated with mental health concerns and increase help- seeking behaviors among Junior High and High School Students and Parents using a public awareness campaign, educational presentations and community health and education related events;
D) WHY TRY® Cognitive Behavioral Groups for At-Risk students and as an Alternative to Suspension for on-campus offenses including marijuana and tobacco product use;
E) Substance Use Disorder Outpatient Treatment Services at Robertson and Kennedy High Schools (SUD Intervention Specialist from YFS) and YFS Clinic located at FRC; F) Family Support Services based at the FRC providing family support and COST consultation for FUSD COST teams and families as referred by FUSD
BACKGROUND: For many years, the City of Fremont HSD has provided a variety of services to FUSD. The City and FUSD have an existing JPA, which acknowledges these services and allows for additional implementing task orders.
2.G
Packet Pg. 114
Staff Report (ID # 4697) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/14/2022 3:02 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 2
Task Order No. HSD-16. HSD will provide five programs in FY 2022/23. The first two programs are funded through the task order for a total of $113,563. Three additional programs are provided for in the task order but funded solely through contracts with other entities.
First, the Healthy Choices School Counseling Program will serve ten Fremont schools in FY 2022/23, to provide mental health counseling services, parenting support and consultation. The City will receive a maximum payment from FUSD of $67,500 for Healthy Choices Counseling Interns in FY 2022/23. Healthy Choices Counseling will provide direct clinical intervention to approximately 200 students by utilizing volunteer clinical interns or trainees in the process of completing their required supervised practice hours to work at schools. Language capacity of the interns in FY 22/23 includes Spanish, Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi, Gujarati, and Arabic.
Second, at the request of Kennedy High School, one YFS licensed staff mental health counselor will provide mental health counseling, consultation, crisis support an d coordination of services at Kennedy High School for one and a half days per week or twelve hours per week during the school year. The City will receive a maximum of $45,063 for these services. These funds cover the costs associated with staff salary, benefits and overhead.
In addition to the above services, which are provided and funded through Task Order No. HSD-16, the following projects and services are included in the Task Order but funded through outside contracts.
A) WHY TRY Groups for at-risk Middle and High School aged youth using the evidence based “WHY TRY” program as a framework are funded by Alameda County Health Care Services Agency in the amount of $11,479. Groups will focus on improving critical decision-making skills, building resilience, improving anger management and healthy relationships with family and peers. Groups will be facilitated by YFS clinicians skilled at working with youth from diverse cultural backgrounds who are demonstrating risky behavior. This program will be offered by FUSD as an Alternative to Suspension for students who have committed Tobacco or Marijuana related offenses on campus.
B) The Adolescent Substance Use Disorder (SUD) Treatment Program will provide a value of $$39,657 of SUD services at Robertson Alternative High School and Kennedy High School through a fee for service contract with Alameda County Behavioral Healthcare Services (ACBHCS) v. A Certified SUD Counselor will be on campus two days per week during the school year at Robertson, and one per week at Kennedy. The SUD Counselor will coordinate services with YFS Counseling, FRC Family Support Services, and FUSD staff. Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services will reimburse the City for all services provided to students at the High Schools. In addition, YFS will provide screening, education, consultation, and treatment and recovery services if needed, and as program capacity at the YFS clinic allows for FUSD students 12 to 18 years, who are referred for substance use concerns.
C) Fremont Family Resource Center Family Support Services – FRC Family Support Specialists will provide support services and Coordinated Services Team (COST)
2.G
Packet Pg. 115
Staff Report (ID # 4697) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/14/2022 3:02 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 3
consultation for FUSD COST team and families as referred by FUSD. Alameda County Health Care Services Agency will fund this service as part of a larger contract of $176,308.
In addition, the YFS, FRC and HSD Homeless Services Divisions will work together with FUSD to identify opportunities and ways to incorporate the use of Family Partner to support students and parents, in particular to address the needs of homeless parents and their children.
Fremont Unified School District JPA - Task Orders’ Services & Amounts
Task
Order No. Service Funding Source
FUSD Other*
HSD-16
Healthy Choices School Counseling & Family Support
Services
$67,500
Licensed YFS staff mental health Counselor $45,063
WHY TRY Groups $11,479
Adolescent Substance Use Disorder Treatment Services
Robertson High School
$39,657
FRC Family Support Services $176,308
Total Task Order HSD-16 Funding: $113,563 $227,444
*Funding included for informational purposes.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: HSD has a growing body of data from the Family Development Matrix (Matrix) and the Child and Adolescent Needs and Strengths (CANS) Assessment tools demonstrating the benefits of these school-site services. The Matrix and CANS are assessment tools that FRC Family Support Specialists and YFS Counselors use at the beginning and end of services to assess the status of student/family needs and strengths.
Analysis of the Matrix and CANS data shows that children receiving counseling services are making statistically significant gains in social and emotional health, education and development, and pro-social behavior. Families who receive family support services report improvements in family stability related to housing, improved employment, and food and clothing outcomes. Students in these families show improvements in emotional status (confidence, motivation and ability to get along with others and their families).
Fremont’s ongoing partnership with FUSD is consistent with the national best practice models for community schools. A community school is both a place and a set of partnerships among the school, local government and other community resources. Its integrated focus on academics, health and social services, youth and community development, and community engagement leads to improved student learning, stronger families and healthier communities.
2.G
Packet Pg. 116
Staff Report (ID # 4697) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/14/2022 3:02 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 4
FISCAL IMPACT: Task Order HSD-16 provides $113,563 in fees from FUSD for staff, supplies and other service costs. This funding is augmented by other grants from Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services, as well as Medi-Cal Insurance and administrative activities reimbursement. In anticipation of this funding, the City Council appropriated sufficient funds to cover the activities described above, as part of the 2022/23 Adopted Budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Approval of the task order is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines sections 15378 and 15061, as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the authorized activities may have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve and authorize the City Manager or her designee to enter into Task Order HSD-16 to the Joint Powers Agreement with Fremont Unified School District in an amount not to exceed $113,563 for Youth and Family Services Division to provide School-Based Mental Health Counseling; Why Try Cognitive Behavioral Group Counseling as an Alternative to Suspension program for At-Risk youth; Substance Use Disorder Treatment services for Adolescents at Robertson and Kennedy High Schools; and the Family Resource Center Division to provide Family Support Services (Case Management) for the 2022-2023 school year (August 16, 2022 through June 15, 2023).
2.G
Packet Pg. 117
Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/20/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Human Services Department Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Fees & Rates
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4638) DOC ID: 4638 B
Updated: 9/16/2022 1:12 PM by Susan Gauthier B Page 1
RENT REVIEW ORDINANCE ANNUAL REPORT AND PROGRAM FEE – Public Hearing (Published Notice) to Review the Annual Report on the Rent Review Ordinance and Adopt the FY 2022/23 Annual Fee
Contact Persons:
Name: Robert Lopez Suzanne Shenfil
Title: CDBG Administrator Director
Div/Dept: Human Services Department Human Services Department Phone: 510-574-2043 510-574-2051
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: As required by the Rent Review Ordinance (RRO), City staff has prepared a RRO Annual Report for the City Council. The report provides an update on the status of the rent review program. Staff has also calculated the FY 2022/23 Rent Review Ordinance annual fee for City Council approval.
The RRO authorizes the City to recover all expenditures by collecting a per rental unit fee from residential landlords. The purpose of this staff report is to recommend that the City Council adopt a per-unit fee of $13.00 for FY 2022/23, for full cost-recovery of administering the RRO.
BACKGROUND: On October 3, 2017, City Council adopted the RRO creating a process for reviewing proposed residential rent increases exceeding 5% and establishing a Rent Review Board, although tenants and landlords are encouraged to attempt to resolve their differences through consultation and mediation before proceeding to a hearing. The ordinance also requires written noticing to tenants in multiple languages within 60 days, an increase in the penalty for landlord retaliation against tenants from $1000 to $2000 (the maximum allowable under state law), and rent may only be raised one time a year. There is also a requirement for an annual report to the City Council assessing the effectiveness of the program. The RRO covers all residential rental units in Fremont, including single family homes and condominiums, with a few exceptions.
The source of funding for the RRO is an annual per-unit cost-recovery fee that is approved annually by City Council and subsequently billed to residential landlords (Rent Review Ordinance Section 9.60.130). In determining the fee, staff divides the appropriated expenditures by the number of residential rental units, subject to the RRO, with adjustments to reflect the expected collection rate and remaining funds from the prior year .
In FY 2021/22, the fee was $12.00 per unit. This year the recommended fee amount is $13.00 per unit.
COVID-19 and Eviction Moratoriums. On March 25, 2020 the Fremont City Council ratified an Executive Order establishing a temporary moratorium on evictions of residential tenants in Fremont as one of its measures to address the COVID -19 pandemic emergency.
Thereafter, on April 22, 2020, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. O-2020-23 as an urgency ordinance to regulate residential evictions throughout the County during the COVID-19 public health emergency. On June 30, 2020, the County
5.A
Packet Pg. 118
Staff Report (ID # 4638) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/16/2022 1:12 PM by Susan Gauthier B Page 2
adopted Ordinance No. O-2020-41 to extend its previous eviction moratorium. The County’s ordinance effectively superseded the City’s residential moratorium, prohibiting all residential evictions anywhere in the County with few exceptions. The County’s moratorium ordinance remains applicable in Fremont and throughout Alameda County, even though the City’s residential eviction moratorium has lapsed, and the state’s COVID -19 eviction protections (through Assembly Bill No. 2088 (August 31, 2020) as well as Senate Bill No. 91 (February 1, 2021)) ended on June 30, 2022.
During this last year, relatively few rent increase cases were brought to the City, however a number of tenants impacted by COVID saw lost wages and in some cases lost employment all together. City staff directed their attention from cases involving rent increases to the administration of the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) which assisted tenants who were accumulating debt by owing rent arrears and landlords who were not receiving rental payments they were anticipating. Through ERAP, the City assisted with monetary relief offered through the Federal Treasury Department/State of California in the amount of $15.9 million provided to 1,365 households.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: The following information serves as the annual report to the City Council to continue assessing the effectiveness of the RRO. The report covers the period from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. According to the 2020 Census, the City has approximately 234,829 residents and 78,038 occupied housing units. 1 Of the total housing units in Fremont, about 21% are renter occupied. There are approximately 16,408 rental units in Fremont that are subject to the RRO. Rental units that are not subject to the RRO include units that are hotels, boarding houses, transient accommodations, dormitories, mobile home space rentals, shared housing units, and junior accessory dwelling units. The average cost of rent in 2021 for a 1-bedroom unit was $2,444.2
In 2021, a total of 26 requests for rent review were received between January 1 st and December 31. Of the 26 cases, 13 were resolved by consultation, two were partially resolved by mediation, and one was resolved by mediation. Six (6) cases were unresolved after consultation, two were unresolved after mediation, and two were cancelled by the tenants. Most cases brought to the City are resolved within the first two steps of the RRO process, which include 1.) consultation, 2.) mediation, and 3.) Rent Review Board hearing.
Resolved cases:
1. An increase of 5.1% was cancelled by the landlord after the Housing Authority refused to approve the increase for the Section 8 tenant at the BMR complex.
2. An increase of 5.3% was cancelled by the landlord because the increase violated the 12-month rule of the rent review ordinance.
3. An increase of 8.8% was reduced to 5%.
4. An increase of 5.9% was cancelled and the base rent was reduced by 4%.
5. Landlord declined to reduce the increase but agreed to renovate the unit.
6. An increase of 8.8% was reduced to 5%.
7. An increase of 10% was reduced to 5.2%.
1 Data from the United States Census Bureau;
https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q=population%20in%20fremont&tid=ACSDP5Y2020.DP05 2 The average rent is calculated using data from Apartments.com, Rent Café, and Zumper, and may be skewed depending on how each reporting agency collects their data.
5.A
Packet Pg. 119
Staff Report (ID # 4638) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/16/2022 1:12 PM by Susan Gauthier B Page 3
8. Landlord agreed to a month-to-month tenancy with the same 5% increase as a lease.
9. An increase of 8% was reduced to 5%.
10. Landlord agreed to replace the appliances as requested by the tenant.
11. Landlord agreed to a 6-month lease with same 3.5% increase as a 1-year lease
12. An increase of 8.7% was reduced to 7.8% (mediation).
13. An increase of 5.5% was reduced to 5%.
14. An increase of 7.4% was reduced to 5%.
15. Landlord agreed to a month-to-month tenancy with the same 5% increase as a lease.
16. An increase of 8.8% was reduced by a $101 concession for 3 months.
Staff has seen an uptick in rent increase cases since the prior year and anticip ate more in the upcoming fiscal year as the rental and job markets recover. The County is also anticipating an increase in rent increase cases and has allocated approximately $4 million dollars for eviction protection assistance that includes funding for mediations and legal services. These services are largely being contracted to Central Legal and will be available to all county tenants.
FY 2022/23 Rent Review Ordinance Annual Fee
Staff has prepared a recommended per-unit fee for Council to adopt for FY 2022/23. The fee only applies to landlords with five or more units.
Amount to be Recovered: The cost recovery model divides the FY 2022/23 budgeted expenditures for the rent review ordinance program by the total number of billable residential rental units in the City. The budgeted expenditures for FY 2022/23 are $260,825.
With $61,166 of fund balance available for the program on June 30, 2022, the net amount to recover is $199,659.
Item/ Amount
FY 2022/23 RRO Projected Expenditures $260,825
Fund Balance Available ($61,166)
FY 2022/23 Amount to be Recovered: $199,659
Total Number of Billable Units: Staff is estimating the total number of billable units to be roughly 16,408. This number is based on the number of landlords that participated in the FY 2021/22 fee process. Based on actual collections for FY 2021/22, staff is estimating a 96% collection rate for these units, which is 15,687 units.
Estimated residential rental unit fee: $13.00*
($199,659/15,687)
* Rounded up to the nearest whole dollar
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a per-unit fee of $13.00 for FY 2022/23, for full cost-recovery of administering the RRO.
The Master Fee Schedule will be amended annually to reflect each year’s budgeted or projected program expenditures, the rental unit inventory, and the estimated collection
5.A
Packet Pg. 120
Staff Report (ID # 4638) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/16/2022 1:12 PM by Susan Gauthier B Page 4
rate. In the event that the fees collected in one year exceed or fall below actual costs, adjustments will be made when the City determines the fee for the following year.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund. All of the City’s ongoing costs incurred in the implementation and administration of the Rent Review Program will be recovered from rental unit owners through the annual Rent Review Program fee.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The proposed action is exempt from the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2), (4) and/or (5) and/or 15061(b)(3), in that it is an administrative or fiscal activity of the City which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, each of the foregoing providing a separate and independent basis for CEQA exemption.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Resolution Rent Review Program Fee
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive the Rent Review Ordinance Annual Report;
2. Hold a public hearing;
3. Authorize a fee of $13.00 per residential rental unit in FY 2022/23 to recover the costs of the Rent Review Program; and
4. Adopt a resolution to amend the Master Fee Schedule to modify the Rent Review Program Fee.
5.A
Packet Pg. 121
Resolution 2022-XX Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREMONT
AMENDING ARTICLE V OF THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE TO ADD
THE RENT REVIEW PROGRAM FEE FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF
THE RENT REVIEW ORDINANCE AND MAKING FINDINGS OF CEQA
EXEMPTION
WHEREAS, on March 1, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8672, as amended from time to time, establishing the City’s Master Fee Schedule, fixing and establishing fees, rates and charges for goods and services provided by the City of Fremont; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Master Fee Schedule includes fees for certain City program services, which the City is allowed to collect to cover the costs of program administration; and
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2017, the City Council adopted a Rent Review Ordinance that went into effect on January 1, 2018, (the “Ordinance”) creating a process for tenants and landlords to address concerns about rent increases; and
WHEREAS, on December 5, 2017, the City Council authorized the setting of a fee which would allow the City to recover the costs of implementing and administering the Rent Review Program on an on-going basis; and
WHEREAS, Staff projects FY 2022/23 expenditures of $260,825 for administration of the Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, taking into consideration the carryover balance of unspent revenue from FY 2021/22 of $61,166, the cost that would need to be recovered with the FY 2022/23 fee is $199,659; and
WHEREAS, the City has estimated that there are approximately 15,095 rental units in Fremont subject to the Ordinance and taking into account various collection rates for different categories of landlords, based on contemplating both expected delinquencies and exemptions that have not yet been reported; and
WHEREAS, the proposed action is exempt from the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2), (4) and/or (5) and/or 15061(b)(3), in that it is an administrative or fiscal activity of the City which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, each of the foregoing providing a separate and independent basis for CEQA exemption.
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 122
Attachment: Draft Resolution Rent Review Program Fee (4638 : RENT REVIEW ORDINANCE ANNUAL REPORT AND PROGRAM FEE) Resolution 2022-XX Page 2 of 2
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREMONT RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Article V of the Master Fee Schedule (Resolution No. 8672, as amended) is amended to adjust the fee schedule of the Rent Review Program to read as follows:
Article V, Section I
Rent Review Program Fee
197 53510 3799 Rent Review Program Fee $13.00
SECTION 2. The Master Fee Schedule (as adopted by Resolution No. 8672, and as amended by this Resolution) shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk.
ADOPTED, , 2022 by the City Council of the City of Fremont, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk City Attorney
5.A.a
Packet Pg. 123
Attachment: Draft Resolution Rent Review Program Fee (4638 : RENT REVIEW ORDINANCE ANNUAL REPORT AND PROGRAM FEE) Fremont City Council Meeting: 09/20/22 07:00 PM
3300 Capitol Avenue Div/Dept: Police Department
Fremont, CA 94538 Category: Code Adoptions & Amendments
SCHEDULED
Sponsors:
STAFF REPORT (ID # 4613) DOC ID: 4613
Updated: 9/16/2022 1:08 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 1
AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE - Introduce Ordinance Amending and Adding Sections to Chapter 6.10 Animal Ownership, Chapter 6.20 Licensing and Vaccinations, Chapter 6.30 Impoundment, Chapter 6.40 Animal Fancier’s Permit and Chapter 6.50 Prohibited Activities.
Contact Persons:
Name: Kelly Miott Matthew Snelson
Title: Animal Services Manager Police Captain
Div/Dept: Police Department Police Department
Phone: (510) 790-6646 510-790-6874
E-Mail: [email protected] [email protected]
Executive Summary: In 2018, the City of Fremont substantially amended Title 6 (“Animals”) of the Municipal Code. In July 2021, the City Council requested that staff review ordinances of other cities that promote urban agriculture and the keeping of livestock in residentially zoned areas and to come back to council with a proposed amendment to Fremont’s Animal Ordinance allowing the keeping of two goats and any other amendments deemed consistent with the goal to encourage urban agriculture. The proposed amendments to Title 6 in the attached ordinance provide those changes for keeping of animals for urban farming, including permitting goats in residential areas. In addition, the proposed amendments reduce the length of stay for impounded animals and align with recent state law changes for canine antirabies vaccination and microchipping.
BACKGROUND: Title 6 of the Fremont Municipal Code (FMC) sets forth regulations related to animals throughout the City. When the City was incorporated in 1956, it encompassed many farms with livestock and other animals, but in the last 60 plus years, the City has become mostly urban. In 2018, the City substantially amended Title 6 of the FMC, Animals, to update the code and reflect the urbanization of the City, including the removal of goats and bees within the residential areas of the City due to the lack of shelter facilities and veterinary care for these animals at the Tri-City Animal Shelter. In July 2021, the City Council requested that staff review ordinances of other cities that promote urban agriculture and the keeping of livestock in residentially zoned areas and to bring back to City Council amendments to the Animal Ordinance allowing the keeping of two goats and any other amendments deemed consistent with the goal to encourage urban agriculture. As a result of the request in 2021, City staff has drafted proposed amendments to permit goats and bees in residential zoned areas and regulate ownership to ensure the safety of the animals and the community.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS: In undertaking the assignment from the City Council, City staff reviewed several urban farming ordinances from various California cities, including San Jose, Long Beach, Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Newark, Union City, Dublin, Pleasanton and Hayward. See Appendix A for beekeeping regulations in Alameda County and Appendix B for a comparative summary of chicken and goat regulations in the other cities mentioned.
The proposed amendments to Title 6, as included with this staff report, clarify animal limitations for chickens and permit goat and beehive ownership in areas zoned residential.
7.A
Packet Pg. 124
Staff Report (ID # 4613) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/16/2022 1:08 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 2
Shelter and shelter maintenance requirements for chickens, goats and bees have been defined and clarified for residential areas to ensure the safety of the animals and to reduce any nuisance conditions to the surrounding community.
Below are the proposed limitations for each
species:
Permitting goat ownership in residential areas may create an increase in goat ownership in the City, which may increase the number of goats impounded. If the fencing is not strong and tall enough to keep them in their yard, goats may escape as they are herd animals who may try to get out to find a herd. Currently, if Animal Services impounds livestock, there is one area at the shelter designated for their housing. If goat ownership increases, the shelter may need more fenced areas built for short term housing of livestock. Additionally, the shelter does not have a veterinarian on staff trained to provide services for livestock and there is no livestock veterinarian practicing in Fremont. Thus, any veterinary care would need to be outsourced to a location outside of the City, which would be an additional cost to administer the proposed changes to the Animals Ordinance.
The proposed amendments also include changes to stay current with changes in state law since the last Animals Ordinance amendments in 2018. The proposed amendments incorporate changes to the antirabies vaccination age for dogs from four months in age to three months of age in alignment with California Health and Safety Code.
Additionally, there are proposed amendments to meet the community needs. It is always in the animal and owner’s best interest to be reunited with their found pet. The amendments give the animal services manager discretion to waive redemption costs in cases of financial hardship if the fees would impose an economic hardship for the owner. In addition, the amendments recommend that the disposition of an impounded animal be reduced from four business days to three calendar days, as animal services staff are available daily for an owner to come retrieve their stray or lost animal. This shorter time period would allow the animals to move through the shelter system faster, keeping the animals healthi er and Number of Chickens Minimum Distance From
Any Property Line Lot Square Footage Permit Required
0 n/a 6,000 or less No
1-5 10 feet 6,001-9,999 No
6-10 35 feet 10,000-21,779 Yes
11-15 50 feet 21,780 + Yes
Number of Goats Minimum Distance From
Any Property Line Lot Square Footage Permit Required
2 10 feet 10,000 + Yes
Number of Beehives Minimum Distance From
Any Property Line Lot Square Footage Permit Required
4 5 feet n/a Yes
7.A
Packet Pg. 125
Staff Report (ID # 4613) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/16/2022 1:08 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 3
reducing the amount of time the animal is in the shelter’s care. The shelter is currently returning found animals to their owner at a rate far above the national average and this change would help the shelter place adoptable animals faster.
The final proposed change is to remedy an inconsistency between animal regulations regarding dog leash length in Title 6 Animals and Chapter 12.20 regarding parks. Currently, FMC section 12.20.100 requires dogs to be on a leash not to exceed six feet in parks and recreation areas. Title 6 currently allows the leash to be as long as twenty feet in public areas, including parks, which is a danger to both animals and residents. The proposed amendments reduce the leash length to six feet to be consistent with Chapter 12.20.
Staff conducted community outreach to receive feedback regarding the proposed amendments. Outreach included an online survey on the City’s MyFremont community engagement platform and a community meeting, which took place on Thursday, September 8, 2022 from 6:30 PM – 7:30 PM.
The community meeting included a presentation of the draft ordinance with amendments, followed by questions from the audience. There were 53 attendees at the meeting.
Questions covered a variety of topics including:
Whether the City would permit roosters;
Why goats need a distance from property lines and dogs don’t; Why the proposed bee regulations were not nuisance-based Whether current permits for more than 4 beehives would still be valid; Whether goats would need to be vaccinated for rabies; and If animal services officers could do inspections instead of armed police officers.
The community meeting and slide deck can be viewed here: Past Event/Meeting Materials | Fremont Police Department, CA
The survey tool was promoted during the community meeting and shared on City social media channels. The detailed survey results can be found in Appendix C. The City received 53 responses.
In summary, 81% of the respondents want the City to permit up to 4 beehives at a residential property. 85% of the respondents wanted the City to allow goat ownership, and those in opposition cited noise and smell as their biggest concerns. 58% of respondent s do not want the City of Fremont to implement a minimum distance from the property line for chicken ownership.
Of the respondents who submitted comments, recurring themes included that goats are good for weed abatement; there should be no minimum distance from property lines for goats or chickens; the City should work hard to promote urban agriculture and make beehive enforcement nuisance-based only.
FISCAL IMPACT: The City of Fremont does not have a veterinarian on staff and there is no livestock veterinarian practicing privately in the city. Any goats impounded by the shelter requiring veterinary care would need to be seen by a private veterinarian. Additionally,
7.A
Packet Pg. 126
Staff Report (ID # 4613) Meeting of September 20, 2022 Updated: 9/16/2022 1:08 PM by Susan Gauthier Page 4
the shelter does not currently have housing for sheltering goats and would need to build out a space for them to be safely housed or pay for another facility to house any impounded livestock.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The amendments to the Animal Ordinance are exempt from, and not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to, without limitation, CEQA Guidelines Sections 15378(b)(2) and/or (5), as it is an administrative governmental activity that will not cause any direct or indirect significant physical impact on the environment, and/or 15061(b)(3) in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that the there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The amendments to the Animal Ordinance will clearly not have a significant effect on the environment and, thus, CEQA does not apply.
ATTACHMENTS:
• Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals
• Appendix A - Beekeeping Regulations in Alameda County • Appendix B - Chicken and Goat Regulations in other Cities • Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey
RECOMMENDATION: Waive the first reading and introduce the proposed ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, amending Fremont Municipal Code Sections 6.10.030, 6.10.040,
6.10.070, 6.20.010, 6.30.040, 6.30.060, 6.40.030, 6.40.040, and 6.50.040, and adding Sections 6.10.130, 6.40.025, and 6.40.035.
7.A
Packet Pg. 127
Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 1 of 7
DRAFT
ORDINANCE NO. XX-2022
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FREMONT
AMENDING FREMONT MUNI CIPAL CODE SECTIONS
6.10.030, 6.10.040, 6.10.070, 6. 20.010, 6.30.040, 6.30.060,
6.40.030, 6.40.040, AND 6.50.040 AND ADDING SECTIONS
6.10.130, 6.40.025, AND 6.40.035
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FREMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.10, SECTION 6.10.030 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.10, Section 6.10.030 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.10.030 Livestock.
On real property zoned residential, a pet owner may not keep any livestock or roosters or livestock, except goats (caprine type) with an animal fancier permit pursuant to (Chapter 6.40.).
SECTION 2. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.10, SECTION 6.10.040 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.10, Section 6.10.040 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.10.040 Chickens, rabbits, pigeons, doves.
On real property zoned residential with an area of more than 6000 square feet, a pet owner may keep up to a maximum combined total of up to six (6) combined female chickens, rabbits, pigeons, and doves, unless a permit is issued under Chapter 6.40. A maximum of two (2) species of those animals allowed under this section may be kept on one lot. On real property zoned residential with an area of fewer than 6000 square feet, a pet owner may not keep chickens, rabbits, pigeons or doves and may only keep a maximum of two (2) rabbits, pigeons or doves.
SECTION 3. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.10, SECTION 6.10.070 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.10, Section 6.10.070 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.10.070 Shelter and shel ter maintenance requirements. (a) Any animal maintained outdoors must have adequate shade or shelter such that the animal can protect itself from the rays of the sun when the ambient temperature is likely to cause overheating or discomfort, and the animal can remain dry during rain.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 128
Attachment: Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 2 of 7
(b) The shelter for any animal must be:
(1) Accessible to the animal at all times;
(2) Constructed with at least five sides, including a roof and floor; (3) Of adequate size inside a nd outside the shelter to allow the animal to stand up, sit, turn around freely or lie down in a normal position;
(4) The animal shall be able to defecate and urinate away from the shelter; Adequately lighted to provide regular diurnal lighting cycles of natural or artificial light uniformly diffused throughout the shelter, and sufficient illumination for routine inspections and maintenance of the animal.;
(5) Situated to prevent expos ing the animal to (1) unreasonably loud noise or (2) teasing, abuse, or injury by another animal or person; and
(56) Supplied with clean and dry bedding material or other means of protection from the weather elements.
(c) The animal shall be able to def ecate and urinate away from the shelter;. (d) Wherever animals are permitted to be kept or maintained in the City, no person, so keeping or maintaining such animals, shall fail at any time to keep the coops, pens or yards wherein such animals are enclosed in a clean and sanitary condition nor shall fail to remove the manure or other debris from such enclosures daily.
(e) All feed for any animal shall be stored in containers which offer protection against rodents and insects.
(f) No enclosure or shelter sh all be located in the front yard of the property where the animals are kept.
SECTION 4. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.10, SECTION 6.10.130 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.10, Section 6.10.130 is added to read as follows:
Section 6.10.130 Chickens—Enclosure and shelter.
(a) The enclosure where chickens are kept must be a minimum size of ten (10) square feet of permeable land per chicken.
(b) The enclosure where chickens are kept must be located at least a minimum distance away from any other person's residence, as follows:
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 129
Attachment: Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 3 of 7
Number of
Chickens
Minimum Distance From Any
Property Line
Lot Square Footage
0 n/ a 6,000 or less
1-6 10 feet 6,001 - 9,999
7-10 35 feet 10,000 - 21,779
11-15 50 feet 21,780 or more
SECTION 5. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.20, SECTION 6.20.010 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.20, Section 6.20.010 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.20.010 Vaccination of dogs and cats.
(a) Every person who owns, maintains or boards a dog, three months of age or older, or cat, four months of age or older, must cause that dog or cat to be vaccinated and revaccinated with a state approved antirabies vaccine within the time periods prescribed by state law or regulation.
(b) {Text unchanged}
(c) {Text unchanged}
SECTION 6. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.30, SECTION 6.30.040 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.30, Section 6.30.040 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.30.040 Redemption of impounded animals.
The animal services manager may recover the cost to impound, board, microchip or alter the animal from either the owner or person with a right to control the animal, in an amount adopted by resolution by the city council. The animal services manager has discretion to waive these costs in cases of financial hardship if the fees would impose an economic hardship for the owner.
SECTION 7. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.30, SECTION 6.30.060 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.10, Section 6.30.060 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.30.060 Disposition of impounded animals.
(a) The city may decide disposition of an impounded animal that is not retrieved by its owner within three (3) four (4) business days, not including the day of impoundment. (b) {Text unchanged}
SECTION 8. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.025 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.025 is added to read as follows:
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 130
Attachment: Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 4 of 7
Section 6.40.025 Chickens
On real property zoned residential, a pet owner shall obtain a permit pursuant to this chapter to have more than six (6) chickens. The number of such chickens allowed shall be based on lot size as follows:
(1) Lots with an area of 10,000 square feet or more, not more than 10 chickens. (2) Lots with an area of one-half acre or more, not more than 15 chickens.
SECTION 9. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.030 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.030 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.40.030 Chickens, Ppigeons, doves, and rabbits limitation. (a) On real property zoned residential, a pe t owner shall obtain a permit pursuant to this chapter to have more than six (6) total chickens, pigeons, doves, or rabbits. (b) The number of such animals allowed shall be based on lot size as follows:
(1) Lots with an area of 10,000 square feet or more, not more than ten (10) of one species of animal.
(2) Lots with an area of one-half acre or more, not more than fifteen (15) of one species of such animal.
(c) A maximum of two (2) species of those animals allowed under this section may be kept on one lot.
SECTION 10. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.035 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.035 is added to read as follows:
Section 6.40.035 Goats.
(a) Exactly two (2) live goats may be kept only on a residential property with a lot size of 10,000 square feet or more within the City.
(b) All goats shall be microchipped.
(c) Food produced by live goats shall be for personal consumption only by members of permittee's household, and shall not be sold, donated or otherwise distributed to any other person.
(d) Male goats shall be neutered.
(e) No person shall keep or maintain any goat in the City within ten feet (10') of any property line.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 131
Attachment: Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 5 of 7
(f) The enclosure must be a minimum size of two hundred fifty (250) square feet of permeable land for the keeping of two (2) miniature goats (commonly known as pygmy and dwarf goats), or five hundred (500) square feet of permeable land for the keeping of any other combination of miniature and non-miniature goats.
SECTION 11. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.40, SECTION 6.40.040 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.40, Section 6.40.040 is amended to read as follows:
Section 6.40.040 Beekeeping.
(a) It is unlawful to maintain any hive of b ees on any lot or parcel within the city without first obtaining a permit in accordance with this chapter. (b) No more than four (4) beeh ives may be established or maintained on any residential property within the City.The number of such animals allowed shall be based on lot size as follows:
(1) Lots with an area of one-half acre or more, not more than five (5) beehives. (2) Lots with an area of 10,000 square feet or more not more than three (3) beehives. (3) Lots with an area of 8,000 square feet or more not more than two (2) beehives (4) Lots with an area of 6,000 square f eet or more not more than one (1) (5) Lots with an area of less than 6,000 squa re feet shall not be allowed to have any beehives.
(c) No beehive may be kept or maintained within any required front or side yard setbacks. (d) All beehives must be maintained at least five (5) feet from the fence line. (e) All bee colonies must be maintained properly to prevent bees from swarming. (f) All beehives must be provided a source of fresh clean water on the same lot or parcel as the hive.
(g) Any person intending to establish or maintain any beehive on any residential property within the City must first register with the Coun ty of Alameda and provide a copy of such registration to the Animal Services Manager. (h) Beehive entrances shall face away from the nearest property line(s). (i) Beehives must either be screened so that the bees must fly over a six-foot barrier, which may be vegetative, before leaving the proper ty, or be placed at least eight feet (8') above the adjacent ground level.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 132
Attachment: Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 6 of 7
(k) Beehives are not permitted on multi-family balconies or patios .
(l) A beehive shall be located a minimum of 25 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent property.
SECTION 12. FMC TITLE 6, ANIMALS, CHAPTER 6.50, SECTION 6.50.040 Fremont Municipal Code Title 6, Chapter 6.50, Section 6.50.040 is amended to read as follows:
(a) {Text unchanged}
(b) The dog owner or person with a right to control a dog must keep the dog under direct physical restraint by means of a leash not to exceed six feet in length when the dog is on any public street, public sidewalk, other public place, event on public property, or at any private place or property or common area of any planned development cluster, townhouse, or on any condominium project without the consent of the owner or person in control thereof. An exception for a leash of up to 20 feet in length may be used when in a public park or public open space if the owner or person with a right to control the dog can exercise direct physical restraint of the dog such that the dog would be unable to make physical contact with another person or with an animal without the consent of that person or the consent of the owner or person with the right to control the other animal. This exception does not apply to a dog on a public trail. A dog on a public trail must be maintained on a leash not to exceed six feet; and both the owner and his or her dog must keep to the right of the trail centerline to the extent the centerline is marked. (c) {Text unchanged}
SECTION 13. CEQA
The amendments to the Animal Ordinance, an administrative government activity, is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that the there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The amendments to the Animal Ordinance will clearly not have a significant effect on the environment and, thus, CEQA does not apply.
SECTION 14. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such a decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Fremont hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section or subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 133
Attachment: Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Ordinance No. XX- 2022 Page 7 of 7
SECTION 15. EFFECTIVE DATE
This Ordinance shall take effect and will be enforced thirty (30) days after its adoption.
SECTION 16. PUBLICATION AND POSTING
The City Clerk has prepared and published at least five days before the date of adoption, a summary of this ordinance once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in Alameda County and circulated in the City of Fremont. A certified copy of the full text of the ordinance was posted in the office of the City Clerk since at least five days before this date of adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of this ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause the summary to be published again with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance; and the City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of this adopted ordinance with the names of those City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.
* * *
The foregoing ordinance was introduced before the City Council of the City of Fremont at the regular meeting of the City Council, held on the of , 2022 and finally adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of _______, 2022 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Cit
y Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
City Attorney
7.A.a
Packet Pg. 134
Attachment: Draft Ordinance Amending Title 6 Animals (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE)
7.A.b
Packet Pg. 135
Attachment: Appendix A - Beekeeping Regulations in Alameda County (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE
APPENDIX B
CURRENT CHICKENT REGULATIONS COMPARISON CITIES
San Jose It is unlawful for any person to maintain livestock or more than six (6) small animals [chickens] without a permit. Designated distances are the distance measured from the enclosure or structure housing such small animals to the nearest dwelling unit other than the permittee’s. More than 20 feet but less than 40 feet, 6 small animals. More than 40 feet but less than 50 feet, 10 small animals. More than 50 feet, 20 small animals.
Long Beach Live chickens may be kept or maintained on residential property within the City, provided that the chickens must be kept at least a minimum distance away from any other person’s dwelling, as follows: 1-4 chickens, 10 feet; 5-10 chickens, 35 feet; 11-20 chickens, 50 feet
Oakland It is unlawful for any person to keep any … chickens … in any enclosure in the city unless the exterior boundaries of said enclosures are more than twenty (20) feet from any dwelling, church or school.
Berkeley It is unlawful for any person to keep on any premises owned, occupied or controlled by them in the City any … chickens… unless such fowls or animals are kept in an enclosure, no part of which is within twenty-five feet of any dwelling house occupied by human beings; provided, however, that the dwelling house referred to above does not mean the house in which the person resides who keeps the fowls or animals; provided that any of said fowls or animals may be kept temporarily for purpose of sale at any shop or place of business where the same are bought, sold or dealt in. (1918)
Alameda It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to keep on any premises owned, occupied or controlled by him/her or it in the City, any more than six (6) chickens … Any such fowl shall be kept in an enclosure, no part of which is within twenty (20°) feet of any dwelling house occupied by human beings.
Newark Animal fancier’s permit required when. Chickens… may be kept for noncommercial, recreational, educational or food source purposes upon parcels zoned but not developed for commercial or industrial purposes, and upon parcels zoned for agricultural (except open space) purposes, provided an animal fancier’s permit has been obtained from the animal control officer. The number of such animals allowed shall be based on parcel area, as follows: Parcels with an area of one acre or more: … twenty-five chickens, including two roosters... Parcels with an area of one-half acre or more: fifteen adult rabbits; or twenty chickens, including one rooster; or more than two geese; or six ducks; or three beehives; Parcels with an area of ten thousand square feet or greater: eight adult rabbits; or ten chickens, including one rooster; or more than two geese; or more than two ducks; or three beehives;
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 136
Attachment: Appendix B - Chicken and Goat Regulations in other Cities (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Union City Domestic animal/fowl or livestock shall be kept at the following minimum distances from any occupied building except the dwelling unit of the owner, licensed veterinary hospitals, kennels, grooming parlors and public and commercial horse facilities: Chickens, turkeys, geese, ducks, pigeons or similar fowl ... 25 feet
Dublin No person shall keep more than two dogs or keep more than two cats, or keep any livestock as accessory to any dwelling unit located in any “R” zoning district as designated on the city zoning map except in accordance with the provisions of a valid animal fanciers permit issued by the Director.
Hayward 4000+ square foot lot, up to 4 chickens
CURRENT GOAT REGULATIONS COMPARISON CITIES
San Jose
Up to 6 with permit. Proximity of livestock to dwelling unit. It is unlawful for any person to keep livestock within two hundred (200) feet of any dwelling unit other than the dwelling unit of the owner/guardian of the livestock or person with a right to control the livestock. It is unlawful for any person to keep livestock within thirty-five (35) feet of the dwelling unit of the owner/guardian of the livestock or the person with a right to control the livestock.
Long Beach Exactly (no more and no less than) two (2) live goats may be kept on residential property within the City
Oakland Legal as long as you don't sell the milk or slaughter the animal on your property.
Berkeley
It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association to keep or permit to be kept more than two female goats over one year old within the City except in Zones VI and VII, as set out under the zoning ordinance of the City. (1923: 1918) The herding or keeping of sheep or male goats in any number or in any manner within the limits of the City is declared to be unlawful and is prohibited. (1918) Alameda No code regarding ownership
Newark No horses, ponies, donkeys, burros, cows, steers, sheep or goats may be kept on a parcel less than one-half acre in size. The number of animals permitted on larger parcels shall be subject to the animal fancier's permit process and conditions established by the animal control officer.
Union City Domestic animal/fowl or livestock shall be kept at the following minimum distances from any occupied building except the dwelling unit of the owner, licensed veterinary hospitals, kennels, grooming parlors and public and commercial horse facilities: Goats 150 feet
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 137
Attachment: Appendix B - Chicken and Goat Regulations in other Cities (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Dublin No person shall keep more than two (2) dogs or keep more than two (2) cats, or keep any livestock as accessory to any dwelling unit located in any “R” zoning district as designated on the city zoning map except in accordance with the provisions of a valid animal fanciers permit issued by the Director.
Hayward allowed, dependent on location, zoning and property size
7.A.c
Packet Pg. 138
Attachment: Appendix B - Chicken and Goat Regulations in other Cities (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Animal Ordinance Survey-
Share your thoughts!
SURVEY RESPONSE REPORT
08 September 2022 - 15 September 2022
PROJECT NAME:
City of Fremont Animal Ordinance
7.A.d
Packet Pg. 139
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE)
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
1 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 140
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Q1
Do you want the City of Fremont to implement a minimum distance from any property line for chicken owners?
26 (44.8%)
26 (44.8%)
32 (55.2%)
32 (55.2%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question
(58 response(s))
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
2 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 141
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Q2
Do you currently own chickens?
6 (10.3%)
6 (10.3%)
52 (89.7%)
52 (89.7%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question
(58 response(s))
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
3 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 142
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Q3
Do you want the City of Fremont to permit up to 4 beehives at a residential property? In the proposed amendment beehives would not be permitted on multi-family balconies or patios. Additionally, they must be 25 feet from any dwelling on an adjacent... 47 (81.0%)
47 (81.0%)
11 (19.0%)
11 (19.0%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question
(58 response(s))
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
4 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 143
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Q4
If no, please check all reasons that apply:
Scared of being stung Bees will swarm Bees are aggressive Other (please specify) Question options
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
6 6
2 7
Mandatory Question
(11 response(s))
Question type:
Checkbox Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
5 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 144
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Q5
Do you want the City of Fremont to permit goat ownership? 47 (81.0%)
47 (81.0%)
11 (19.0%)
11 (19.0%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question
(58 response(s))
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
6 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 145
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Q6
If no, please check all reasons that apply:
Noise Smell Safety Other (please specify)
Question options
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
9 11
2 1
Mandatory Question
(11 response(s))
Question type:
Checkbox Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
7 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 146
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) Q7
Have you ever owned goats?
9 (15.5%)
9 (15.5%)
49 (84.5%)
49 (84.5%)
Yes No
Question options
Mandatory Question
(58 response(s))
Question type:
Radio Button Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
8 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 147
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) CA_Native
9/08/2022 03:02 PM
Goats are great for weed control
cvalvarez
9/08/2022 03:28 PM
We already see goats grazing in Alameda Creek and at Coyote Hills. I think goats are compatible with our suburban community.
Shashi
9/08/2022 04:25 PM
Minimum distances from property lines should be removed from chicken and goat regulations. Both of these animals can be kept safely, discreetly and peacefully even if their enclosure shares a fence with a neighbor.
Specifications for fence quality in the case of
goats would be a wiser specification, for example requiring fences have reinforcing by metal posts or cemented posts. Animal control officer’s time and energy should be reserved for attending to actual disputes and animal welfare concerns and not filled with regulating fencing unless a problem
of negligence or safety arises.
Hayrene
9/08/2022 04:10 PM
I don't believe you need a large lot at all for goats; even the proposal is too restrictive; they are quieter than dogs
spencerhadley
9/08/2022 04:41 PM
We have had chickens up against our property line for years. We have relationships with all of our neighbors and continue to check in that our chickens are not a nuisance. All our neighbors have assured us that the chickens are fine where they are. If our neighbors our fine shouldn’t the City of Fremont? Same with goats. If our fences are strong and our neighbors are fine with them, I don’t think the City should intervene. Also quails should be permitted. They are even easier to keep than chickens.
jgsplat
9/08/2022 04:45 PM
The minimum distances from property lines should be removed from chicken and goat regulations.
Fence specifications and build quality
would be a better alternative to enforce rather then fence distance.
Although in a time where our enforcement agencies are already under budgeted and stretched thin, all of this seems like a ridiculous thing to enforce.
Kelly guerrero
9/08/2022 05:04 PM
I absolutely think it is ridiculous that an ordinance was passed to not allow goats. Our children are part of 4-H. There are so many benefits to having goats for residents of the city not to mention keeping brush down in an environmentally sustainable way. Distance to fence line Q8
Any additional thoughts on this amendment?
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
9 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 148
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) should be removed as well for chicken and goat. Thank you!!! I am able to meet in person if needed.
DChittle
9/08/2022 05:07 PM
Times are changing and we need to encourage urban farming.
Dreysgroove
9/08/2022 05:11 PM
I think it is very important from a food sustainability perspective to allow homeowners a tremendous amount of latitude in keeping chickens, bees, goats, or any other livestock, animals, gardens, etc. that supports homesteading or farming practices.
Milwood1
9/08/2022 05:20 PM
The ordinance needs a provision to allow the city to require removal of animals or bees allowed by the ordinance upon receiving complaints from neighboring property owners.
The quiet enjoyment of
property should not be negatively impacted by animal noises and smells or swarming bees.
Creis2boycrew
9/08/2022 05:29 PM
I greatly value my neighbors right to raise animals and live in an eco conscience way of sustainability.
NW
9/08/2022 06:43 PM
Goats are essential to maintaining property shrubbery- it’s no secret that the area utilizes goats for fire maintenance.
Goats are easy and
not a nuisance.
chrissolsen
9/08/2022 06:58 PM
Cats and Dog kennels are allow up to the property boundary. 10ft
distance from Chicken kennels from property boundary seems unfair, and costly to pet owners.
Hank Stump
9/08/2022 07:17 PM
The need for permitting for beehives should be eliminated, or make the process easy enough for a higher compliance.
Will the proposed
system still require an armed officer to inspect the property? Sometimes facing the beehive towards the fence is the best way to get the bees to fly straight up and away, but of course that requires a solid fence, or open space on the other side.
Carol
9/08/2022 07:15 PM
Please update north Fremont dog park possibility.
Theresa
9/08/2022 08:09 PM
I think we need to tread carefully with regards to livestock in a residential area.
A person can have a 7500 square foot lot which
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
10 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 149
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) would qualify them for these scenarios.
However, if they put, say a
400sq ft ADU on the property, would that be enough free space for the people, the animals and their messes to maintain a healthy society?
The rules for allocating ADU has already been set by the state.
ThatDude
9/08/2022 07:46 PM
Our neighbor has goats and they have never been a problem. jsandoe
9/08/2022 09:54 PM
I don't think the proposed amendment fulfills the referral from City Council to adjust the ordinance to encourage urban agriculture. It makes minimal liberalization of the existing code but offers nothing of substance. When the referral was discussed at City Council its members expressed agreement with those that said that Urban Agriculture was a positive good for the city and should be encouraged. The city already has among the most onerous regulations in the Bay Area for the regulation of agricultural animals.
If the amendment passes it still will be.
Concerning permit fees, I
understand the rationale for a permit fee for cats and dogs. The Animal Services Department performs an admirable and useful service to the community in helping to find lost pets and finding new homes for abandoned pets. To the extent that this is paid for by permit fees, it is appropriate. But agricultural animals are not pets. I don't think the authors of this amendment appreciate the difference.
Its not clear that the services provided by the Animal Services Department are appropriate for agricultural animals, not that the animals or their owners derive any benefit from the fees paid. Is the city, for example, going to help locate the owners of lost bees or find a new home if the owners cannot be located? If the owners of agricultural animals are not going to get a benefit from their permit fees, there should not be a fee.
The amended ordinance seems to
attempt to capture in regulation practices that are intended to avoid some specific nuisance complaints. It's a list of potential citations that can be used by an unhappy neighbor against their animal owning neighbor. But, if I follow the regulations to the letter, does that protect me from an unhappy neighbor? No. There still are nuisance laws. For example, I know a fellow who lost his bees because of complaints of a swimming pool owner even though there is no way to say for sure that a given bee at the swimming pool came from any given hive. The proposed regulations don't address this circumstance (nor can they), but I'll bet that complaints from swimming pool owners make up a good percentage of bee complaints every year. Though he violated no regulation and though it's not clear his bees caused any harm, he lost his bees.
Other Bay Area cities have adopted nuisance-only
regulations and adopted, quite successfully, the idea of sending in trained mediators to help resolve nuisance complaints. With respect to bees, I believe, for example, that Redwood City does this and the Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
11 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 150
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) mediators are volunteers from the San Mateo County Beekeepers Association. I think that urban agriculture in Fremont is best managed by minimal, sensible regulation, and sensible and informed mediation when neighbors don't see eye to eye.
SabrinaTeixeira
9/08/2022 09:34 PM
No chickens or roosters. No goats. No bees.
KalinTurri
9/08/2022 10:04 PM
Section 6.30.060 (a)..."disposition of an impounded animal ..within three (3) days" conflicts with Cal Food& Ag Code 31108 which requires "6 business days, not including the day of impoundment except in specific situations".
Olsen4
9/09/2022 09:31 AM
It is unfair to purpose minimum distance to fence line for chickens when there is nothing on dog kennels!
Dogs bark constantly in
kennels and are a problem.
Those who already have built,
nonmoveable chicken coups by fence should be grandfathered into current rules.
Unfair to change and make them rebuild their coups
Anonymous
9/09/2022 05:51 PM
Get rid of minimum distance to property line. It’s not necessary. Also there is no good argument for taking away citizens’ rights to own chickens/bees/goats. These are all beneficial animals and cause no harm to any neighbors.
annie
9/11/2022 02:15 AM
As climate change continues to worsen, promoting opportunities to interact with animals and be more sustainable through urban agriculture is going to become more important.
EKM
9/11/2022 05:44 PM
I have a few thoughts on the Animal Ordinance:
Section 6.10.040 -
Why are Fremont residents permitted to keep pigeons and doves? I have not heard of those as pets. Are they for commercial purposes? I don't think residents should be keeping animals for commercial purposes on residential property.
Section 6.40.035 (b) - Goats held
on residential property should not be used for food (dairy or meat).
No one should be slaughtering goats that they keep on their residential property. Secondly, goat milk comes from a lactating mother goat who has had a baby. Goats on residential property should not be used for their dairy. What happens to their baby? Also, how do they become pregnant? Subsection (d) provides
the males
need to be neutered?
Section 6.10.070 – Just looking for clarity on
this section:
• Is this a requirement to provide a shelter that an animal may access versus caging an animal outdoors?
Subsection (b)(3)
indicates animals may be caged outside; in which case they should Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
12 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 151
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) be provided with sufficient room to exercise their normal behaviors beyond just being able to sit, stand, and turn. • Clarify how this section on “shelter and shelter maintenance” relates to the other sections o Section 6.10.130 “Chicken Enclosure” o Section
6.40.035(f) “Goats”
I have seen a house on Mission Blvd. that has a
horse in their front yard. Their pen always looks dilapidated. What are the requirements on keeping a horse on residential property? bluepanda
9/11/2022 08:57 PM
It looks like you want move bees and goats but less chickens.
Livestocks should not be discriminated. People should have the freedom to produce their own food of their choices, as long as they don't bother others.
Profnew22
9/12/2022 09:16 AM
The city needs all the bees it can get.
arcerick
9/13/2022 09:59 AM
I Vote NO
AndyS
9/13/2022 09:10 PM
I'm concerned that the ongoing permit fees for having small numbers of bee hives or goats will improperly discourage otherwise qualified property owners. I can understand a modest one-time start up/inspection fee to make sure everything is in order, but $60 a year (or more) seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Licensing altered pets only costs between $7 and $12 a year (each), and I assume part of that fee is to help cover the cost of catching and sheltering lost pets, as well as some administrative overhead with regard to rabies vaccination tracking. Maybe a similar small ongoing fee could be justified with goats, but not bees.
Now if someone violates the
ordinance (and their permit), that's a different matter, and I assume penalties would apply (fines or permit revocation). But in general, we should keep city fees to a minimum. Bees in particular are vital for the health of our environment and maintaining suburban hives should be encouraged as a matter of city policy. The goal should be to let people use their property in a responsible way, not to create a revenue source for the city.
Lastly, I'd like to see language allowing
exceptions for properties that are close to the size thresholds that have been set. 10,000 sq ft for goats seems rather arbitrary -- for example, my property is 9,997 sq ft, and I find it hard to believe that those 3 sq ft would make any difference.
RSchae
9/13/2022 09:49 PM
Why are we making it harder for people to own chickens. In this upcoming economy it would be beneficial to allow people on smaller lots to keep chickens as well. Surrounding communities allow Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
13 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 152
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE) chickens.
Richard Godfrey
9/14/2022 08:12 AM
Please include goat owners to determine best rules. Thank you CC
9/14/2022 11:02 AM
We should be promoting safe and considerate livestock/animal care in residential areas given proper space. Our community can benefit from access to sustainably and residentially farmed eggs, honey, goat milk.
Especially as we are losing more and more single-family homes that have gardens/green spaces, the city has become a heat island and encouraging sustainable practices in the green spaces we have left is essential to mitigating that. More emphasis on our local climate please. Of course we need affordable housing, but so much high- density housing and is making Fremont unlivable and undesirable.
Ca
9/15/2022 01:21 PM
Please enforce the codes that are already on the books! Esther Gonzalez
9/15/2022 02:16 PM
The beehive requirements proposed are still unacceptable and to limiting to our helping our pollinators survive.
How about roofs?
Optional question
(33 response(s), 25 skipped)
Question type:
Essay Question
Animal Ordinance Survey- Share your thoughts!
: Survey Report for
08 September 2022
to
15 September 2022
Page
14 of
14 7.A.d
Packet Pg. 153
Attachment: Appendix C - Survey Responses Report_Animal Survey (4613 : AMENDMENT TO THE ANIMALS ORDINANCE)