January 2023
Oakland, California 94612
449 15th Street
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
prepared with the assistance of
Hayward, California 94541
777 B Street
Planning Division, Department of Development Services
City of Hayward
prepared by
(2023-2031)
Hayward Housing Element
Appendix F – Assessment of Fair Housing
ATTACHMENT XI
Table of Cont
ents
i
Table of Contents
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
............................................................................................ 1 1.1
Introduction and Overview
................................................................................................ .1
1.2 Approach to Analysis
.......................................................................................................... 1 Fair
Housing Methodology
............................................................................................................. 5 Analysis of Impediments Findings
...............................................................................................
11 3
.1
Regional Trends
................................................................................................................
11 3.2
Local Trends
.....................................................................................................................
12 Fair Housing Resources
................................................................................................................
15 4
.1
Ability to Address Complaints
..........................................................................................
15 4.2
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
...............................................................................
17 Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
......................................................................
21 5
.1
Race a
nd Ethnicity
............................................................................................................
21 5.2
Persons with Disabilities
..................................................................................................
32 5.3
Familial Status
..................................................................................................................
37 5.4
Household Income
...........................................................................................................
43 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
...............................................................
49 6
.1
Poverty and Segregation
..................................................................................................
49 6.2
Concentrated Areas of Affluence
.....................................................................................
53 Disparities in Access to Opportunities
.........................................................................................
57 7
.1
Transit Access
and Walkability
.........................................................................................
57 7.2
Access to Education
.........................................................................................................
60 7.3
Economic Outcomes
........................................................................................................
65 7.4
Healthy Environment
.......................................................................................................
74 Disproportionate Housing Needs
................................................................................................
79 8
.1
Housing Problems
............................................................................................................
79 8.2
Housing Cost Burden
........................................................................................................
83 8.3
Overcrowding
...................................................................................................................
87 8.4
Homelessness
...................................................................................................................
93 8.5
Displacement
...................................................................................................................
97 Contributing Factors
..................................................................................................................
103
Other Relevant Factors
..............................................................................................................
105
10. 1
Historic Patterns of Segregation
....................................................................................
105
10.2 Stakeholder Input
...........................................................................................................
111
10.3 Other Factors
.................................................................................................................
111
10.4 Access to Homeownership
.............................................................................................
113
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
ii
Sites Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 115
11.1 Opportunity Areas.......................................................................................................... 115
11.2 Improved Conditions ...................................................................................................... 121
11.3 Exacerbated Conditions ................................................................................................. 121
11.4 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence ................................ 122
11.5 Access to Opportunity .................................................................................................... 122
11.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs ................................................................................... 122
11.7 Subsidized Housing ........................................................................................................ 123
11.8 Sites Analysis Summary Data ......................................................................................... 123 Fair Housing Goals and Priorities ............................................................................................... 127 Tables
Table F-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps ....................................................6 Table F-2 Housing Discrimination Cases per 1,000 Residents ...................................................... 17 Table F-3 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Alameda County ................................................ 18 Table F-4 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Hayward ............................................................. 19 Table F-5 Population Living in Low, Moderate or High Resource Area by Race (Hayward) ......... 24 Table F-6 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation (Hayward) ............................................. 27 Table F-7 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (Hayward) .................................................. 29 Table F-8 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (HOME Consortium Cities) ......................... 31 Table F-9 Employment Status by Disability Status (Alameda County) ......................................... 32 Table F-10 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Alameda County) ................... 37 Table F-11 Mean Salary by Occupation (Alameda County) ............................................................ 67 Table F-12 Major Employers in Hayward ....................................................................................... 68 Table F-13 Employment Status by Disability Status (Hayward) ..................................................... 72 Table F-14 Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) ..................................... 86 Table F-15 Housing Cost Burden by Race (2013-2017) .................................................................. 87 Table F-16 Household Overcrowding ............................................................................................. 91 Table F-17 Homelessness in Hayward and Surrounding Cities (2022) ........................................... 94 Table F-18 Mortgage Applications by Acceptance and Race (Hayward) ...................................... 113 Table F-19 Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects ................................................................. 119 Table F-2 Sites Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics ......................................................... 125 Table F-3 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Key Programs ................................... 128 Table of Cont
ents
iii
Figures
Figure F
-
1 Hayward Census Tracts
................................
................................
................................
....
3 Figure F
-
2 Outcome of Cases, 2015
-
2019 (Alameda County)
................................
........................
16 Fig
ure
F
-
3 Location of Alleged Discrimination, 2015
-
2019 (Alameda County)
.............................
16 Figure F
-
4 Percent of Total Non
-
White Population (Alameda Co
unty)
................................
.........
23 Figure F
-
5 Predominant Populations (Hayward)
................................
................................
...........
25 Figure F
-
6 Percent of Total Non
-
White Population (Hayward)
................................
.....................
26 Figure F
-
7 Percent of Population with a Disability (Alameda County)
................................
..........
33 Figure F
-
8 Disability Type (Haywar
d)
................................
................................
.............................
35 Figure F
-
9 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Hayward)
...........................
36 Figure F
-
10 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner (Alameda County)
...
39 Figure F
-
11 Children in Married
-
Couple Households (Alameda County)
................................
........
40 Figur
e
F
-
12 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Hayward)
..
41 Figure
F
-
13 Children in Married
-
Couple Household
s
(Hayward)
................................
.....................
42 Figure F
-
14 Median Household Income (Alameda County)
................................
............................
44 Figure F
-
15 Low and Moderate Income Population (Alameda County)
................................
..........
45 Figure
F
-
16 Median Household Income (Hayward)
................................
................................
.........
46 Figure F
-
17 Low to Moderate Income Population (Haywa
rd)
................................
.........................
47 Figure
F
-
18 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Alameda County)
................................
..........
51 Figure F
-
19 Poverty Status (Hayward)
................................
................................
.............................
52 Figure F
-
20 Neighborhood Segregation
................................
................................
...........................
54 Figure F
-
21 Predominant White Population (Alameda County)
................................
......................
55 Figure F
-
22 Access to Transit within a Quarter Mile
(Hayward)
................................
......................
59 Figure F
-
23 TCAC Opportunity Areas
–
Education
(Alameda)
................................
..........................
61 Figure F
-
24 TCAC Opportunity Areas
–
Education
(Hayward)
................................
..........................
62 F
igure F
-
25 Hayward Promise Neighborhoods and Network partners
................................
...........
64 Figure F
-
26 TCAC Opportunity Areas
–
Economic (Alameda County)
................................
.............
66 Figure F
-
27 Equity Priority Communities (Hayward)
................................
................................
.......
70 Figure F
-
28 CAC Opportunity Areas
–
Education (Hayward)
................................
...........................
71 Fig
ure F
-
29 Job Proximity Index (Hayward)
................................
................................
.....................
73 Figure F
-
30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Alameda County)
................................
...........
75 Figure
F
-
31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Hayward)
................................
........................
77 Figure F
-
32 TCAC Opportunity Areas
–
Environmental (Hayward)
................................
..................
78 Figure F
-
33 Housing Stock Age (2015
–
2019)
................................
................................
.................
80 Figure F
-
34 Rental Housing Violations in Hayward (2018
-
2022)
................................
.....................
82 Figure F
-
35 Chronology of Reisdential Development in Hay
ward
................................
...................
84 Figure F
-
36 Housing Cost Burden By Renters (Alameda County)
................................
....................
85 Figure F
-
37 Overpayment By Renters (Hayward)
................................
................................
............
89 Figure F
-
38 Overcrowded Households (Alameda County)
................................
..............................
90 Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
iv
Figure F-39 Overcrowded Households (Hayward) ........................................................................... 92 Figure F-40 Overcrowding by Race .................................................................................................. 93 Figure F-41 Sensitive Communities (Alameda County) ................................................................. 100 Figure F-42 Sensitive Communities (Hayward) .............................................................................. 101 Figure F-43 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure (Hayward) ......................................... 102 Figure F-44 1937 Oakland and Berkeley “Residential Security Map” ............................................ 109 Figure F-45 Home Owners Loan Corporation Redlining Grade (Alameda County) ....................... 110 Figure F-46 Housing Choice Vouchers ........................................................................................... 112 Figure F-47 Planning Sub-areas in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas .............................. 117 Figure F-48 Location of Housing Sites in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas .................... 118
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
1 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
1.1 Introduction and Overview
California
Government Code
Section
8899.50
requires local agencies to affirmatively further fair
housing (AFFH).
Under
California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting
discrimination, that
overcome patterns of segregation and
foster inclusive communities
free from barriers that restrict
access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” Government Code
Section
8899.50
stipulates
tha
t
an assessment of fair housing
(AFH)
include
s
the
following components:
A summary of fa
ir housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the
jurisdiction’s fair
housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity
An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and
segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities
in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including
displacement risk
An assessment of the contributing factors f
or the fair housing issues identified under
Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii)
An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to
those factors identified in
Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(i
i
i
)
that limit or deny fair
housing choice or access to
opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights
compliance, and identifying the
metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved
Strategies and actions
to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility
strategies,
and encouraging development of new affordable
housing in areas of opportunity, as well as place
-
based strategies to encourage community
revit
alization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement
1.2 Approach to Analysis
This
AFH
has been prepared consistent with
the California Department of Housing and Community
Development
(HCD)
Affir
matively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (AFFH Guidance Memo)
which
provide
s
guidance on the preparation of housing
elements and ensure statutory requirements are satisfied, pursuant to Government Code S
ect
ion
65583(c)(10).
This
AFH
evaluates
fair housing issues on the following topics:
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
Disparities in Access to
Opportunity
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
2 Other Relevant Factors, including historical disinvestment, lack of infrastructure improvements, and presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing
This AFFH addresses impediments through AFFH-specific goals, and actions based on the contributing factors for each identified fair housing issue. To identify specific areas within Hayward, references to census tracts and neighborhoods will be used throughout the document. An overview of census tracts is provided in Figure F-1.
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
3 Figure
F
-
1 Hayward Census Tracts
Source: U.S Census 2022.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
4 This page intentionally left blank.
Fair Housing Methodology
5 Fair Housing Methodology
Government Code Section 65583 (10)(A)(ii) requires
cities and counties
to analyze areas of
segregation, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportiona
te housing needs, including displacement risk.
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including :
The Housing and Community Development (HCD) AFFH Data Viewer
Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
CalEnviro
S
creen
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
T
he 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
The Comprehensive House Afford
ability Strategy (CHAS)
US Census American Community Survey (ACS)
Additionally, the analysis
includes a discussion of historic
land use and segregation patterns and
input from sources of local knowledge, including advocates for people with special needs,
advocacy
organizations, housing and social services providers, and Hayward
residents.
Additional
sources
include the Hayward Displacement Study completed by HRA Advisors (2021) and City Council staff
report and accompanying
Resolution No. 21
-
223 apologizing to Black, Indigenous, Californio,
Mexicano, Latino, Latinx and other community members of colo r on behalf of the City of Hayward
for its implicit and explicit role in perpetuating institutional racism.
HCD
AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract -
level
data from an expansive collection o
f sources including ACS, HUD, TCAC, UDP, and CHAS. The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation,
and integration,
rac
ially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing. The Data Viewer is intended to
assist in the
creat
ion of
policies that alleviate disparities,
combat discrimination
,
and increase access to safe and
affordable homes.
Urban Displacement Project
The
Urban Displacement Project
(
UDP
)
was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displac
ement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2015 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Additionally, census tracts
identified
as disadvantaged neighborhoods
by
UDP’s
criteria are further
analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non -
Hispanic white
population, median household income
,
and median gross rents over
time to determine levels of
gentrification and displacement risk.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
6 CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed a screening methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.
This tool, called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen), utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, if a community has a high score for that indicator, it is more impacted by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities compared to other communities. Designated disadvantaged communities are those with CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher, meaning that they scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California. Hayward continues to explore programs and policies to address community pollution, environmental health access to open space and government decision making through creation of an Environmental Justice Element of the General Plan.
California Tax Credit Allocation Committee
To assist fair housing analysis, HCD and TCAC created the California Fair Housing Task Force to provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies and departments to further the state’s fair housing goals.1 The California Fair Housing Task Force created Opportunity Maps to identify resources levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high-opportunity areas for families with children.2 Opportunity Maps are made from composite scores of three different domains made up from a set of indicators data shown in Table F-1. The Opportunity Maps include filters to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
Poverty Status: census tracts with at least 30 percent of population that earned an income that was below the federal poverty level
Racial Segregation: census tracts with a location quotient that is higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all non-white populations in comparison to the county Table F-1 Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, median home value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution indicators and values Education Math proficiency, reading proficiency, high school graduation rates, student poverty rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps 2020. 2021-2025 5-Year Housing and Community Development Strategic Plan for Hayward (Consolidated Plan)
Hayward’s 2021-2025 Consolidated Plan identifies affordable housing and community development needs through a housing market analysis; articulating priorities, goals, and strategies to address identified needs; and describing the actions that need to be taken to implement strategies for affordable housing. The City of Hayward is required to submit a federally mandated Consolidated Plan every five years and submit an Annual Action Plan in order to receive annual Community
1Office of The State Treasurer (STO). 2021. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcaF-hcd-methodology.pdf Fair Housing Methodology
7 Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME) funding.
Hayward’s
Consolidated Plan
is
comprise
d
of four prio
rity needs:
Expand and improve public infrastructure and
facilities, preserve,
protect,
and produce housing stock,
improve public services
and economic
development.
The Consolidated Plan is important in conducting this AFFH analysis, as it identifies exist
ing housing disparities, and describes how funding will be utilized to address barriers to such disparities.
AllTransit
AllTransit is an online database that details transit opportunity for communities. The website explores metrics that reveal the social
and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service. The AllTransit
performance score explores
metrics that reveal the social and economic impact of transit, such as connectivity, access to jobs, a
nd frequency of service.
2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice
As part of the CDBG program certification process, participating jurisdictions prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years.
T
he 2020 Alameda County Regional Analysis of
Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI)
provides
an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances,
statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and acc
essibility of housing. It also analyzes the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures to mitigate or remove identified impedimen ts.
Community
Engagement and Outreach
The
following section details
the various methods of community engagement the City used as part of the
H
ousing
E
lement
U
pdate.
For more information, please see Chapter 1,
Introduction
, and
Appendix A.
Contact
Lists
City staff developed email and mailing lists of community & advocacy groups, non -
profits, faith
-
based organizations, school
-
based organizations, mobile home park associations,
homeowners’
associations,
and neighborhood groups to provide outreach and
regular updates on the project. In
addition, the City is maintaining an “interested parties” list for those who have requested regular updates about the Housing Element, Climate Action Plan, Environmental Justice and Safety Element Updates.
Advertising
Th
e City developed flyers in English and Spanish advertising the project. A total of 48,500 flyers were mailed out to homeowners, multi
-
family housing complexes and individuals living in mobile home parks. In addition, City staff handed out flyers different locations throughout Hayward including
BART, the Farmers Market,
supermarkets,
and laundromats. The City also created a project website with links to upcoming and past event materials and links to articles and videos on the topics of Housing, Climate Chang
e, Environmental Justice among other resources. The videos on housing Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
8 included such as the legacy of redlining, the History of Russell City in Hayward and explainers on zoning among other topics (https://haywardhousingandclimateupdate.com/learn-more/).
Surveys
The City prepared and distributed an online housing survey from January 10, 2022 to March 10, 2022. The survey questioned housing conditions, access to resources, and experiences with discrimination to all individuals in Hayward. The surveys were translated into Spanish and Mandarin.
To encourage participation, the City advertised a drawing for five $50 Hayward business gift cards for individuals who completed the survey. The full results of this survey are located in Appendix A.
Bilingual informational Gallery
The City prepared a mobile gallery with posters in English and Spanish on the topics of history of Hayward, the Housing Element, the Climate Action Plan, Environmental Justice and Hazards in order to provide people with the opportunity to learn about the project on their own time. The galleries were placed at the Downtown Hayward Library, City Hall and were used at events at the Farmers Market, BART, the NAACP Offices and Chabot College.
Chabot Interviews
The City contracted with Chabot College to have students from two English classes interview Hayward residents around the issues of housing including housing conditions and concern about eviction or not being able to pay mortgages; experiences with neighbors; experiences with discrimination; perceptions of concentrations of poverty within Hayward; perceptions of homelessness; experiences of environmental pollution; rankings of importance for schools, transit, jobs, retail, libraries and other community assets; and hopes and dreams for the future. The students interviewed over 390 Hayward residents and documented their responses which are included as quotes throughout this Housing Element and summarized in Appendix A.
On April 25, 2022, City staff attended an event at Chabot College where professors and approximately 30 students discussed topics related to housing, gentrification and displacement, pollution and dumping, and other findings from the interviews. Both interviews and some interviewees attended the meeting to listen to student presenters. City staff present at the event was able to provide translation services as needed.
Balancing Act: Housing Sites Simulation
The City ran a Balancing Act simulation providing the community with the opportunity to weigh in on where they would like to see additional development or higher density development in Hayward to accommodate the Regional Housing Need. Links were provided to all of the groups on the email and mailing lists described above, the City’s email lists, interested parties and was advertised on social media. Hayward’s Balancing Act received 963 page views and 19 submissions from the public.
A detailed summary of the simulation is descripted in Section 1.7.5, Balancing Act: Housing Sites Simulation, of the Housing Element.
Housing Element 101 Informational Meetings with Committees, Planning Commission & City Council
In the Fall of 2021, the City held Housing Element 101 informational meetings for the Housing and Homeless Task Force, the Planning Commission and City Council to notify the public and decisionmakers about the Housing Element Update.
Fair Housing Methodology
9 Individual Meetings and Focus Groups
Over the p
ast six months, City staff has met with representatives from various advocacy and interest groups including Community Resources for Independent Living, Hayward Promise Neighborhood,
Hayward Collective and NAACP to notify and partner with the groups to get the word out about the
Housing Element Update. City staff attended NAACP Event s
on April 30, 2022
and May 21
; a
Hayward Promise Neighborhood event at Tyrrell Elementary School on May 12;
a Community Family
Fair
in Downtown Hayward
on June 17
;
and
a Junetee
nth Festival on June 18 to advertise the
Housing Element process and take comments about housing concerns and community needs .
Community Meetings
In July, t
he City
will
hold a community meeting and
work sessions
with the Planning Commission and
City Counc
il
to discuss
the Draft Housing Element and prior to submittal to HCD for formal review of the Draft Element.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
10 This page intentionally left blank.
Analysis of Impediments Findings
11 Analysis of Impediments Findings
The
Analysis of Impediments (
AI
)
provides
a demographic profile of Alameda
County, assesses the
extent of housing needs among specific income groups, and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. The AI addresses disparities in housing needs, existing patterns of segregation and racially/ethnically c
oncentrated areas of poverty (R/ECAPs
)
and
contributing factors
to fair housing impediments.
3.1 Regional Trends
T
he AI identifies the following impediments to fair housin g within Alameda County:
Non
-
Hispanic white residents are most of the County’s
homeowners despite comprising only
one
-
third of the County’s population
Residential s
egregation between white residents and
non
-
w
hite
residents has increased in the
last decade
The County’s
B
lack resident population has decreased by nearly
7 percent since
1990. Black
residents
primarily
reside
in
the cities of
Oakland and Berkeley
Non
-
white
residents are being displaced from areas
that have
traditionally large
non
-
white
population
s
Areas with higher
percentages
of
non
-
white
residents
generally
ha
d
less acce
ss to proficient
schools, jobs, and
cleaner air and water
Median rent
al prices
rose
an average of $1,000 (unadjusted for inflation) since 2010, an
increase
of 55 percent in a
9 -
year period
The average home sales price increased from
approximately $300,000 to nearly $900,000 in
less
than 20 years (unadjusted for inflation)
The number of unhoused people
increased 42 percent
in four years
Non
-
white
households, especially
B
lack and Hispanic households, have the highest rate of
disproportionate housing needs
, such as
incomplete kitchen
and/or plumbing
facilities
,
overcrowding (housing
more than
one
person per room
)
, and
experience higher rates housing
cost burden (spending at least 30 percent of income on housing costs)
Overall,
the rate of mortgage approvals has gone up in the last
7 years, but
racial and ethnic
disparities in
mortgage
approval
rates remained unchanged
.
While
white applicants
have an
average mortgage approval rate of
70 percent
,
Black applicants have
an average
a
pproval rate
of
59 percent and Hispanic applicants
have an average approval rate of
62 percent
Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV)
holders and those with disabilities often find
it difficult to find an
appropriate housing unit
based on located a unit of appropriate size and/or cost
Disability, race, and familial status are the most common bases of housing discrimination complaints
forwarded to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing and the Office of Fair
Housi
ng and Equal Opportunity
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
12 3.2 Local Trends
The Alameda County AI also identified impediments specific to Hayward. Contributing factors identified as impediments to fair housing in Hayward are discussed in detail below and include descriptions of how each impediment is addressed in this Housing Element.
Concentrations of Lower- and Moderate-Income Populations HUD defines a Lower and Moderate Income (LMI) area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population earn an income that is considered lower or moderate relative to the area median income. Residents with low and moderate household incomes were concentrated in the northern (Burbank, Jackson Triangle and Mission-Foothill neighborhoods) and central (Harder- Tennyson and Mission-Garin neighborhoods) areas of the city. According to TCAC, Hayward contains one high resource area (tract 45601), six moderate resource areas (tracts 438000, 435103, 435102, 436402, 436401 and 437000), and the remaining census tracts are considered low resource. Areas of high and moderate resource, primarily located throughout the eastern segments of the city. In contrast, low resource areas (with the exception of tract 437000 which is moderate resource) are concentrated throughout the western and central segments of city.
Language Barriers
A language barrier can be an impediment to accessing housing. Those who do not speak English may face discrimination, communication challenges in obtaining housing and accessing services and information. According to the AI, in 2017 approximately 18 percent of the population 5 years and older in Alameda County are considered having limited English proficiency, compared to 24 percent of residents in Hayward.
Lending by Race/Ethnicity
The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination when obtaining a mortgage. However, in some communities the lending pool is not representative of the demographics of a community and lending practices can be seen as an impediment to fair housing. This is the case in Hayward where white populations were overrepresented in lending practices while non-white populations were severely underrepresented.
Overcrowded Conditions
Large households are those defined with five or more individuals and can sometimes include multiple families living together to save on housing costs. According to the AI, in Hayward, 12.6 percent of renter households were overcrowded, and 5.4 percent were extremely overcrowded, reflecting the third-highest percent of overcrowding in Alameda County.
Local Land Use Policies
The Fair Housing Act prohibits jurisdictions from making land use decisions or implementing land use policies that exclude or can otherwise be seen as discriminatory. Historically, redlining, racial steerage and exclusionary zoning laws have been used as tools to marginalize and segregate communities of color (Section 10.1, Historic Patterns of Segregation) and are a contributing factor of disproportionate housing needs in the region and Hayward.
Analysis o
f Impediments Findings
13 Community Outreach and Fair Housing
As part of the Housing Element Update, the City implemented a community engagement program, soliciting input from the general public, housing stakeholders, and City decision makers. Results and feedback obtained during t
he community engagement program have been incorporated into the Housing Element, including this section on affirmatively furthering fair housing practices.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
14 This page intentionally left blank.
Fair Housing Resources
15 Fair Housing Resources
4.1 Ability
to
Address
Complaints
Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991 ,
fair housing testing is a
technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing.
F
air
h
ousing
t
esting involves
one or more
individuals who pose as prospective renters
for the purpose of determining whether a
landlord is complying with local,
S
tate, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination.
Testing may be
initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for disability discrimination, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the design or architectural features of a specific rental facilit y comply with state and federal
accessibility requirements. In
Alameda County
, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful
housing discrimination practices based on the
real or perceived
race,
ethnicity,
color, religion,
gender identity or expression
, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters.
The Department of Fair
Employment and Housing (DFEH) maintains a record of housing discrimination complaints fil ed in
local jurisdictions. From 2015
to
2019, 256 fair housing complaints in Alameda County were filed with DFEH. Overall, disability
-
related discrimination
comprised
the largest proportion of cases
(
56 percent
)
.
The next highest basis for discrimination w
ere
race
and familial status, comprising nearly 8
percent
each
.
Figure
F
-
2 shows
the outcome
of fair housing cases
that were resolved
in Alameda County between
2015
and
2019.
Most
cases were resolved with counseling services,
conciliation, or landlord
education, and
25 percent of cases were found to have insufficient evidence.
According to the AI,
less than 10 percent
of alleged fair ho
using discrimination cases in Alameda County between 2015 -
2019 occurred in
Hayward.
Hayward
reported
the 4th highest count
of alleged fair housing
violations
when compared to other jurisdictions in the County
, as shown on
Figure
F
-
3 .
Table
F
-
2 shows
housing discrimination cases per 1,000 residents in each jurisdiction in Alameda Co unty.
Emeryville
(0.83)
had the most cases per population, while Union City (0.12), Newark (0.08), Albany (0.16), Livermore (0.15), and Piedmont (0.00)
had the
fewest
number of cases per population
.
Though
Oakland had approximately 60 percent of the county
’s total discrimination cases, Oakland
(0.36) was proportionally comparable
to Alameda (0.32) Hayward (0.30), San Leandro (0.34), and Dublin (0.35)
(
Table
F
-
2 )
.
“
Yes, I have felt discriminated against. I think that they made it more difficult to find housing than other people. They ask you for a lot more things and they ask for it in very unpleasant ways. It can be very frustrating. It is not blatant
discrimination
,
but it feels that they make it
difficult to dissuade you from getting a house.
”
(Janet, Schafer Rd & Manon Ave, 36
-
45)
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
16 Figure F-2 Outcome of Cases, 2015-2019 (Alameda County)
Source: County of Alameda AI 2021.
Figure F-3 Location of Alleged Discrimination, 2015-2019 (Alameda County)
Source: County of Alameda AI 2021.
Fair Housing Resources
17 Table F-2 Housing Discrimination Cases per 1,000 Residents Jurisdiction
Population
Number of
Discrimination
Cases
Cases per 1,000
Residents
Alameda
78,863
25 0.32
Albany
19,053
3 0.16
Berkley
121,874
61 0.48
Dublin
63,241
22 0.35
Emeryville
11,994
10 0.83
Hayward
162,030
49 0.30
Livermore
79,201
14 0.15
Newark
47,467
4 0.08
Oakland
428,827
156
0.36 Piedmont
11,318
0 0.00
Pleasanton
79,201
16 0.20
San Leandro
87,598
30 0.34
Unincorporated County
235,439
30 0.13
Union City
72,991
9 0.12
Source: HCD AFFH Viewer, 2022. County of Alameda AI 2021.
4.2 Enforcement and Outreach
Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of a local jurisdiction and fair
housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and
education
to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition,
enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair
housing laws,
such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.
Regional Resources
According to HUD records, a total of 564 fair housing violations were filed in with the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) for Alameda County between 2010 and 2020. Over half (60
percent
) of the cases reported to the FHEO were on the basis of disability -
status discrimination,
violations on the basis of race discrimination comprised 19 percent, 15 percent were filed on the basis of retaliation, another 14 percent were filed on the basis of familial status discrimination, 9 percent on the basis of sex and
3 percent of total cases had a religious discrimination basis.
Table
F-3
shows
organizations in Alameda County
conduct
fair
housing assistance outreach.
These
organizations collaborate with
Hayward and other local governments
to address
housing and
community
needs
and provide the following services:
Fair housing testing and complaints
Fair housing counseling and education
Tenan
t/landlord counseling and mediation
Homeless prevention program
Rental assistance program
Rent/deposit grant program
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
18 Home seeking services
Shared housing counseling placement
Homebuyers’ education learning program
Table F-3 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Alameda County Organization URL Phone Number
East Bay Community Law Center (EBCLC) https://ebclc.org/need-services/housing-services/ (510) 548-4040 Centro Legal de la Raza https://www.centrolegal.org/ (510) 437-1554 Eden Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) https://www.echofairhousing.org/ (855) 275-3246 Alameda County Housing and Community
Development
https://www.acgov.org/cda/hcd/ (510)-670-5333
Project Sentinel https://www.housing.org/ (408) 720-9888 Bay Area Community Services (BACS) https://www.bayareacs.org/ (510) 247-8235 Source: County of Alameda AI 2021.
ECHO Housing conducts fair housing audits of rental properties to assess how well rental properties conform to fair housing laws. In rental properties where the evidence of deferential treatment is found, the owners and managers of such properties are encouraged to participate in fair housing workshops intended to provide education and training in ending illegal discrimination in housing.
Between 2017 – 2021, a total of 647 rental properties in jurisdictions throughout the San Francisco Bay Area were tested through audits. An overview of the criteria and results of these fair housing audits is summarized below:
Between 2017 and 2018: a total of 134 properties were tested in 14 jurisdictions. Email responses from 21 tests (16 percent) revealed differential treatment toward the tester with a Black-identified name. In 113 tests (84 percent), no differential treatment was identified. Between 2018 and 2019: a total of 129 properties were tested in 13 jurisdictions. In 5 tests (4 percent), only the white tester received a response. In the remaining 124 tests (96 percent), no differential treatment was identified.
Between 2019 and 2020: a total of 183 properties were tested in 17 jurisdictions. In 18 tests (10 percent), only the white tester received a response. In 165 tests (90 percent) no differential treatment was identified.
Between 2020 and 2021: a total of 207 properties were tested in 17 jurisdictions. In 17 tests (8 percent), housing was denied because the tester had a Section 8 voucher. In 190 (92 percent) tests, the tester was informed that Section 8 was accepted.
Local Resources
It is essential to note that the City does not provide housing. However, for all units that the City Regulates, the owner/developer is required to sign an agreement that include language that the developer/owner must comply with Fair Housing laws. The City has the right to disapprove a management agent based on substantiated fair housing complaints. Additionally, the City reviews marketing plans from City assisted projects to verify that the marketing with affirmatively further fair housing are review against discriminatory practices. While the City can enforce its agreements with the property owner based on substantiated fair housing violations, Fair Housing laws are under the jurisdiction of the State and Federal government.
Fair Housing Resources
19 In an effort to reduce housing discrimination, Hayward contracts with the non -
profit organization
Ed
en Council for Hope and Opportunity (ECHO) to assist residents with fair housing counseling services, connections to rental assistance and homelessness prevention programs, and to conduct fair housing testing. The City allocates CDBG general administration
funds to ECHO Housing's fair
housing services. Through ECHO, the City assists residents and landlords by providing mediation, investigation, and referral services. According to ECHO, a total of 124 fair housing complaints related to possible housing discr
imination were filed in Hayward between 2016 and 2021. Disability -
related discrimination comprised 45 percent of all cases filed, followed by 19 percent that were filed based on racial discrimination.
Additionally, complaints concerning possible discrimina tion were
filed based on familial status (12 percent) and sexual orientation (two percent). An overview of fair housing organizations active in Hayward is provided in
Table
F-4
.
In addition to the fair housing services provided by active organizations in Hayward
, Alameda
County administers the Housing Choice Voucher
(HCV)
program for
Hayward
and other jurisdictions
in the county. Funded by HUD, the HCV program provides
rental assistance aimed at helping low
-
income families, persons with disabilities, and the elderly secure afford housing.
As of 2011, the City
does not have any past fair housing lawsuits, consent decrees or oth er
related matters.
Table F-4 Fair Housing Organizations Active in Hayward
Organization
URL
Phone Number
Eden Council for Hope and
Opportunity (ECHO)
https:/
/w
w
w.echofairhousing.org/
(855) 275
-3246
Habitat for Humanity
https:/
/w
w
w.
hab
.org/
(510) 251
-6304
Housing Authority of the County of Alameda (HACA)
https://www.haca
.net/
(510) 538
-8876
Source: City of Hayward; County of Alameda AI 2021.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
20 This page intentionally left blank.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
21 Segregation and Integration Patterns and
Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of
integration and segregation, including patterns and trends .
Integration generally means a condition
in which there is not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a
disability or a particular type of disability
in a specific
geographic
area. Segregation generally means
the opposite condition,
where concentrations of the
characteristics described above are high
in a specific
geographic area.
To adequately assess the
patterns of integration and segregation, this section identifies trends at the regional scale (Alameda County) and at the local scale (
Hayward
). To identify socio
-
economic and demographic spatial
trends across these jurisdictions, this analysis utilizes HC D’s AFFH Data Viewer, which provides an
expansive collection of data from sources including the 2015 –
2019 ACS, HCD, HUD, UDP, the
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other regional and federal agencies. In its AFFH guidance document publ
ished in April 2021, HCD describes the importance of segregation and integration analysis in relation to fair housing:
Residential segregation and exclusion, whether by race, ethnicity, disability, or income, is a result of numerous housing policies, pract
ices, and procedures
—
both public and private
—
that have had
enduring and pervasive negative impacts. Overt and covert housing discrimination through land use policy, shifting housing markets, and patterns of investment and disinvestment, have restricted mea
ningful fair housing choice and equitable access to opportunity, particularly for communities of color. Historic patterns of segregation persist in California despite the long -
standing federal
mandate, established by the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (FHA), tha t federal agencies and federal
grantees affirmatively further the purposes of the FHA.
Past and present discriminatory policies and
practices, including long
-
term disinvestment, have resulted in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty and poor housing stoc
k, limited access to opportunity, unsafe environmental conditions, underfunded schools, dilapidated infrastructure, and other disproportionately experienced problems. In addition, governmental policies have subsidized the development of segregated, high -
re
sourced suburbs in metropolitan areas by constructing new highway systems —
often through
lower income communities of color
—
to ensure access to job opportunities in urban centers. This physical and policy infrastructure supports patterns of discrimination a nd high levels of segregation
that continue to persist in California and across the country. All of these conditions persist despite the over 50
-
year
-
old obligation to prohibit discrimination and affirmatively further fair housing. 2 5.1
R
ace and Ethnicity
Ex
amining t
he
demographic,
ethnic
,
and racial composition of a region
is vital
to
understanding
fair
housing concerns
including
access to
economic opportunity
and
safe and affordable housing
.
Historic exclusionary governmental policies, biased mortgage lendi ng practices, and other tactics
have caused racial and ethnic segregation and spatial inequities.
This section provides an overview
of racial/ethnic composition and segregation patterns within Alameda County and Hayward.
2 California Department of Housing and Community Development. 2021.
AFFH Guidance Memo.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community
-
development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4
-
27 -
2021.pdf
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
22 Regional Trends
Regionally, the western urbanized area
of Alameda County contains
populations with at least 40 percent
non-white residents, as shown on
Figure F-4. Comparatively, the
relatively less urbanized and less
densely populated eastern portion of
Alameda County in close proximity to
regional wilderness parks and recreation areas contain a higher percentage of white residents. HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index to measure segregation levels across a defined geographic boundary. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from zero to 100, where zero represents perfect integration between racial groups and 100 represents perfect segregation.
Racial/ethnic segregation in Alameda County slightly increased between 2010 and 2017. According to the AI, the cities of Berkeley and Oakland had a racial/ethnic dissimilarity score of 53 and 55 in 2017, respectively, signaling moderate to high levels of African American/non-Hispanic white segregation.
In March 2022, ABAG and the University of California (UC), Merced, published a segregation report to compare integration and segregation patterns between jurisdictions within the San Francisco Bay Area. The report found the cities of Alameda and Berkeley had fewer residents of color compared to the San Francisco Bay Area as a whole, whereas the percent of residents of colors was higher in the Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland, and Union City.
Local Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, areas west of Hesperian Boulevard (Mt. Eden and Glen Eden neighborhoods) and south of Industrial Parkway Southwest had a predominant Asian majority, compared to the central region of the city where Hispanic residents are the predominant population. Table F-5 shows the racial composition of the city by TCAC resource area. Most neighborhoods in the central area of Hayward are categorized as low resource, while neighborhoods in the eastern areas of the city are categorized as moderate resource. Approximately 86 percent of Hayward residents lived in areas of low resource or high segregation and poverty and 14 percent residents lived in moderate-resource areas. Figure F-5 shows the predominance of white, Hispanic/Latino, and Asian-American residents in each census tract in the city. Predominately white majority tracks are located in northeastern area of Hayward. Figure F-6 highlights the percent of total non-white population residing in Hayward. Geographically, non-Hispanic white and Asian populations were concentrated in Hayward’s eastern neighborhoods, while the city’s central and western neighborhoods had predominantly Hispanic/Latino and Asian populations, respectively. As referenced in the AI, racial/ethnic dissimilarity scores in Hayward were higher than most jurisdictions in the county, yet lower than the county as a whole. In Hayward, Hispanic/Latino and non-Hispanic white residents had the highest racial/ethnic dissimilarity index score (33) “I have noticed that they are building higher priced
condos and apartments near low-income apartments
where the residents of both are ethnically
different.”(Alexander, C St & 3rd St, 26-35)
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
23 Figure F-4 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Alameda County) Source: AFFH Viewer 2022
.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
24 Table F-5 Population Living in Low, Moderate or High Resource Area by Race (Hayward) Resource Category
American
Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
American/API
Black/ African
American
Non-Hispanic
White Hispanic/Latino
Other Race or
Multiple Race Total
Low Resource or High
Segregation and Poverty Area
500 (90%) 38,825 (85%) 11,720 (82%) 20,373 (79%) 57,628 (90%) 6,036 (82%) 135,082 (86%) Moderate Resource Area 55 (10%) 6,458 (14%) 2,544 (17%) 5,305 (20%) 6,284 (10%) 1,309 (18%) 21,955 (13%) High/Highest Resource Area N/A 2 (<1%) N/A 2 (<1%) N/A N/A 4 (<1%) Total 555
(<1%)
45,285
(27%)
14,264
(9%)
25,680
(16%)
63,912
(40%)
7,345
(<1%)
157,041
(100%)
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020) ; U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5- Year Data (2015-2019), Table B03002
“I don't know if segregation is the word. Hayward is becoming gentrified. So like all the areas that are possibly poor or more low income people are coming in and building around in those neighborhoods. So it's happening like in the middle of a neighborhood where you look what I one side and it's like this beautiful building, and then you look across the street and it's like a decrepit home or like a home that's falling apart. You know, so I don't I don't know. I don't know how to describe it. You won't see poverty in the hills.” (Josue, D St & Valley St, 46-55).
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
25 Figure F
-
5 Predominant Populations (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
26 Figure F-6 Percent of Total Non-White Population (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Segregation and Integration
Patterns and Trends
27 Segregation can also be measured by the isolation index. The Isolation index Indicates the potential for contact between different racial/ethnic groups and compares the composition neighborhood composition to the jurisdiction’s demographics as a whole. This index ranges between 0 and 1 with higher values
indicating that a particular racial/ethnic group is more isolated than other racial/ethnic groups. According to ABAG and UC Merced, Hispanic/Latino residents were the most isolated group in Hayward, meaning that the average Hispanic/Latino resident lives i n a
neighborhood that is 45 percent Hispanic/Latino.
In contrast, other racial groups in Hayward were
less isolated and more likely to encounter other racial/ethnic groups in their neighborhoods. Since 2010, non
-
Hispanic white residents have become less se
gregated overtime, compared to other
racial groups in Hayward. An overview of racial isolation index values by race/ethnicity is provided in Table
F-6
.
Table F-6 Racial Isolation Index Values for Segregation (Hayward) Race/Ethnicity
2000
2010
2020
Asian/Pacific Islander
0.243
0.289
0.365
Black/
African American
0.119
0.130
0.103
Hispanic/Latino
0.399
0.461
0.459
Non
-
Hispanic white
0.338
0.231
0.159
Source: UC Merced and Association of Bay Area Governments 2022.
HUD’s Opportunity Indices were created to inform communities about racial/ethnic segregation and disparities in access to opportunity.
3 Table
F-7
provides opportunity indicator index scores (ranging
from
zero to
100) for Hayward for each race/ethnicity
.
Generally, higher index scores are indicative
of
greater access to opportunity. A brief overview of each index and its interpretation is provided below:
Low Poverty
.
The rate of poverty by census tract.
The higher the score, the less exposure to
poverty in a neighborhood.
School Proficiency
.
The percenta
ge of fourth
-
grade students testing proficient in reading and
math within three miles of a census block group. The higher the score, the higher the quality of the school system in a neighborhood.
Jobs Proximity
.
The distance to all job locations from a given block group. The higher the index value, the better the access to employment opportunities for residents in a neighborhood.
Labor Market
.
The level of intensity of labor market engagement based upon the level of employment, labor force participation, and educational attainment by census tract. The higher the score, the higher the labor force participation and human capital in a neighborhood .
Low Transportation Cost
.
Estimates of transportation costs of a family of three with an income at 50 percent of the median income for renters by census tract. The higher the value, the lower the cost of transportation in that neighborhood.
Transit.
Estim
ates of transit trips taken by a family of three with an income at 50 percent of the median income for renters by census tract.
The higher the value, the more likely residents in
that neighborhood
use
public transit.
3 HUD 2021.
https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH
-T-
Data
-
Documentation
-
AFFHT0006
-
July
-
2020.pdf
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
28 Environmental Health. The potential exposure to harmful toxins by census tract based upon US Environmental Protection Agency estimates. The higher the index value, the less exposure to toxins harmful to human health.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
29 Opportunity Indicators by Race/E
Table F-7
thnicity (Hayward)
Total Population
Low Poverty
Index
School
Proficiency Index
Labor
Market Index
Transit Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity Index
Environmental
Health Index
White, Non
-
Hispanic
55.96 15.39
43.63 85.96
80.62 42.30
35.10 Black, Non
-
Hispanic
49.98 14.54
39.98 87.73
83.33 45.45
33.47 Hispanic
48.78 14.04
34.03 88.74
83.45 37.68
31.10 Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non
-
Hispanic
60.01 15.84
44.91 87.11
80.27 43.49
34.65 Native American,
Non
-
Hispanic
53.42 14.52
36.88 87.86
82.96 45.18
30.77 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White, Non
-
Hispanic
45.98 12.60
36.58 86.92
83.08 43.95
34.87 Black, Non
-
Hispanic
36.70 11.24
27.43 89.92
85.72 35.29
30.34 Hispanic
38.32 13.25
29.25 90.24
85.80 33.08
31.03 Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non
-
Hispanic
53.85 12.16
41.70 88.46
82.12 37.17
37.06 Native American,
Non
-
Hispanic
25.87 7.73
27.58 89.81
86.95 24.51
33.30 Source
:
County of Alameda AI 2021
.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
30 In Hayward, the non-Hispanic white and Asian or Pacific Islander populations had the highest environmental health, low poverty, and labor market index scores, compared to Hispanic, non- Hispanic Black and Native American populations residing in the city. Conversely, Black/ African American, and Hispanic/Latino populations had higher transit, low-transportation cost, and jobs proximity index scores.
Further, most opportunity index scores were lower for residents living below the federal poverty line compared to the total population. Residents living under the federal poverty line had higher transit, low transportation costs and jobs proximity index scores and higher environmental health, labor market, school proficiency, and low poverty index scores compared to the overall population.
An overview of opportunity indicators for Consortium Cities is provided in Table F-8.
According to the AI, Consortium Cities refers to Entitlement Cities (Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro, and Union City) and Urban County communities (Albany, Dublin, Emeryville, Newark, Piedmont, and Unincorporated Alameda County) in Alameda County.
The AI defines Consortium Cities and Urban County Communities to compare demographic and socioeconomic patterns across incorporated and unincorporated communities of Alameda County.
Compared to other HOME Consortium jurisdictions, Hayward scored slightly higher for low transportation cost, and transit, and scored lower for Jobs proximity, low poverty, school proficiency, labor market and environmental health index indicators. Across racial groups, opportunity indicator trends in Hayward were generally lower when compared to HOME consortium cities. Across Home Consortium Cities, residents earning an income below the poverty level scored slightly lower for environmental health, labor market, school proficiency, low poverty opportunity scores, compared to the total population. Further discussion of race/ethnic composition in Hayward is provided in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
31 Table F-8 Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity (HOME Consortium Cities) Total Population
Low Poverty Index
School
Proficiency Index
Labor
Market Index
Transit Index
Low
Transportation
Cost Index
Jobs
Proximity Index
Environmental
Health Index
White, Non
-
Hispanic
74.10 63.31
69.18 84.18
78.19 44.75
43.41 Black, Non
-
Hispanic
58.99 40.26
50.63 86.80
83.10 48.23
32.95 Hispanic
60.13 39.58
50.39 86.92
81.95 42.57
33.93 Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non
-
Hispanic
73.39 60.03
68.09 85.67
79.17 43.95
38.37 Native American,
Non
-
Hispanic
64.76 50.18
56.54 85.94
81.39 45.45
37.11 Population Below Federal Poverty Line
White,
Non
-
Hispanic
65.76 55.16
62.13 86.65
80.71 43.00
38.06 Black, Non
-
Hispanic
48.63 35.79
46.06 89.08
85.77 45.80
29.24 Hispanic
47.30 32.12
43.07 88.78
84.39 40.84
32.46 Asian or Pacific
Islander, Non
-
Hispanic
63.27 51.04
61.69 87.98
83.51 46.55
31.52 Native American,
Non
-
Hispanic
41.65 34.75
39.50 88.59
84.96 40.19
29.07 Note: HOME Consortium cities include: the City of Alameda, Fremont, Hayward, Livermore, Pleasanton, San Leandro, Union City
and the Urban County communities of
Albany, Dublin, Emeryville,
Newark, Piedmont,
and Unincorporated Alameda County
Source
:
County of Alameda AI, 2021
.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
32 5.2 Persons with Disabilities
For persons with disabilities, fair housing choice and access to opportunity includes access to housing in the most integrated setting appropriate to an individual’s special needs and disability- related services as required under federal civil rights law. For example, persons with disabilities who are unable to use stairs or need a zero-step shower may not have actual housing choice without the presence of housing units with these accessibility features.4 High spatial segregation of persons with disabilities may indicate fair housing issues related to not only physical needs, but also economic disparities. According to the 2020 Annual Report on People with Disabilities in America, more than 25 percent of persons with disabilities (including physical, intellectual, and developmental; sensory; and other disability categories) live below the Census Bureau-designated poverty line, which is 14.5 percentage points higher than people without a disability.5 Persons with disabilities may be more reliant than persons without disabilities on fixed incomes or access to public transit.
Regional Trends
According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, approximately 151,362 Alameda County residents had one or more disabilities. Table F-9 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Alameda County. Approximately 3 percent of the total employed population in the county has one or more disability, reflecting no change from 2014, while the percent of total unemployed increased slightly during this time. Additional discussion regarding persons with disabilities in Alameda County is included in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment.
Table F-9 Emp loyment Status by Disability Status (Alameda County) Disability Status
Employed
2010-2014
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2010 -2014
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
Employed
2015-2019
(Percent of Total
Employed)
Unemployed
2015-2019
(Percent of Total
Unemployed)
No Disability 692,695
(97%)
69,499
(93%)
787,286
(97%)
35,569
(91%)
With a Disability 23,385
(3%)
5,570
(7%)
27,804
(3%)
3,665
(9%)
Total 716,080
(100%)
75,069
(100%)
815,090
(100%)
39,234
(100%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010- 2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.
Figure F-7 shows the spatial distribution of residents living with one or more disabilities across the County. Communities located throughout the northwestern region of the county were estimated to have a larger share of residents with disabilities compared to communities located in the south and eastern regions of the county. Further discussion regarding the population with one or more disabilities is included in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment.
4 HCD 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 5 The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Disability Statistics and Demographics 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
33 Fig
ure F
-
7 Percent of Population with a Disability
(
Alameda County
)
Source:
AFFH Viewer 2021.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
34 Local Trends
As referenced in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, 14,022 residents (approximately nine percent) of Hayward’s population live with one or more disability. Figure F-8, ambulatory difficulty (defined as having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs) was the most common disability reported by Hayward residents.
Figure F-9 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract, using 2015-2019 ACS data. Generally, areas in the northern part of the city (Downtown, Burbank and North Hayward neighborhoods) and in the southern part of the city (Harder-Tennyson, Tennyson-Alquire and Glen Eden neighborhoods) had between 10 to 20 percent of residents reported living with one or more disability. Census tracts 4354.00 and 4382.04 were predominately Hispanic/Latino and Asian neighborhoods and had the largest percentage of residents with one or more disabilities (13 percent). Additionally, 15 percent of the population in census tract 4354.00 had an income that was below the poverty level, according to the ACS 2015- 2019 estimates.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
35 Figure
F
-
8 Disability Type (Hayward)
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5
-
Year Data (2015
-
2019), Table B18102, Table B18103, Table B18104, Table B18105, Table B18106, Table B18107.
5.00%
4.25%
3.10%
2.61%
1.88%
1.49%
0.00%
1.00%
2.00%
3.00%
4.00%
5.00%
6.00%
With an ambulatory
difficulty
With an independent
living difficulty
With a cognitive difficulty
With a self-care difficulty
With a hearing difficulty
With a vision difficulty
Proportion of Adult Population Reporting Disability Type Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
36 Figure F-9 Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
37 5.3
Familial Status
According to the Fair Housing Act, familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 in a household with a legal guardian or designee of such guardian. 6 HUD provides examples of
familial discrimination as (a)
refusing
to rent to families with children; (b) evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody; (c) requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas; (d) imposing overly restrictive rules about children’s use of the common areas (e.g., pools, hallways, open spaces); and I
advertising that
prohibits children.
7 Single-
parent households are protected by Government Code
Section
65583(a)(7).
Because of their relatively lower incomes a
nd higher living expenses, single
-
parent
households can have limited options for affordable, decent, and safe housing. As a result, single parents among the groups most at
risk of experiencing poverty.
In addition to
barriers
to fair housing for single
-
par
ent households, large families
(defined as
families with 5 or more persons)
can also experience housing discrimination as property owners impose occupancy limitations that can preclude large families with children. HUD data shows that familial status discr
imination ranks third in discrimination of protected classes, behind discrimination due to disability and race.
8 Regional Trends
As referenced in
Appendix B
,
Housing Needs Assessment
, Alameda County had a total household
count of
approximately
577,177 in
2019. According to 2015
-
2019
ACS
estimates, households with
children present comprised 30 percent (174,344) of the total households in Alameda County. Tenure by household type and presence of children is shown in
Table
F-
10 .
Married couple families with
children comprise the largest share of owner
-
and renter
-
occupied households
with children
.
According to 2015
-
2019 ACS estimates, single
-
parent, female
-
headed households comprised eight
percent of renter
-
occupied households, but only two percent of owner
-
occupied households.
Table
F-10 Tenure by Household Type and Presence of Children (Alameda County) Household Type
Owner
-
Occupied
Percent of Total
Owner
-
Occupied
Renter
-
Occupied
Percent of Total
Renter
-
Occupied
Married couple family, with Children Present
82,499
25.7%
52,436
19.5%
Single
-
Parent,
Male householder, no
spouse
present
4,143
1.3%
6,503
2.4%
Single Parent, Female householder, no
spouse
present
6,871
2.2%
21,892
8.1%
Total Households with Children Present
93,513
30.2%
80,831
30.1%
Total Households
308,891
100.0%
268,286
100.0%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25 115
Tenure By Household Type (Including Living
Alone) and Age of Householder,
2015
-2019 Estimates.
6 42 U.S. Code sections 3601,
et seq
., the Fair Housing Act.
7 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/discrimination_against_families_children#_Who_Is_Protected?
8 U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2017.”
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
38 According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, jurisdictions located in the western regions of the county, such as the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, had relatively higher proportions of children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households. In contrast, the southern and eastern regions of the county, including the cities of Union City, Fremont, Pleasanton, and Dublin, had less than 20 percent of children residing in this type of household.
As shown in Figure F-10, the percentage of single female headed households with children is generally consistent through the urban areas of Alameda County (20 – 40 percent) with higher percentages occurring in Oakland (60- 80 percent). Figure F-11 shows the percentage of children under the age of 18 who reside in married-couple households. Spatially, the eastern portion of the county contains a greater proportion of children that reside in households with married couples.
Additionally, jurisdictions located in the western region of the county including Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, had a relatively lower proportion of children that are residing in married- couple household. Areas with a larger percentage of non-white population generally overlap with areas exhibiting lower rates of children residing with married-couple households.
Local Trends
As shown in Figure F-12, census tracts located in the central region of Hayward contain a larger percentage of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households. Comparatively, most areas located in the western and eastern regions of Hayward exhibit less than 20 percent of children residing in single-parent, female-headed households. The highest share of children in single-parent, female-headed households was recorded in the Southgate neighborhood (census tract 4373.00), located in the central region of the city. According to 2015-2019 ACS estimates, 40 percent of children in this area were living in single-parent, female-headed households. As referenced in Section 5.1, Race and Ethnicity, census tract 4373.00 has a sizable Hispanic/Latino population.
Figure F-13 highlights the percent of children residing within married-couple households within Hayward. A larger share of children residing in married-couple households are present within neighborhoods located toward the western segment of Hayward, compared to neighborhoods located within and surrounding downtown Hayward. Additional analysis regarding household characteristics for Hayward is included in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment.
S
egregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
39 Figure F
-
10 Female Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner (
Alameda County
)
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
40 Figure F-11 Children in Married-Couple Households (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
41 Figure
F
-
12 Female
Headed Households With Children, No Spouse/Partner Present
(
Hayward
)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
42 Figure F-13 Children in Married-Couple Households (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
43 5.4
Household Income
Identifying low or moderate income (LMI) geographies and individuals is important to overcome patterns of segregation. HUD defines a LMI area as a
c
ensus tract or block group where over 51
percent of the population is
LMI
(based
on
HUD
income
definition
of
up
to
80 percent
of
the
area
median income or
AMI).
Household
income
is
directly connected to the ability to afford housing.
Higher
-
incomes households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing,
and
they
are more likely to
occupy unsound and overcrowded housing.
Regional Tr
ends
Household median income is lower in communities located in the northwest region of Alameda County. According to 2015
-
2019 ACS estimates, Alameda County had a median household income of $99,406.
Figure F
-
14 provides median household income data by block group for Alameda County.
Areas highlighted in blue reflect regions of Alameda County where the median income is below the state median income of $87,100. Furthermore,
block groups exhibiting the lowest median incomes
are highly concentrated within the City of Oakland and scattered throughout segments of Berkeley, San Leandro, Hayward, and the unincorporated community of San Lorenzo.
Figure F
-
15 highlights
census tracts within the cities of Hayward, San Leandro, Oakland, and Berkeley that contain highest LMI populations in Alameda County. Spatially, LMI populations are located in comm unities that have
a relatively greater percentage of children living in single -
parent, female
-
headed households.
Local Trends
As discussed
in
Appendix B
,
Housing Needs Assessment,
Hayward
had an estimated median
household income of $86,744 in 2019.
As show
n on
Figure
F
-
16 , median household income varies
across Hayward. Geographically, census block groups with the lowest median income levels were concentrated in the city center, compared to block groups in the eastern and western areas of the city which had the highest medi
an income levels in Hayward. Neighborhoods with the lowest median income located throughout the city center had a sizeable Hispanic/Latino population. In comparison, areas with higher median income levels had sizable Asian -
American and non
-
Hispanic
white p
opulations.
Figure
F
-
17 shows large concentrations of LMI populations located in census tracts throughout the north central region of Hayward along Miss
ion Boulevard. Generally, between 50
-
75 percent of the
population residing in these areas are considered LMI. Approximately 80 percent of residents living in census tract 4377.02, located in the Hader
-
Tennyson neighborhood, are LMI. Furthermore, as
referen
ced in Section 5.1,
Race and Ethnicity
, this census tract has a predominant Hispanic/Latino
population. Neighborhoods that had the lowest share of LMI residents overlapped with areas the with sizable Asian
-
American and non
-
Hispanic white populations.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
44 Figure F-14 Median Household Income (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
45 Figure F
-
15 Low and Moderate Income Population (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 202
2. Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
46 Figure F-16 Median Household Income (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Segregation and Integration Patterns and Trends
47 Figure
F
-
17 Low to Moderate Income Population
(
Hayward
)
Source: AFFH Viewer 202
2 .
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
48 This page intentionally left blank.
Racially and Ethnicall
y Concentrated Areas of Poverty
49 Racially and Ethnically Concentrated
Areas of Poverty
To assist communities in identifying racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (R /
ECAP),
HUD developed a definition that relies on a racial and ethnic concentration threshold
and
a po
verty
test. For an area to be identified as having a racial and ethnic concentration, it must
have a non
-
w
hite population of 50 percent or more, within metropolitan or micropolitan areas. In locations outside these areas, where the non
-
w
hite populations ar
e likely to be much smaller than 50
percent, the threshold is set at 20 percent. The poverty test defines areas of “extreme poverty” as those where 40 percent or more of the population lives at or below the federal poverty line, or areas
where the poverty
rate is three times the average poverty rate in the metropolitan area, whichever is less. An area that meets either the racial or ethnic concentration and also meets the poverty test would be considered a R
/
ECAP.
6.1 Poverty and Segregation
Regional
Trends
As shown in
Figure
F
-
18 R
/
ECAP
area in Alameda County primarily occur in
Oakland
.
R/ECAPs
throughout the southern and central areas of Oakland had a higher degree
of neighborhood
segregation compared to R/ECAPs in northern Oakland. According to 2019 UDP estimates, R/ECAP
areas in
southern Oakland had a Black
-
Latino neighborhood concentration, compared to R/ECAPs in the central area
which
had a Black
-
Asian
-
Latino ne
ighborhood concentration, and the northern area of
the city, which had a
four
-
group
neighborhood concentration of Black
-
Asian
-
Latino
-
w
hite
populations
.
No other R
/
ECAP
areas are identified throughout Alameda County.
Local Trends
While there are no R/ECAPs as
defined by HUD in Hayward,
there are segments of the ci
ty
with higher levels of povert
y.
Figure F
-
19 shows the
percentage of the population
with an earned income below
the poverty level. According to
2015
-
20 19 ACS estimates,
several neighborhoods located
in the central region of Hayward
had a greater share of residents
earning an income below the
poverty level compared to the
rest of the city. Approximately
20 percent of the population residing in the Mission
-
Foothill neighborhood (census tract 4365.00),
earned an income that was below the poverty level. Since 2014, poverty rates have generally decreased within the central region of the city. According to 2010 -
2014 ACS estimates,
“
I would...I don't
want to say that this section that I know of is
living in higher poverty but I think that this section around Mount Eden, the houses there could use some work on mainly because it looks really old and worn down, like the houses there. It doesn't have to do
with the people living in poverty
there, it's just my view on the outside of the house and how it looks. There are other places in Hayward where it's like...the Hayward Hills, it's all nice, it's all beautiful, it's all clean. But then the areas around Mo
unt Eden, it seems old to me. So
,
I
would say that they're living in more poverty than the people in the Hayward Hills.
”
(Lilibeth, Harder Rd & Whitman St, 25
d d )
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
50 approximately 31 percent of the population residing in census tracts 4375.00 and 4377.02, located in the Harder-Tennyson neighborhood, had the highest rates of poverty in Hayward. However, 2015-2019 estimates show that poverty levels in those census tracts had decreased by nearly half.
This decrease in poverty levels is primarily due to displacement trends that indicate a 30 percent loss of low-income households and a 72 percent increase in high-income households in Hayward over the last decade.9 Generally, neighborhoods with higher rates of poverty also had a sizeable Hispanic/Latino population, as referenced in Section 5.1, Race and Ethnicity.
9 City of Hayward, 2021 City of Hayward Displacement Study. “If you look at like for like, how's the East Bay is or like towards the Hayward hills you kind of notice like a lot of the houses at that higher elevation. They're a lot more nicer, you know? Yeah, they they overlook they overlook a word in general. And it's kind of like if you look at like, who lives there, man, like, you'll see it's mostly like, like, like white people, you know? That are able to afford that type of housing. And if you look at like, South Hayward has a lot of minorities living there. And if you look at like the cleanliness of South Hayward compared to the hills, South Hayward from my experience is pretty, pretty dirty.” (Kristi, Harder Rd & Westview Way, 25 and under).
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
51 Figure
F
-
18 Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
52 Figure F-19 Poverty Status (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
53 Analysis identifying neighborhood segregation is provided in Figure
F
-
20 . According to
UDP
data,
two areas (census tract 4377.02 and 4382.01) located in the Harder -
Tennyson and Tennyson
-
Alquire
neighborhoods had
the
high
est
levels of segregation
in the city
.
UDP estimates show that
c
ensus
tract 4377.02 had a neighborhood concentration of mostly Hispanic/Latino, whereas census tract
4382.01 had an Asian
-
Latino neighborhood concentration
. In comparison, most of the city had a
group mix of three or four ethnic/racial groups reflecting higher levels of integration .
N
eighborhoods with higher rates of
segregation also had higher rates of LMI populations
, as 79
percent of the
residents
in census tract 4377.02
and 49 percent of residents in census tract 4382.01
were considered LMI populations.
6.2 Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While racially
and
e
thnically
c
oncentrated
a
reas of
p
overty
(
R
/
ECAPs
)
have long been the focus of
fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed to ensure housing is integrated
and promote equitable access to opportunity
, a key to fair ho
using
choice.
HCD defines an RCAA as a census tract in which 80 percent or more of the population is white and has a median income of at least
$125,000.
10 Regional Trends
Figure F
-
21 highlights the predominant
ly
w
hite census tracts in Alameda County
, which are
concentrated in the northern and eastern areas of Berkeley, the eastern portion of Oakland, and non
-
urbanized area
s
.
Areas within Alameda County with median income levels above $125,000 were concentrated in the northeast, eastern, and southwestern areas of Alameda County. While there are no RCAAs as defined by HCD in Alameda County, a large concentration of high -
incom
e
areas within the non
-
urbanized northeast and eastern regions of Alameda County, also had a predominately non
-
Hispanic white population. Jurisdictions in this region, including the cities of Alameda ($127,877), Berkeley ($142,910), Pleasanton ($177,247) a nd Livermore ($145,565) had the
highest median incomes in the County, according to 2015 -
2019 ACS estimate
Local Trends
Similar to Alameda County,
there are no
RCAAs within Hayward, but areas with
higher median incomes within the city also
have higher proportions of white residents
compared to areas with lower median
incomes. In Hayward, census tracts that
were identified as having a sizeable or
predominant white population were located
in the eastern area of the city (census tracts
4351.02, 4364.01, and 4364.02). According
to ACS 2015
-
2019 data, most areas in the
city with a sizeable or predominant non
-
His
panic white population also had higher median incomes
.
10 HCD. April 2021. AFFH Guidance for all Public Entities and for Housing Elements. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community -
development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4
-
27 -
2021.pdf
“
I would say the only the only
‘
segregation
’
I
see in Hayward would have to be in the
Hayward Hills. It is a huge difference going up
there compared to going down, a lot of
things like there parks, schools, and houses
seem 10 times nicer then the ones coming
down the hill.
”
(Jacqueline, Harder Rd &
Jane
Ave, 26
-
35)
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
54 Figure F-20 Neighborhood Segregation
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2022
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
55 Figure F
-
21 Predominant White Population
(Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 202
2. Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
56 This page intentionally left blank.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
57 Disparities
i
n Access to Opportunities
This section
examines place
-
based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes
to evalu
ate
disparities in access to opportunity. Access to opportunity includes access to
education,
employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, recreation, food
,
and
a
healthy environment (air, water, sa
fe neighborhood, safety
from environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions).
Additional analysis
regarding
access
to economic opportunity, transportation,
and environmental healthy neighborhoods is
provided in Hayward’s Environmental Ju
stice Element
.
The primary objectives of this analysis and
resulting policies and programs are twofold: to support mobility and access to high -resource
neighborhoods and to improve the quality of life for the residents of low -
resource communities.
11 7.1
Trans
it Access and Walkability
Reliable p
ublic transit access
and active transportation options
(
walking and biking
)
are imperative
for low
-
income
residents
and/or persons with disabilities
to connect to employment opportunities.
Access to employment via public
transit and active transportation
can reduce income burden
and
increase housing mobility, which enables residents to locate housing in more areas .
12 Lack of
transportation options can
impede fair housing choice and continue to reinforce barriers for low -
income
residents
in accessing
opportunities.
Regional Trends
Alameda County generally has widespread access to public transit. Alameda County (AC) Transit ,
Amtrak,
and Bay Area Rapid Tra
nsit (BART)
all serve Alameda County
.
AC Transit provides a variety
of
local
bus services as well as
the
East Bay Bus Rapid Transit (EBBRT) along an approximately 18 -
mile arterial corridor through the cities of Berkeley, Oakland, and San Leandro. Amtrack r
ail service
has stations in Fremont, Hayward, Oakland, and Berkeley on the Capital Corridor line that extends north and south along
I-
880
.
Paratransit services are provided
by East
Bay Paratransit, a
public
transit service for residents who are unable to u
se
bus or train
due to disability or disabling health
conditions. East Bay Paratransit is the primary paratransit service for Alameda County residents.
Transit use is higher in parts of the region where the greatest investment in transit service has been made. Almost all major employment centers in Alameda County are served by some form of public transit. However, having regional access to jobs by means of public transit does not necessarily translate into stable employment.
Some residents with unique need
s
,
such as
household
s
with
children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from working
far from home
due to
childcare needs, access to schools, and other considerations .
Alameda
C
ounty received
an average AllTransit performance score of 7.1
which equates to
a very
high
combination of trips per week and number of jobs
accessible by transit
.
13 11
California Fair Housing Task Force. 2020. Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. June 2020. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020
-
tca
F-
hcd
-
methodology.pdf
12 Ong, Paul and Evelyn Blumenberg, 1998.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6d897664#author
13 AllTransit.org
.
2021
. County: Alameda, AllTransit Metrics
. https://alltransit.cnt.org/metrics/?addr=alameda+county
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
58 Local Trends
Hayward is widely accessible by local transit. According to AllTransit, 96.7 percent of workers in Hayward live within one-half mile of transit. The city has an AllTransit Performance Score of 7.4, which is slightly higher than Alameda County.14
Figure F-22 illustrates transit access within a quarter mile of transit stops for both bus routes and BART. Most of the city is within a quarter-mile access of a transit stop except for a few areas within the Santa Clara, Harder-Tennyson and Tennyson-Alquire neighborhoods. Bus service in Hayward is provided by the AC Transit Local, Transbay, and the All Nighter lines.15 There are two BART stations within Hayward which provide public transit lines connecting residents to other jurisdictions. The Cal State University East Bay shuttle also provides transportation services to residents of Hayward.
In an effort to increase access to public transit, the Hayward Operated Paratransit (HOP) program and East Bay Paratransit offer transportation services to seniors and persons with disabilities. HOP is Hayward’s paratransit program that offers paratransit service to seniors (70+) and persons with disabilities who live in Hayward, the unincorporated areas of San Leandro, Castro Valley, San Lorenzo, Ashland, and Cherryland. HOP is designed to complement and supplement the East Bay Paratransit service when it is unable to provide service or meet the needs of HOP participants. As a City program, HOP extends flexible and unique solutions to meet the specific needs of its riders including offering free AC Transit Easy Passes and subsidized fare programs for riders who demonstrate financial need.
The City has partnered with local senior housing facilities, senior centers, and community-based organizations to implement the Safe Routes for Seniors program (SR4S). Funded by the Alameda County Measure BB ½ Cent Sales Tax, the SR4S initiative will target accessibility and walkability improvements in Downtown Hayward. The targeted intersection identified for improvement include:
B Street and Montgomery Avenue
Hazel Avenue/City Center Drive and Foothill Boulevard D Street and Watkins Avenue
A Street and Montgomery Avenue
14 All Transit.org. 2021. City: Hayward AllTransit Metrics. https://alltransit.cnt.org/metrics/?addr=hayward 15 City of Hayward Transit & Transportation, 2021. https://www.hayward-ca.gov/residents/streets-transportation Disparities in Access to Opp
ortunities
59 Figure F-22
Access to Transit within a Quarter Mile (
Hayward
)
Source: Alameda County 2022.
Hayward Housing Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
60 7.2 Access to Education
Educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. TCAC education domain scores measure educational outcomes using math and reading proficiency (the percentage of 4th graders who met or exceed math proficiency standards), high school graduation rates (the percentage of high school cohorts that graduate on time) and student poverty indicators (the percent of students not receiving free or reduced-priced lunch). The TCAC education domain scores are derived from 2018-2019 Department of Education data. This analysis incorporates demographic and socio- economic measures to spatially evaluate access to educational opportunities at the census tract level.
Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Alameda County is illustrated in Figure F-23. Educational outcomes vary across the County, as jurisdictions in the western portion, including Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward, generally had less positive education outcomes compared with the cities in the eastern portion such as Dublin, Pleasanton, and parts of western Livermore. According to kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children’s Health, Alameda County had a total public-school enrollment estimate of 227,331 students in 2020. 16 Hispanic/Latino (34 percent) and Asian American (26 percent) comprised the two largest racial/ethnic groups of the total public school enrollment in Alameda County in 2020, whereas non- Hispanic white students (17 percent) and African American (9 percent) comprised a significantly smaller share. Furthermore, high school graduation rates are highest among non-Hispanic whites (91 percent) and Asian American students (95 percent), while African American (80 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (81 percent) had slightly lower graduation rates.
Local Trends
Hayward is served by the Hayward Unified School District (Hayward USD), the New Haven Unified School District (New Haven USD), and San Lorenzo Unified School District (San Lorenzo USD).
Hayward USD is the largest school district in Hayward and operates 20 elementary schools, five middle schools, and four high schools within Hayward. New Haven USD schools mainly operate in Union City, but one middle school and one high school serves students living in Hayward. 17 San
Lorenzo USD operates one elementary and one high school in Hayward. Figure F-24 provides Hayward’s TCAC scores for education outcomes at the census tract level. Communities located in the northern and central areas of the city including the Cherryland, Mission-foothill, Jackson Triangle, Harder Tennyson, and Tennyson Alquire neighborhoods had less positive education outcomes compared to Mt. Eden, Glen Eden, Southgate, and surrounding neighborhoods located west of the I-880.
16 Kidsdata.org 2021. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/127/alameda-county/results#cat=18 17 New Haven Unified School District, 2021 https://www.mynhusd.org Disparities in Access to Opportunities
61 Figure F-23 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education
(Alameda)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022
.
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
62 Figure F-24 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
63 In 2010, Hayward became one of the first five cities in the nation to receive the five -
year, $25
million Promise Neighborhood grant from the US Department of Education.
The
Hayward Promise
Neighborhood (HPN) is a partnership of local educators, government agencies, businesses, and
nonprofits collaborating to
support residents within
certain neighborhoods within Hayward.
The first HPN covered the
Jackson Triangle communities of Hayward and students that attend partner schools within the Hayward Un
ified School District, to provide comprehensive, high
-
quality
educational and social support to ensure the long
-
term health, safety and economic well
-
being of
the entire community
by strengthening early learning systems, community leadership initiatives, a
nd increasing access to postsecondary education
through programs like the Early Learning
Network, the Cradle to Career Education Reform Network and Neighborhood Health and Empowerment Network. In 2017, Hayward received a
second
HPN
grant to establish the S
outh
Hayward Promise Neighborhood
which covers
three census tracts in the Harder
-
Tennyson
neighborhood
and/or attend HPN partner schools in the area
.
HPN network partners include 4Cs of
Alameda County, Cal State East Bay, Chabot College, Eden Area Regional
Occupational Program, City
of Hayward and Hayward Unified School District among other community -
based organizations and
non
-
profits.
Figure F
-
25 s
hows the Jackson Tri
angle and South Hayward HPNs along with
local
network partners.
Hayward USD had a total student enrollment estimate of 22,329 students in 2020. According to kidsdata.org, Hispanic/Latino students (65 percent) comprised the largest racial/ethnic group at Ha
yward USD in 2020. In comparison, Asian
-
American (8 percent), African
American (8 percent) and non
-
Hispanic white (5 percent) comprised a smaller share of the total student enrollment at Hayward USD. Approximately 4 percent of the student body was multi -
ra
cial.
18 Approximately 84 percent of high school students in Hayward USD graduated in 2020, which is lower than Alameda County (87
percent).
18 Kidsdata.org 2021.
https://www.kidsdata.org/region/136/hayward/results#ind=&say=&cat=18
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
64 Figure F-25 Hayward Promise Neighborhoods and Network partners
Source: Hayward Promise Neighborhoods Programs Guide.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
65 7.3
Economic Outcomes
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic outcomes.
Access to
high
-
quality
employment
close to desired and affordable housing results in
more housing opportunities and
sh
orter
commute
times
.
The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC), and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.
TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract and consider poverty
(the percent of
the population with an income
above 200
percent
of
t
he federal poverty line)
, adult education
(the
percent of adults with a bachelor’s degree or above)
, employmen
t
(the percent of adult
s between
age 20
-
64 who are employed in the civilian labor force or armed forces) , job proximity
(
t
he number
of jobs filled with less than a bachelor’s degree that fall within a determined radius) , and median
home values
(the value o
f owner
-
occupied units)
. A higher economic index score reflects more
positive economic outcomes. The MTC EPC identifies concentrations of underserved populations in order to direct funding for housing and transportation equity.
19 The HUD Jobs Proximity In
dex
measures the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.
Regional Trends
Figure
F
-
26 shows a variety of e
conomic outcomes across
Alameda County
.
Areas with more
positive economic outcome scores were identified in the northern, central, and southern portions of the county near Berkeley, Dublin, Pleasanton,
Fremont,
and smaller areas around the cities of
Alameda and Livermore. Convers
ely, the cities of Oakland, San Leandro, and Hayward had large concentrations of census tracts reflecting less positive economic outcomes.
According to 2015
-
2019
ACS
estimates, Alameda County had a labor force participation rate of 64 percent of person 16
years and over, which is approximately
2 percent lower than the
county’s 2014
labor force participation rate.
Estimates from the California
Employment
Development Department
show that
the average salary in
Alameda County
in 2021 was
$76,328. An overview o
f mean salary
by occupation is provided in
Table
F
-
11 .
19 MTC 2021.
https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access
-
equity
-
mobility/equity
-
priority
-
communities
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
66 Figure F-26 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
67 Table F-11 Mean Salary by Occupation (Alameda County) Occupation
Average Salary
Management Occupations
$158,446
Legal Occupations
$146,544
Computer and Mathematical Occupations
$124,151
Healthcare Practitioners and Technical Occupations
$121,183
Architecture and Engineering Occupations
$109,102
Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations
$103,059
Business and Financial Operations Occupations
$97,088
Construction and
Extraction Occupations
$79,163
Arts, Design, Entertainment, Sports, and Media Occupations
$77,908
Protective Service Occupations
$71,366
Educational Instruction and Library Occupations
$70,691
Community and Social Service Occupations
$68,136
Installation, Maintenance, and Repair Occupations
$67,785
Sales and Related Occupations
$59,555
Office and Administrative Support Occupations
$55,056
Production Occupations
$51,926
Transportation and Material Moving Occupations
$48,835
Building and Grounds Cleaning and Maintenance Occupations
$48,311
Personal Care and Service Occupations
$42,532
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations
$42,154
Healthcare Support Occupations
$40,799
Food Preparation and Serving Related
Occupations
$38,872
All Occupations
$76,328
Source:
California Employment Development Department, Occupational Wage data, 2021
Local Trends
According to the 2015
-
2019
ACS
, there were
approximately
86,679 residents in the labor force
in
Hayward
, representing a labor force participation rate of 67 percent of persons 16 years and over.
As referenced in
Appendix B
,
Housing Needs Assessment
, approximately one
-
third of working
residents of Hayward are employed in either education, health and social services ,
or professional
services industries.
An overview of major employers in Hayward is provided in Table F-
12 .
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
68 Table F-12 Major Employers in Hayward
Name of Employer Type of Service
Alameda County Sheriff’s Department Law Enforcement/Security Baxter Bio Pharma Bio-Medical
California State University East Bay Education
Chabot Community College Education
Costco Warehouse Retail/Grocery
Fremont Bank Operations Center Finance
Hayward Unified School District Education
Illumina Bio-Medical
Inland Marine Industries, Inc. Manufacturing
New Century Beverage (Pepsi) Beverage Production
Maleko Personnel, Inc. Staffing Services
Plastikon Industries, Inc. Bio-Medical
Gillig Corporation Manufacturing
St. Rose Hospital Hospital & Medical Services
City of Hayward Government
Kobe Precision Semiconductors
Note: The City’s CAFR did not report the number of employees at each firm in 2020.
Source: City of Hayward, 2020
As shown in Figure F-27, many areas of Hayward were recognized as EPCs. According to MTC, EPCs are areas that have historically faced economic disadvantage and underinvestment. 20 To identify EPCs, census tracts were evaluated to determine if they contain concentrations of the following demographic factors21:
People of color
Low-income households (less than 200 percent of the federal poverty level) Limited English proficiency
Zero-vehicle households
Seniors aged 75 and over
Single-parent families
Severely rent-burdened households
In Hayward, households in EPC designated areas overlapped with communities that were predominately Hispanic/Latino.
HUD’S Job Proximity index utilizes Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamic estimates to examine the distance from a given neighborhood to all job locations within the San Francisco Bay Area and measures the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level. Because the size of employment centers and the supply of labor differ across the region, the distance from any single
20 MTC 2021. https://mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity-mobility/equity-priority-communities 21 Bay Area Metro 2021. https://bayareametro.github.io/Spatial-Analysis-Mapping-Projects/Project-Documentation/Equity-Priority- Communities/#methodology
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
69 job location is positively weighted by the size of employment (job opportunities) at that location and inversely weighted by the labor supply (competition) to that location. 22 According to
TCAC estimates shown in
Figure F
-
28 , neighborhoods located in the central and
southern region of Hayward, including Jackson Triangle, Harder -
Tennyson, and Fairway Park
had the
lowest economic outcome scores in the city. Comparatively, areas in the west and northern region of Hayward had slightly higher economic outcome scores and neighborhoods in the eastern region of Hayward (Hayward Highland) had the highest economic o utcome scores.
22 HUD. AFFH
-
T Data Documentation Data Version AFFHT0006 (2020).
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
70 Figure F-27 Equity Priority Communities ( Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
71 Figure F-28 CAC Opportunity Areas – Education (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
72 Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table F-13. About 3 percent of the total employed, and 7 percent of total unemployed population had a disability, according to 2010- 2014 ACS estimates. ACS estimates for 2015-2019 show a 17 percent of total employed since 2010- 2014 ACS estimates. Despite this increase, the percent of employed residents with a disability remained at 3 percent, while unemployed residents with a disability increased by 1 percent overall.
Comparatively, the percent of employed and unemployed residents with a disability is about the same when compared to the county.
Table F-13 Employment Status by Disability Status (Hayward) Disability Status
Employed
2010-2014 (Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2010 -2014 (Percent
of Total Unemployed)
Employed
2015-2019 (Percent of
Total Employed)
Unemployed
2015-2019 (Percent of
Total Unemployed)
No Disability 65,320
(97%)
9,157
(93%)
77,153
(97%)
3,286
(92%)
With a Disability 2,333
(3%)
673
(7%)
2,262
(3%)
287
(8%)
Total 67,653
(100%)
9,830
(100%)
79,415
(100%)
3,573
(100%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2010- 2014, 2015-2019 Estimates.
As shown on Figure F-29, access to employment opportunities differs across Hayward.
Neighborhoods with the highest job proximity are generally located in the western region of Hayward. In contrast, neighborhoods located in the north and northeast area of the city, such as the Burbank, North Hayward, Upper B Street, Jackson Triangle, Harder-Tennyson, Whitman-Mocine, Mission-Foothill and Hayward Highland neighborhoods, had the lowest job proximity index score according to HUD estimates. Most neighborhoods in the central region of Hayward with the lowest job proximity were identified as having a sizable Hispanic/Latino population.
Disparities in Acc
ess to Opportunities
73 Figure F-29
Job Proximity Index (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 202
2. Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
74 7.4 Healthy Environment
This analysis addresses disparities in environment health indicators by neighborhood and by population. These indicators are air quality, water quality, safe neighborhood, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. California Senate Bill 535 (2012), Assembly Bill 1550 (2016) and Senate Bill 1000 (2016) recognizes the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue.23 Likewise, federal HUD regulations define environmental justice as ensuring that the environment and human health are protected fairly for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Federal regulations require consideration of how federally assisted projects may have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations.24
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution.
Residents in Census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores (shown as percentages) are more burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.
Regional Trends
The CalEnviroScreen map for Alameda County identifies the degree to which communities are considered burdened by pollution. Figure F-30 below shows that, generally, the more urbanized, western portion of the county has less positive environmental outcomes, most notably near the Oakland International Airport northwest of San Leandro and south of Oakland.
TCAC’s environmental scores for Alameda County correspond to the CalEnviroScreen analysis and highlight less positive environmental outcomes among communities located in the western area of the County, while communities throughout the northern and central areas of the county generally had positive environmental outcome scores.
23 State of California Department of Justice, 2022. https://oag.ca.gov/environment/sb1000 24 HUD, 2021. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ “We live close to the freeway. And the freeway now that people are back to work, it's a lot of pollution are up and down. Yeah, we're near the freeway and I guess. We have double pane windows. But the windows need to be changed now after all these years. So it's just to be, I think when it's backed up traffic and cars are doing we're getting pollution from the cars. So I don't know how to change it other than changing the windows. " (John, Industrial Pkwy & Ruus Rd, 56 and older)
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
75 Figur
e F
-
30 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
76 Local Trends
Figure F-31 shows a variety of pollution levels across the city. Neighborhoods in the eastern and central areas of the city had more positive environmental outcomes (lower CalEnviroScreen scores) compared to neighborhoods in the western area of Hayward. Census tracts with lower environmental outcomes (high CalEnviroScreen scores) were also areas with either a predominant Hispanic/Latino or Asian population. Further analysis regarding environmental outcomes will be provided and discussed in Hayward’s Environmental Justice Element.
TCAC environmental outcome scores also vary across Hayward. As shown in Figure F-32, areas that had lower environmental outcomes (low TCAC scores) were concentrated in the northern and western areas of the city. Conversely, census tracts concentrated in the central and eastern areas of the city had more positive environmental outcome scores, which is consistent with the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 findings. Furthermore, areas with less positive environmental scores in the northern, southern, and western parts of the city were neighborhoods with predominately Hispanic/Latino or Asian residents.
Access to parks, schools and open space can also impact health and the quality of life for residents of a community. As referenced in Hayward’s draft Environmental Justice Element, there is a disparity in the distribution of parks throughout the city, as parks and/or preserved areas tend to be clustered in the far eastern and western segments of Hayward. In contrast, census tracts located throughout the city-center, which were identified as predominately Hispanic/Latino and/or Asian neighborhoods, have significantly less access to parks and open space.
Another key determinant of positive health outcomes and adequate quality of life is access to healthy food. Historically, low-income communities and communities of color face greater barriers in accessing local affordable and nutritious food. According to the USDA, “food deserts” are areas where residents have limited access to a variety of healthy and affordable food. The USDA defines the food desert classification as any low-income census tract with a substantial number or share of residents with low levels of access to retail outlets selling health and affordable foods. For the purposes of the Food Access Research Atlas, low-income and low-access census tracts are defined below:
Low-income: A census tract with a poverty rate of 20 percent or greater, or median family income at or below 80 percent of the statewide or metropolitan area median family income. Low Access: A census tract with at least 500 people or 33 percent of the tract’s population living more than 1 mile (urban areas) or more than 10 miles (rural areas) from the nearest supermarket or grocery store.
While there are no identified food deserts within the City of Hayward, there are neighborhoods located in the city-center and along the southern boundary of the city that were classified as Low- income and Low-access at an impaired access distance of more than 0.5 mile from the nearest supermarket or grocery store.
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
77 Figure
F
-
31 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (
Hayward
)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
78 Figure F-32 TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environmental (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
79 Disproportionate
Housing
Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing some type
of housing need
.
To
analyze the
extent of disproportionate housing needs in
Hayward
, this section reviews data on
types of housing
needs:
housing
cost burden and severe
housing
cost burden
overcrowding, homelessness, and
substandard housing conditions.
8.1 Housing
Problems
Many federal and
s
tate programs use the age of housing as a factor
to determine
a community’s
housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is su bject to gradual physical or technological
deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborh
ood. Typically, housing over 30 years
old
is more likely to have rehabilitation
needs that may include new plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs.
Some older
housing units may have health risks such as lead paint and asbestos. According
to HUD,
has a
housing
problem if they have one or more of the following problems : lack of complete
kitchen
facilities,
lack of complete
plumbing facilities,
overcrowding
, and
cost burden
.
25 Housing issues such
as mold may elevate health conditions such as
asthma. Residents who rent are at greater risk of
exposure to deteriorating housing conditions due to the desire to keep their rents from rising or fear of losing their housing.
26 Regional Trends
According to 2015
-
2019 ACS estimates,
Alameda County has
approximately
7,450 substandard
housing units which comprise approximately
3 percent of the total occupied units in the county. A
housing unit is considered substandard if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen
facilities. Of the
7,450 substandard units, approximately 34 percent lack complete plumbing facilities and 66 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.
A
s referenced in
Appendix B
,
Housing Needs Assessment,
68 percent of
Alameda
County’s housing
stock
is over 40 years old
.
These units are potentially in need of repair and modernization improvements.
The northwestern area of Alameda County, specifically San Lorenzo and Albany, has the highest share of housing constructed prior to 1950, according t o the Alameda County Health
Department. Cases of lead poisoning are an indicator of older housing in poor conditions. A study conducted from 2007
-
2011 found that the area of the county with the most cases of lead poisoning among children was the western pa
rt of Oakland.
27 According to the AI, approximately
42 percent of total households in the county experienced housing problems, while another
2 2 percent of total households experienced severe housing problems. Black/
African American
and Hispanic/Latino households generally experience housing problems at higher rates compared to non
-
Hispanic white residents. As identified in the AI,
25 HUD 2021.
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html
26 Alameda Coun
ty Health Department. 2018.
https://www.acgov.org/cda/lead/documents/news/health,housinginoakland.pdf
27 Alameda County Health Department. 2018.
https://www.acg
ov.org/cda/lead/documents/news/health,housinginoakland.pdf
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
80 Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino households experienced housing problems at a rate of 55 and 58 percent, respectively. In comparison, 42 percent of Asian-American and 34 percent of non-Hispanic white households experienced housing problems. Housing problems were also reported to be higher among larger households, as approximately 60 percent large households (five or more persons per household) experienced housing problems compared to 37 percent of households comprising of fewer than five persons. An overview of housing stock age is provided in Figure F-33.
Figure F-33 Housing Stock Age (2015 – 2019)
Source: American Community Survey 2015-2019.
According 2015-2019 ACS estimates, about 68 percent of the total housing stock in Alameda County was constructed before 1980, with most of these houses being built between 1950 and 1990. In comparison, approximately 10 percent of the housing stock was constructed after 2000. The older age of housing stock in Alameda County suggests that a significant share of housing units may require repairs or rehabilitation.
Local Trends
According to CHAS 2014-2018 estimates, approximately 48 percent of total households in Hayward experienced at least one housing problem (units having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent), which is lower when compared to the rate of housing problems in Alameda County. Additionally, renter-occupied households comprised 60 percent of the total number of households with problems, compared to 35 percent of owner-occupied households. Housing problems in Hayward disproportionately affect households of color, as Hispanic/Latino (63 percent), Native American (62 percent), African American (59 percent), and Asian/Pacific Islander (52 percent) experienced the highest rates of housing problems in the city, compared to 38 percent of non- Hispanic white households.
1939 -
earlier
1940 -
1949
1950 -
1959
1960 -
1969
1970 -
1979
1980 -
1989
1990 -
1999
2000 -
2009
2010 -
2013
2014 or
later
Hayward 3.5% 4.3% 24.7% 13.9% 20.5% 13.1% 8.7% 7.2% 2.0% 2.1% Alameda County 19.5% 6.8% 12.8% 13.6% 15.4% 12.5% 8.8% 7.4% 1.6% 1.6%
0.0%
5.0%
10.0%
15.0%
20.0%
25.0%
Hayward Alameda County
Disproportionate Housing Needs
81 Between 2018 and 2022, the
City’s Code Enforcement Division received
738 complaints for rental
housing
-
related issues througho
ut the
City (see
Figure F
-
34 )
There are clusters of cases in areas
where there is more rental housing such as central
Hayward and along the norther City boundary.
Abo
ut 350 of those cases were centered on large multi
-
family complexes consisting of five or more
units. According to Phillip Nichols, Code Enforcement Manager, the majority of cases are the result of severe neglect and deferred maintenance. Complaints range from leaks, non
-
functional electrical
outlets, presence of mold and mildew, vector problems, non -
operable smoke and monoxide
detectors, and illegal construction. The majority of cases are owner abated after the first couple of notices and inspections while
a few cases require up to four or five notices, inspections ,
and fines.
In
2020, the City adopted a Tenant Relocation Ordinance that requires that a landlord offer temporary relocation assistance if a tenant is temporarily displaced for significant repairs related to code compliance, major remodel or damage due to natural events.
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
82 Figure F-34 Rental Housing Violations in Hayward (2018-2022)
Disproportionate Housing Needs
83 As referenced in
Appendix B
, Housing Needs As
sessment,
80 percent of all housing units in Hayward
were constructed prior to 1990
, with the highest share of homes being built between 1950 and 1980. About
4 percent of the
c
ity’s current housing stock was constructed after 2010, which suggests that most
housing may require repairs and modernization improvements.
Figure
F
-
35 shows the
age of
the City’s housing stock
throughout the city
.
Most
of the
c
ity’s housing stock was
built between 1951 and 1980.
Older residential structures built before 1950 are predominately located
with
in the Downtown Specific Plan area and along the Mission Boulevard corridor.
8.2 Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mort
gage, utilities, and other housing
-
related costs) are considered cost burdened, and
households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered severely cost burdened. The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in ove rcrowded and
substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate.
Regional Trends
Figure F
-
36 shows areas of Alameda County
wher
e renter households
are
cost burden
ed
. As shown,
overpayment by renters is a widespread issue across most of Alameda County, especially in the western portion of the county closest the I
-
880 corridor and in the south
east
ern portion of the
county near
Pleasanton
.
According to 2013
-
2017 CHAS estimates, Alameda County had a total of
569,070 households in Alameda County. Of this total, approximately 22 percent of renter -
occupied
households experienced housing cost burden comp
ared to 14 percent of owner
-
occupied
households. Jurisdictions located in the western region of Alameda County including San Leandro, Oakland, Berkeley, had higher concentration of renters burdened by housing costs, compared to less populated areas in the
eastern region of Alameda County. In the last decade, cost burden has affected vulnerable populations across Alameda County. According to Hayward’s Displacement Study, renter cost burden for seniors and families with children has increased by 51 percent an d 47
percent, respectively, since 2010.
28 28
City of Hayward, 2021. The City of Hayward Displacement Study
“
Tennyson and parts of A Street are the ones that are a bit more ugly and lacking resources with potholes and a lot of different issues. It feels like those areas are not taken care of and it is usually a lot more Latinos living in those areas
.
" (Norma, Sch
afer Rd & Manon Ave, 46
-
55)
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
84 Figure F-35 Chronology of Reisdential Development in Hayward
Disproportionate Housing Needs
85 Figure F
-
36 Housing Cost Burden By Renters (Alameda County)
Sour
ce: AFFH Viewer 2022
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
86 Local Trends
According to 2018 CHAS estimates, approximately 40 percent of total households in Hayward were cost burdened while another 17 percent were severely cost burdened, as shown in Table F-14.
Additionally, renter-occupied households were disproportionately cost burdened, especially among extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households. Approximately 80 percent of extremely low- income households (earning less than 30 percent of AMI) and 79 percent of very low-income households (earning between 31 and 50 percent of AMI) experienced at least one housing problem.
Table F-14 Assistance Needs of Lower-Income Households (2014-2018) Household by Tenure, Income, and
Housing Problem
Renters Owners Total Households
Total Percent Total Percent Total Percent
Extremely low-income(0-30% AMI) 4,270 2,025 6,295
With any housing problem 83.5% 71.9% 79.7%
With cost burden >30% 82.6% 70.4% 78.6%
With cost burden >50% 71.2% 58.0% 67.0%
Very low-income (31-50% AMI) 3,680 2,380 6,060
With any housing problem 91.3% 60.1% 79.0%
With cost burden >30% 88.7% 57.4% 76.4%
With cost burden >50% 41.3% 38.7% 40.3%
Low-income (51-80% AMI) 4,260 3,170 7,430
With any housing problem 81.1% 58.0% 71.3%
With cost burden >30% 68.9% 54.7% 62.9%
With cost burden >50% 14.9% 12.3% 13.8%
Moderate & Above Income (>80%
AMI)
10,800 17,805 27,980
With any housing problem 33.7% 22.7% 27.5%
With cost burden >30% 16.6% 16.6% 17.0%
With cost burden >50% 1.1% 1.7% 1.5%
Total Households 23,015 24,755 47,770
With any housing problem 14,015 8,775 22,790
% With housing problem 60.9% 35.4% 47.7%
With cost burden >30% 50.0% 30.2% 39.8%
With cost burden >50% 23.1% 11.3% 16.9%
Note: Housing Problems: There are four housing problems in the CHAS data: 1) housing unit lacks complete kitchen facilities; 2) housing unit lacks complete plumbing facilities; 3) household is overcrowded; and 4) household is cost burdened. A household is said to have a housing problem if they have any 1 or more of these 4 problems.
Cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 30% of monthly income.
Severe cost burden: Monthly housing costs (including utilities) exceeding 50% of monthly income.
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2014-2018 release
An overview on housing cost burden by race is provided in Table F-15. According to 2013-2017 CHAS estimates, Black/ African American (28 percent), Hispanic/Latino (28 percent) and American Indian or Alaskan Native (25 percent) households were disproportionately burdened by housing costs (spent between 30 and 50 percent of income on housing costs), compared to Asian American/API Disproportionate Housing Needs
87 (21
percent
) and non
-
Hispanic white (17
percent
). Additionally, Black/
African American
(25
percent
)
and Hispanic/Latino (20
percent
) households also had the highest rates of severe housing cost burden (spent 50
percent
or more of income on housing costs) compared to American Indian and Alaskan Native (10
percent
), Asian American/API (12
percent
) and non
-
Hispanic white (15
percent
).
Table F-15 Housing Cost Burden by Race (2013-2017)
Housing Cost
Burden
American
Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
American/A
PI
Black/
African
American
Hispanic/
Latino
Other Race
or Multiple
Race
Non
-
Hispanic
White
0%-
30% of Income Used for
Housing
145 (75%)
8,
055 (66%)
2,
725 (46%)
8,
080 (52%)
960 (60%)
7,
860 (67%)
30%-
50% of Income Used for
Housing
30 (25%)
2,
570 (21%)
1,
630 (28%)
4,
275 (28%)
315 (20%)
2,
015 (17%)
50%+ of Income Used for
Housing
19 (10%)
1,
410 (12%)
1,
480 (25%)
3,
095 (20%)
315 (20%)
1,
730 (15%)
Cost Burden Not computed
N/A
119 (<1%)
60 (<1%)
64 (<1%)
20 (<1%)
75 (<1%)
Total
194
12,154
5,895
15,514
1,610
11,680
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) ACS tabulation, 2013
-
2017 release
Figure F-
37 shows the percentage of renters that
paid over 30 percent of their income on housing
costs across census tracts in Hayward. Generally,
neighborhoods located
near Downtown Hayward
and
the city center had the highest rates of
cost
burden
by renters. Between 60 and 80 percent of
renters in three areas
in
Glen Eden, Tennyson
-
Alquire
,
and Fairway Park (census tracts 4384.00,
4382.04 and 4381.00) were
cost
burdened
, reflecting the highest
rate of
cost burdened households
in the city.
Approximately 40 percent of senior
house
holds in Hayward experienced housing cost
burden and
41 percent of large families (defined as families with 5 or more persons)
throughout the
city
experienced housing cost burden
, according to 2013
-
2017 CHAS estimates.
Areas that had the
highest rates of overpayment by renters
(see
Figure
F-
37 )
were identified as having a predominant
Hispanic/Latino population
(see Section 5.1,
Race and Ethnicity
).
8.3 Overcrowding
Overcrowd
ing is defined as
a condition in which a housing unit
is
occupied by
more than one person
per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) . Severe
overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room.
O
vercrowding is reflective of various living
situations:
a housing unit is inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs ;
the necessity or desire
to have
extended family members
reside in an exi
sting household; or unrelated individuals or
families
share a single housing unit.
Large families
generally
have special housing needs due to lower per
-
capita
household
income,
and
the need for larger units with
three
or more bedrooms,
which can be limited
in supply and/or
inaccessible due to high housing costs,
resulting in families renting smaller units and living in overcrowd
ed conditions
.
Large lower
-income
households may not be able to pay more
for
larger
housing
and
instead
accept smaller housing or r
eside with other individuals or families in the same
“
I have considered moving out
-
of
-
state. It is hard to start a family here
when rent is so expensive.
”
(Om,
Calaroga Ave & Tennyson Rd, 26
-
35)
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
88 home. Potential fair housing issues emerge if non-traditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding.
According to local fair housing service providers and property managers, addressing the issue of overcrowding is complex as there are no set of guidelines for determining the maximum capacity for a unit. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups and families with higher proportion of overcrowding.
Regional Trends
According to the AI, most people facing housing problems are minority residents or residents who live in large households (defined as five or more persons per household). As discussed in Appendix B, Housing Needs Assessment, Alameda County had approximately 62,587 large households, about 11 percent of total households. Owner-occupied households comprised of a larger share of the total number of large households in the county. Overcrowding remains low overall in the county, but there is a disproportionate impact of overcrowding on minority households.
As shown in Figure F-38, overcrowded housing is most prominent in the western region of Alameda County, mainly in urban centers such as the cities of Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, and portions of Fremont and Livermore.
Disproport
ionate Housing Needs
89 Figure
F
-
37 Overpayment B
y
Renters
(
Hayward
)
Source: AFFH Viewer 202
2 .
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
90 Figure F-38 Overcrowded Households (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
91 Local Trends
According to ACS 2015
-
2019 estimates,
approximately
14 percent of households in Hayward were
overcrowded, compared to
8 percent in Alameda County. As referenced in Appendix B ,
Housing
Needs Assessment,
Hayward had an average household size 3.27 in 2019, a slight increase from 2010, when the city had an average household size of 3.12. As shown in Figure
F-
39 , a higher
degree
of household overcrowding
was
present throughout the city center and near Downtown Hayward.
Areas such the Harder
-
Tennyson, Glen Eden
,
and Mission Garlin neighborhoods (census tracts
4377.01, 43377.02, 4375.00, 4376.00 and 4379.00) had the highest rates of overcrowded households in the city.
Areas with the highest rates of overcrowded households are predominately single
-
family residential in the west, compared to the eastern segment of this area which includes
a
range of multi
-
family residential type
s.
A significant share of census tracts that had the highest percentage of overcrowded households also had
slightly
predominant Hispanic/Latino
population
.
Table
F-
16 su
mmarizes
rates of
overcrowding in Hayward. Household overcrowding decreased by nearly
10 percent when comparing 2000 to 2010 overcrowding estimates . H
owever, by 2019
household overcrowding had increased by
4 percent, to about 14 percent.
Household Overcrowding
Table F-16
Owner
-
Occupied
Households
Renter
-
Occupied
Households
Total Households
Overcrowding
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Year (2000)
Total Overcrowded
(>1.0 person/room)
2,930
12.2%
5,874
28.0%
8,804
19.7%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room)
1,639
6.8%
3,369
16.1%
5,008
11.2%
Year (2010)
Total Overcrowded
(>1.0 person/room)
1,375
6.0%
3,827
16.7%
4,767
11.0%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room)
298
1.3%
1,627
7.1%
1,733
4.0%
Year (2019)
Total Overcrowded
(>1.0 person/room)
1,948
7.7%
4,618
20.6%
6,566
13.8%
Severely Overcrowded
(>1.5 persons/room)
488
1.9%
1,683
7.5%
2,171
4.6%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000 Census; American Community Survey, 2006
-
2010 and 2015
-
2019
,
Table B
25014
.
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
92 Figure F-39 Overcrowded Households (Hayward)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
93 According to the 2015
-
2019 ACS estimates shown in
Figure
F
-
40 , overcrowding was a more common
housing issue for residents of
Hayward
who identified as Hispanic/Latino, and
other/
multiple races
than for people who identified as
w
hite, Black/African American, or American Indian/Alaska Native.
Overcrowding is also linked with household income. According to the 2013 -
2017 CHAS data for
Hayward
,
very
low
-
income households (those earning
31 -
50 percent AMI) reported the highest
percentage of overcrowded conditions of all income groups ( 15 percent), followed by low
-
income
households (
51 -
80 percent AMI) at
approximately 11
percent.
Figure
F
-
40 Overcrowding by Race
Notes: T
he Census Bureau does not disaggregate racial groups by Hispanic/Latino ethnicity. However, data for the white racial group i s
also reported for white householders who are not Hispanic/Latino. Since residents who identify as white and Hispanic/Lati no may have
very different experiences within the housing market and the economy from those who identify as white and non -
Hispanic/Latino, data
for multiple white sub
-
groups are reported here.
The racial/ethnic groups reported in this table are not all mut ually exclusive. Therefore, the data should not be summed as the sum exceeds the total number of occupied housing units for this jurisdiction. However, all groups labelled “Hispanic and Non -
Hispanic” are
mutually exclusive, and the sum of the data for thes
e groups is equivalent to the total number of occupied housing units.
*Hispanic and non
-
Hispanic
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5
-
Year Data (2015
-
2019), Table B25014
8.4 Homelessness
California Government Code
Section 65583(1)(6) require
s municipalities to address the special
needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness ,
” as defined
by HUD, describes an individual
,
who is
not imprisoned or otherwise detained
,
who:
Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate n
ighttime residence;
or
Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the ment
ally ill);
16.6%
12.3%
6.0%
25.1%
27.4%
9.9%
3.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
More than 1.0 Occupants per Room
Percent of Households
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native*
Asian/
API*
Black/
African
American*
Hispanic/
Latino
Other/ Multiple
Races*
White*
non-Hispanic white
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
94 An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.
Regional Trends
According to the Alameda County’s February 2022 point-in-time count, approximately 9,747 persons experiencing homelessness reside in the county, an increase from the previous count.
Point-in-time estimates are generally accepted as an undercount of the total unhoused population in Alameda County.29 Figure F-13 provides an overview of homeless populations in Alameda County.
Factors contributing to the rise in homelessness include a lack of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households, increases in the number of persons whose incomes fall below the poverty level, reductions in public subsidies, and lack of support for persons with extreme developmental, physical, and mental disabilities.
The County’s point-in-time count found that 63 percent of the homeless population had been experiencing homelessness for over one year, and that nearly one in five people included in the count became homeless after an eviction, foreclosure, or rent increase. Additionally, 42 percent of the homeless population had at least one disabling condition. Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, those of multiple races or another race, and those who identify as LGBTQ+ were disproportionately homeless compared to their relative general populations.
30 An overview of homelessness in Hayward and surrounding cities is provided in Table F-17.
Table F-17 Homelessness in Hayward and Surrounding Cities (2022) Jurisdiction Sheltered Unsheltered Total % Sheltered
% of Total Homeless
Population in Alameda County
Oakland 1,718 3,337 5,055 34.0% 51.9%
Fremont 160 886 1,026 15.6% 10.5%
Berkeley 254 803 1,057 24.0% 10.8%
San Leandro 97 312 409 23.7% 4.2%
Hayward 114 267 381 29.9% 3.9%
Alameda County 2,612 7,135 9,747 26.8% 100%
Source: EveryOne Counts! 2022 Homeless Count and Survey, Alameda County, 2022.
29 https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2019-Hayward-Final-Report.pdf 30 Applied Survey Research. 2019. https://everyonehome.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ExecutiveSummary_Alameda2019-1.pdf “I definitely have noticed. I think an increase in homelessness in Hayward I mean, I feel like it's always been visible in kind of the downtown areas and like areas by transit hubs. I don't have any direct experience but it's something I notice." (Carlos, Mission Blvd & Fairway St, 26-35).
Disproportionate Housing Needs
95 Local Trends
In July 2021, the City adopted a Homelessness Reduction Strategic Plan titled
“
Let’s House
Hayward
,” which
ut
ilized a racial equity analysis, aligned with the EveryOne Home Strategic Updated and addressed the challenges of a mid
-
size City addressing a complex regional crisis.
Outreach included focus groups and stakeho
lder interviews with service providers, outreach
workers and individuals with lives experiences of homelessness contained the following Vision Statement: “Our vision is for the City of Hayward to be a leader in ensuring an end to homelessness by empowering
individuals through accessible, dignified treatment and services.” The resulting document
contains a needs assessment and details the scope of homelessness in Hayward by age, familial status, disability,
race and ethnicity
, provides an outline of housing
and homelessness
resources available in Hayward, details other services available and needed, and concludes with goals and strategies to increase availability and access to resources.
The majority (88
percent
) of people experiencing homelessness in Haywar
d are single adults, which
includes 427 people in 352 households
31 ; the remaining 12
percent
are families, including 59 people
in 18 households. Of the 487 individuals counted during the 2019 PIT Count, 41
percent
(202
individuals) are chronically homeless
, which is defined as people who have been homeless for at least a year (or repeatedly) while struggling with a disabling condition such as serious mental illness, substance use disorder, or physical disability. 5
percent
(24) are veterans, and 6
percent
(
30 individuals) are unaccompanied youth or young adults. Further, 39
percent
(190 individuals) were
experiencing their first episode of homelessness; of those, 40
percent
(76 individuals) were
experiencing homelessness for one year or more. Moreover, 56
pe
rcent
(273 individuals) of those
identified in the 2019 PIT count reported having a disabling condition.
Race is a strong correlate of poverty in the community, while poverty is a predictor of homelessness.
Given that people experiencing poverty are at greater risk of homelessness due to increased housing cost burden, looking at racial inequities in poverty rates in Hayward is also an indicator of disparities in risk of homelessness. African Americans are the race most likely to experience poverty in Haywar
d (18
percent
), followed by Hispanic or Latino populations (16
percent
), and then White
populations (14
percent
). However, African Americans represent only 9.5
percent
of the population
in Hayward, while Hispanic individuals represent almost 41 percent
, an
d White individuals make up
33 percent
of Hayward’s population.
African Americans thus have disproportionately high rates of poverty in Hayward, putting them at a disproportionately higher risk of homelessness.
31 All popul
ation data is derived from the EveryOne Counts! City of Hayward Homeless Count & Survey Comprehensive Report 2019 unless otherwise specified. The report is available at: https://everyonehome.org/wp -
content/uploads/2019/12/2019
-
Hayward
-
Final
-
Report.pdf
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
96 The racial inequities present in Hayward are reflected across the County of Alameda: African Americans are 11 percent of the population of Alameda County, yet they represent 47 percent of the people experiencing homelessness. Further, the American Indian and Native Alaskan population makes up 4 percent of the homeless population in Alameda County, but just 1 percent of the general population. Alternatively, 31 percent of Alameda County’s homeless population identifies as white, yet they represent 43 percent of its general population.
Transition age youth (TAY) of color also disproportionately experience homelessness: almost 50 percent of unaccompanied TAY in Alameda County were African American. According to a report prepared by Supporting Partnerships for Anti-Racist Communities (SPARC), a national sample of African American youth had an 83 percent higher risk of homelessness compared to youth of other races. TAY are also more likely to have a history of foster care (40 percent); 18 percent of youth under age 25 reported that aging out of the foster care system was the primary cause of their current homelessness.
According to the Let’s House Hayward Plan, there are currently 166 permanent supportive housing units in Hayward (with 15 units set aside for disabled Transition Age Youth); flexible fund programs such as Project Independence which offers rental subsidies for 25-30 transition age youth which serves as a rapid rehousing program; two emergency shelters which provide shelter to approximately 115 persons; and two navigation centers that provide temporary shelter and care coordination services for 138 individuals. In addition to temporary shelters and long term supportive housing, other resources identified in the plan and prioritized for funding include behavioral health and substance abuse services, showers and laundry services, job training and employment services, safety precautions, educational and transportation services.
Specific actions outlined in the Plan and reflected in City policy include expanding shelter access, reducing barriers to homeless crisis response by allowing the construction of tiny homes on church owned and publicly owned properties and supportive hotel conversions.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
97 There
were no encampments of significant size
(m
ore than a few individuals)
in Hayward identified
during the last Point in Time count. Encampments in Hayward have tended to be small, transitory in nature, and established in liminal areas such as along railroad tracks, creek areas, stormwater culverts, i
n abandoned buildings and along the shoreline. Services for individuals experiencing homelessness are provided in South Hayward, in the City’s Industrial areas and in Downtown Hayward.
As referenced in Appendix B,
Housing Needs Assessment,
homeless shelter
s are an
allowable use
in all General Commercial (CG), Mission Boulevard (MB
-
CN/NN), and Industrial (I)
zones
provided the development meets the standards defined in the Zoning Ordinance.
As part of
Program H
-
7, the City will amend the municipal code to up
date parking regulations for Homeless
and Emergency Centers and to allow Low Barrier Navigation centers by -
right in areas zoned for
mixed
-
use and nonresidential use permitting multifamily uses.
8.5 Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes.
Shifts in neighborhood
composition are often framed and
perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies,
and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to
displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market -
rate housing production.
Decades of disinvestment in low
-
income communities, coupled with investor speculation,
can result
in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as
l
ower
-
income households, persons with
disabilities, large households, and persons at
-
risk
of
or experiencing homelessness.
32 To analyze displacement risk, the UDP has established categories that reflect varying levels of displacement
vulnerability. Areas categorized as susceptible to displacement are predominately low
-
income
or mixed
-
income
neighborhoods
that may have experienced displacement but
exhib
it
characteristics of
neighborhood stability and affordability
and
have the
potential
to
develop a
n
increasing
risk of
displacement in the fut
ure.
Areas
categorized as at
-
risk of or experiencing
gentrification refer
to neighborhoods that demonstrate characteristics of increasing housing costs, changes in housing supply, and are located nea
r communities
that have also experienced increasing
housing costs and
an increasing risk of displacement in the future
.
The s
table moderate/mixed
income category refers to neighborhoods that have moderate -
to high
-
income residents
that
are
not at
-
risk of b
ecoming neighborhoods
that
exclu
de all but
wealthy households
.
T
he
s
table/advanced exclusive category refers to neighborhoods that have exhibited characteristics of exclusion for long periods of time.
In
April
202
1 ,
a Displacement Study was prepared
to
pro
vide a framework for policymakers, policy
stakeholders and residents
to understand displacement
that has occurred
in Hayward as a result of
32 HCD 2021.
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community
-
development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4
-
27 -
2021.pdf
“
It's difficult. They [homeless] have lives, goals,
hobbies and dreams. They're all human beings
.”
(Corina, Mayfair Rd & Chelsea Way, 26
-
35)
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
98 unprecedented housing pressures occurring throughout the San Francisco Bay Area. The report highlights existing displacement trends and their disparate impacts on vulnerable communities and explores the benefit of affordable live/work units and their effect on existing hosing challenges. To identify displacement pressures in Hayward, the report examines five indicators including the change in property values and rents, investment trends occurring within Hayward and throughout the Bay Area, changes in housing tenure and demographics, critical population changes such as changes in the homeless population, and coping strategies which includes overcrowding of existing housing units and/or workers commuting longer distances to their jobs.33 Regional Trends
As shown in Figure F-41 below, residents in the cities in the western portion of Alameda County (Oakland, San Leandro, Hayward, Berkeley, and some parts of Fremont, Dublin, and Livermore) live in what are called “sensitive communities,” which means they are vulnerable to displacement.34 Communities are designated sensitive if the share of very low income residents is greater than 20 percent and have any of the two following characteristics: the share of renters is above 40 percent, the share of people of color is above 50 percent, the share of very low-income households that are severely rent burdened is above the county median, the percent change in rent is above the county median for rent increases. In contrast to sensitive communities, residents living within the jurisdictions and unincorporated communities located in the northeast, eastern, and southwest areas of Alameda County were less vulnerable to displacement due to rising housing costs and market-based pressures within the community, according to the UDP (see Section 2, Fair Housing Methodology).
Local Trends
As shown on Figure F-42, most neighborhoods located in the northern and central area of Hayward are considered vulnerable to displacement. A large concentration of neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement were concentrated in the northern and central areas of Hayward (North Hayward, Burbank, Upper B Street, Jackson Triangle, and Mission Foothill neighborhoods). Sensitive communities in the southern area of the city were predominately single-family residential, compared to sensitive communities in the northern area of Hayward, which had a range of single- and multi-family residential, commercial, and office uses. Additionally, areas vulnerable to displacement had higher poverty rates, overcrowded households, and were more likely to have a predominant Hispanic/Latino or Asian American resident.
According to 2015-2019 ACS and UDP estimates shown on Figure F-43, renter-occupied households in Hayward were more likely to be experience displacement and gentrification compared to owner- occupied households. Additionally, owner-occupied households were more likely to be stable moderate/mixed income households and located in exclusionary neighborhoods (defined as neighborhoods that are experiencing increasing housing costs and therefore affordable only to high or mixed-high income households), compared to renter-occupied households. In the last decade, increasing property values, lack of affordable and market-rate housing, and changes in tenure, income and demographics across Hayward and the Bay Area have exacerbated displacement pressures for Hayward residents.35 According to Hayward’s displacement study, on-going displacement pressures have disproportionately affected vulnerable populations including
33 City of Hayward, 2021 City of Hayward Displacement Study 34 Urban Displacement Project, 2021. https://www.urbandisplacement.org/maps/sf-bay-area-gentrification-and-displacement/ 35 City of Hayward, 2021 City of Hayward Displacement Study Disproportionate Housing Needs
99 immigrant households, families with children, seniors, and students. Since 2010, cost burden has significantly increased by 172 percent for immigrant households, 153 percent for families with childre
n, 71 percent for seniors and 74 percent for students. Increasing displacement pressures have also resulted in changes in housing tenure and demographics in Hayward, as the percent of total households earning less than $50,000 decreased by 29 percent, whil e the percent of
households earning above $100,000 increased by 72 percent between 2010 and 2019.
“
So it's an issue, and I've seen more and more people on the streets with no place to go. And it's.
You know, it's
,
it's
,
it's sad to watch people be displ
aced and then on the other time it is, it does
jeopardize a little bit of your feeling of safety. Yeah. I no longer am comfortable walking around in the in the dark. If it's nighttime, I won't. I won't really walk around. That's the first time in twenty ei
ght years that I have not felt safe walking around downtown. Wow .”
(Brandon, City
Center Dr & Foothill Blvd, 36
-
45)
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
100
Figure F-41 Sensitive Communities (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.
Disproportionate Housing Needs
101
Figure
F
-
42 Sensitive Communities (
Hayward
)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021
.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
102
Figure F-43 Households by Displacement Risk and Tenure (Hayward)
Notes: Displacement data is available at the census tract level. Staff aggregated tracts up to jurisdiction level using census 2010 population weights, assigning a tract to jurisdiction in proportion to block level population weights. Total household count may differ slightly from counts in other tables sourced from jurisdiction level sources.
Source: Urban Displacement Project for classification, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2015-2019), Table B25003 for tenure. 4,596
872
13,462
5,045
1,126
6,931
2,589
8,750
3,172
448
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
Susceptible to or
Experiencing
Displacement
At risk of or
Experiencing
Gentrification
Stable
Moderate/Mixed
Income
At risk of or
Experiencing
Exclusion
Other
Households
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
Contributing Factors
103
Contributing Factors
According to the AI,
contributing factors
are those that
c
reate, perpetuate, or increase the severity
of one or more fair housing issues in
Hayward
.
To inform
the
goals, policies
,
and actions
in this
Housing Element,
the contributing factors are prioritized based on their impact on access to fair housing choice a
nd access to opportunity in Hayward.
Segregation
and Integration Patterns and Trends
Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns in Hayward
include:
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures resulting from displacement and gentri
fication
The location and type of affordable housing
Historic discrimination against people of color
Limited supply of affordable housing in areas most vulnerable to displacement
Racially and
Ethnically Concentrated Areas
of
P
overty
While no R/ECAPs
meet
ing HCD criteria
were identified in
Hayward
,
t
he
AI recognizes multiple
contributing factors
to segregation patterns
in
Hayward
including:
Displacement of residen
ts
due to economic pressures related to rising housing costs
Limited supply of affordable housing
Location and type of affordable housing available
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Contributing factors to
d
isproportionate housing needs are:
The
availability of affordable units in a range of sizes
, particularly rental units to accommodate
large families
Displacement of residents due to economic pressures
Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods
Historic practices of redlining, racial
steerage,
and exclusionary zoning
Lending discrimination
High cost of developing affordable housing
Limited supply of affordable housing within neighborhoods
Disparities in Access to Opportunities
The following contributing factors to disparities in access
to opportunities were identified:
Access to financial services
Lack of private investment in specific neighborhoods
Location of
e
mployers
Location of proficient schools
Location and type of affordable housing
Limited supply of affordable housing in areas
with access to opportunity
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
104
This page intentionally left blank.
Other Relevant Factors
105
Other Relevant Factors
10.1 Historic Patterns of Segregation
Regional
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led region al patterns of segregation.
The earliest forms of racial exclusion in the Bay Area were from
Spanish, Mexican
,
and early U.S.
settlers’ colonization
of
Native Americans’ land.
36 The Ohlone
were and
are the predominant
Indigenous group of the Bay Area, including the Chochenyo and the Karkin in East Bay, the Ramaytush in San Francisco, the Yokuts in South Bay and Central Valley, and the Muwekma tribe throughout the region. Other Indigenous groups include the Graton Rancheria community (Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo), Kashaya, Patwin, and Mishewal Wappo in the North Bay, and the Bay Miwok in the East Bay
.
37 With the support of local, state and federal governments, i ndigenous
communities were
often
force
d from their land
which was then sold or given away
to colonial
settlers.
38 In the 1850s, 119 California tribes signed treaties with the U.S. Special Commissioners which required them to formally surrender their land in exchange for 19 designated reservati ons,
which
lacked game, suitable agricultural lands
,
and water
.
39 From the start of colonization through
the 1880s, the Ohlone population in the Bay Area dropped by almost 90 percent due to violence, displacement, and widespread disease
brought by colonize
rs.
40 In more recent history starting in the 1880s, a series of laws targeted Asian populations through federal restrictions on immigration (Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882) and by barring Asian immigrants from owning land (California Alien Land Law of 1913
and 1920).
41 In 1942, Japanese Americans in
the Bay Area were forced to sell or abandon their homes and were sent to internment camps. 42 Local ordinances at the time also led to exclusion of Asian Americans, through unfair and racist enforcement of building regulations.
43 In the early 1920s, cities in the Bay Area began adopting zoning ordinances which led to the establishment of exclusive single
-
family home zones. By establishing specific areas of cities which did not allow more affordable housing types,
cities began to be more segregated based on class and
race/ethnicity. Exclusionary zoning created areas of concentrated poverty and concentrated wealth.
High-
poverty areas typically have limited employment and educational opportunities, creating an enviro
nment difficult to achieve income and housing mobility. By preventing households from
36 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 h
ttps://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_roo tsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf
37 Bay Area Equity Atlas, Indigenous Populations in the Bay Area, https://bayareaequityatlas.org/about/indigenous
-
populations
-
in
-
the
-
bay
-
area
38 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute,
2019
https://bel
onging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf
39 State of California Native American Heritage Commission, http://nahc.ca.gov/resources/california
-
indian
-
history/
40 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, H
aas Institute, 2019
h
ttps://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf
41 History of Racial Injustice,
California Law Prohibits Asian Immigrants from Owning Land .
https://calendar.eji.org/racial
-
injustice/may
/3
42 Japanese
-
American Internment During World War II
. U.S. National Archives.
https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/japanese
-
relocation
43 The Anti
-
Chinese Cubic Air Ordinance, Am J Public Health, Joshua S. Yang, PhD. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2661442/
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
106
moving into areas of higher-resource,
exclusionary zoning perpetuated the cycle of
poverty.44 Historic evidence shows that these
zoning regulations intentionally segregated
communities and were racially motivated.45
Starting in the 1930s, Bay Area communities
were impacted by redlining, which is the
practice of discriminating against loan borrowers based on the racial or socioeconomic status of the neighborhood in which a property is located. Redlining, a government-sponsored system of denying mortgage loans and services to finance the purchase of homes in specific areas, served as a tool to limit homeownership opportunities, as federally insured and long-term mortgages were routinely denied to persons seen as “undesirable,” often non-white persons. Redlining directed both public and private capital to white households and away from Black/African American, non-white, immigrant, and Jewish households. As homeownership is one of the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States, these redlining practices had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities.
46 Between 1935 and 1940, the Homeowners Loan Corporation (HOLC), a government-sponsored corporation, developed “Residential Security” maps of many major cities in the United States. The maps identified “Hazardous” neighborhoods that were considered a higher mortgage lending risk.
Neighborhoods with high percentages of people of color or immigrants were generally identified as “hazardous,” with the maps using racist language such as citing the “infiltration of Negroes and Orientals” as a detrimental influence to lending in that neighborhood. Other neighborhoods were assigned “Definitely Declining,” “Still Desirable,” and “Best”. A map was developed for the Oakland, Berkeley, and Alameda region. Generally, the neighborhoods rated “Hazardous” were located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay, where industrial uses were concentrated. The maps cite factors such as “odors from industries which are nearby” and “smoke and grime from railroad shop.” Over eighty years later, 74 percent of neighborhoods rated “Hazardous” are low to moderate income today and nearly 64 percent are minority neighborhoods now.47 Figure F-44 Shows the “Residential Security” map developed by the HOLC and Figure F-45 shows a more legible version of the same map. In the 1950s, cities were impacted by the development of freeways and highways that bisected cities and displaced typically low-income residents of color. The Interstate 880 Freeway (Nimitz Freeway) runs from Oakland to San Jose and bisects Hayward. There is residential neighborhoods on both sides of the freeway with a majority of residential development on the east side of the freeway.
Between 2000 and 2015, mainly due to quickly rising housing prices caused in part by the massive boom in the technological industry, Alameda County experienced significant and uneven shifts in racial, ethnic, and class-based neighborhood divisions. Low-income Black/African American, Asian American, and Hispanic/Latino populations grew significantly in southern Alameda County cities such as San Leandro, Hayward, and the unincorporated communities of Ashland and Cherryland.
Some of these shifts were involuntary moves that result from eviction, foreclosure, large rent
44 The Century Foundation. https://tcf.org/content/facts/understanding-exclusionary-zoning-impact-concentrated- poverty/?agreed=1&agreed=1
45 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf 46 Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=16/3 7.725/- 122.162&city=oakland-ca&area=D19
47 HOLC “Redlining Maps,” The persistent Structure of Segregation and Economic Inequality, NCRC, Bruce Mitchell, PhD. Accessed: January 5, 2022, https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/02/NCRF-Research-HOLF-10.pdf “I believe there are certain areas in Hayward
that choose to keep their neighborhoods
specifically white.” (Shawam, Orchard Ave &
Joyce St, 46-55).
Other Relevant
Factors
107
increases, uninhabitable housing conditi
ons or other reasons that are beyond a household’s control, otherwise known as “displacement.”
48 Increases in housing prices in Alameda County contributed to new concentrations of poverty and racial segregation in the county and perpetuated disparities in access to high
-
resource neighborhoods.
49 Local
According to the Hayward Area Historical Society, Hayward had a total population count of 504 residents in 1870, and while most individuals were considered “w
hite,
”
many residents spoke
Portuguese, German, Danish and some Spanish, in addition to the Canton ese and other Chinese
dialects.
50 Hayward was primarily an agricultural town until the early 1920s, when the subdivision of the Meek Estate property and Valley farms and Orchard occurred, and the c
ity began its transition
to a suburban community.
51 By 1950, Hayward’s population reached 14,272, over double the population size recorded in 1940. According to Bay Area Census estimates, about 90 percent of Hayward’s population in 1950 was “White” whereas Black/
African American
, Indians, Japanese
,
and
Ch
inese residents each comprised less than
1 percent of the population.
52 Since 1950, Hayward’s
population had become increasingly diverse with each decade, however, a significant change in demographics occurred between 1990 and 2010, as Hayward’s w
hite popu
lation decreased from 51
percent to 19 percent of the total population, while the Hispanic/Latino population increased from 23 percent to 40, percent during this time.
53 Similarly, Hayward’s Asian population, significantly grew and comprised 22 percent of
the total population by 2010.
Like many cities during the early to mid
-
20 th
century, racial/ethnic minorities were actively excluded from owning property and/or living in predominately white neighborhoods, due to exclusionary housing policies and practice
s including redlining and racial steering. Furthermore, while redlining effectively reduced homeownership opportunities for persons of color, racial steering tactics, such as restrictive covenants prohibited the sale of property to people from non -
white ra
cial groups. In
Hayward, these practices effectively “steered” racial/ethnic minorities into nearby neighborhoods such as Russell City and unincorporated community of Fairview.
Prior to 1950, Russel City became a predominately Mexican and African American
neighborhood
due to racial covenants and other exclusionary tactics used in surrounding cities that had prevented the same of homes to people who were not white.
54 As exclusionary policies worked to segregate
racial/ethnic minorities across the region and
create neighborhoods like Russell City, federally
funded urban renewal programs of the mid
-
20 th
century lead to the destruction of major centers of
black culture and community and the displacement of thousands. 55 Reinforced by the federally
sponsored prog
ram of urban renewal, Hayward and regional leaders had considered Russell City a blight to the surrounding area and sought to rebuild the area as an industrial park, which led to the
48 Rising Housing Costs and Re
-
Segregation in Alameda County, Urban Displacement Project, UC Berkeley https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp
-
content/uploads/2021/08/alameda_final.pdf
49 Rising Housing Costs and Re
-
Segregation in Alameda County, Urban
Displacement Project, UC Berkeley
https://www.urbandisplacement.org/wp
-
content/uploads/2021/08/alameda_final.pdf
50 Hayward Area Historical Society 2021.
https://www.haywardareahistory.org/immigr
ation
51 Hayward Area Historical Society 2021.
https://www.haywardareahistory.org/agricultural
-
history
52 Bay Area C
ensus 2021.
http://www.bayareacensus.ca.gov/cities/Hayward50.htm
53 Hayward Area Historical Society 2021.
https://www.haywardareahistory.org/immigration
54 City of Hayward 2021.
https://www.hayward
-
ca.gov/discover/news/feb17/russell
-
city
-
and
-
blues
55 Roots and Race, UC Berkeley Belonging Institute, Haas Institute, 2019 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
108
forced displacement of its predominately African American and Hispanic/Latino residents and the bulldozing of their homes in the mid-1960s.56
Caltrans 238 Parcels
In the mid-1960s, Caltrans purchased over 400 parcels of property for the construction of the then- planned 238 Bypass Freeway project. In 1971, the community filed a lawsuit to stop the planned 238 Bypass Freeway: La Raza Unida of Southern Alameda County, et al v. California Department of Transportation and the City of Hayward (Alameda County Court Case No. RG 09476468.) As a result, Caltrans declared the project dead and abandoned. Some of the Caltrans 238 parcels were sold to individual renters, some were auctioned to the highest bidder. In 2007, the City of Hayward entered into negotiations with Caltrans, the CTC, Local Alternative Transportation Improvement Program (LATIP) partners, the Alameda County Transportation Commission, tenants’ rights advocates, housing advocates, and interested legislators to resolve outstanding legal and other issues in an effort to divest Caltrans of the parcels they owned within the City of Hayward boundaries, to return these properties to the property tax rolls, and to start a productive development process for all undeveloped properties. To date, the City has facilitated the sale of seven of the ten parcel groups resulting in development and entitlement of 1,428 new residential units, and 388 of those units are affordable to low income households. The City’s Sites Inventory contains two Caltrans 238 parcels which are intended to be disposed of by 2027 per agreement with Caltrans.
Since 2019, the City of Hayward has participated in the Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE) and has incorporated a racial equity lens into decision-making. In 2021, Hayward recognized that the discriminatory housing practices on the 20
th century have intentionally segregated
neighborhoods and resulted in the inequal distribution of resources and opportunities across racial/ethnic groups, as people of color were historically denied the ability to secure and purchase housing, thus, limiting the opportunity to build generational wealth through property ownership.
The City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-223, directing staff to review the City’s work plan and recommend changes to address the City’s historical wrongdoings and complicity in institutional racism as part of the City’s annual Strategic Roadmap review. 57 The City of Hayward is committed to
understanding the history of government’s role in creating and reinforcing racial inequities and of exploring opportunities to incorporate racial equity analysis into governmental decision making and incorporates this lens in all legislative actions.58
56 City of Hayward 2021. https://hayward.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9957852&GUID=B5709B92-34CB-4807-BC70-49503D4BFD36 57 City of Hayward, 2021. https://hayward.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=9957852&GUID=B5709B92-34CB-4807-BC70-49503D4BFD36 58 https://www.hayward-ca.gov/residents/equity-inclusion Other Relevant Factors
109
Figure F
-
44 1937 Oakland a
nd Berkeley
“
R
esidential
S
ecurity
M
ap
”
Source:
University of Maryland
’
s T
-
RACES project
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
110
Figure F-45 Home Owners Loan Corporation Redlining Grade (Alameda County)
Source: AFFH Viewer 2022.
Other Relevant Factors
111
10.2 Stakeholder Input
Housing Survey
As previously mentioned, the City prepared and distributed a housing survey inquiring about housing, access to resources and experiences with discrimination. The survey took place between January 10, 2022
and
March 10, 2022 and was translate
d into Spanish and Mandarin. There
was
a
total of 64 survey participants (60 surveys completed in English, 3 surveys completed in Spanish and 1 survey completed in
Chinese
). The survey responses included the following major themes:
Difficulty finding affo
rdable housing, paying the deposit for rental housing, and monthly rental housing costs were identified as housing challenges personally experienced by survey participants.
Affordability, homeownership, and availability of housing were identified the most
urgent
housing issues in Hayward.
Entry level or starter homes, co
-
living housing, apartments, and condominiums were identified as housing types needed in Hayward.
Mixed support of diversifying housing types and increasing housing overall in Hayward.
10.3 O
ther Factors
Other factors
that have not been previously discussed
relating to fair housing
include
the availability
and access to
housing choice vouchers
in Hayward
and
the
presence of older affordable housing
units that may be at risk of conversion to ma
rket
-
rate housing.
As referenced in
Appendix B
,
Housing Needs Assessment
, five publicly assisted rental housing developments, which provide a total of 295 affordable units to lower
-
and moderate
-
income households, are at risk of converting to
market
-
rate
h
ousing
during the 2023
to
2031 planning period.
The City of Hayward cooperates with the
Housing Authority of the County of Alameda
,
to provide
HCVs
to
city
residents and will continue to seek opportunities
to
increase rental assistance and
reduce overpayment.
In addition to providing rental assistance and reducing housing costs, the City has allocated CDBG
fund
s
to meet the following goals:
Improve public facility and infrastructure access and capacity
Preser
ve existing homeownership housing
Develop new affordable housing
Provide supportive services for individuals with special needs, as defined by HUD
Provide vital services for LMI households
Provide for economic development and small business assistance
HUD
estimates show that approximately
1,844
households received HCV
s
in Hayward.
Figure
F
-
46 shows HCV as a percent of renter
-
occupied units by census tract.
Most (97
per
cent
)
of HCV
recipients
are in low
-
resource areas, compared to
3 percent in moderate
-
resource areas. Census
tracts 4363.00, a low
-
resource area within the Burbank neighborhood
,
contained the largest share
of HCV recipients (
8 percent) in the city.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
112
Figure F-46 Housing Choice Vouchers
Source: AFFH Viewer 2021.
Other Relevant Factors
113
10.4 Access to Homeownership
The following analysis reviews mortgage application filing and acceptance by race using the latest available data. Between 2018 and 2019, there were 3,452 mortgage applications filed in Hayward (see
Table
F-
18 ). Of the known racial/ethnic categorization of mortgage
applications, most were
filed by Asian
-
American/Asian Pacific Islander residents and non
-
Hispanic white residents. In
comparison, Hispanic/Latino comprised 13 percent, Black/African American applicants comprised six percent, and American Indian or Alaskan
Native comprised less than one percent of total mortgage loan applications. Asian
-
American residents were slightly overrepresented for mortgage applications relative to proportion of population (39 percent of applications, 27 percent of population).
Appli
cations from non
-
Hispanic white residents were proportional to population (both 16 percent of population). However, Black/
African American
residents were underrepresented for mortgage
applications (five percent of applications, nine percent of population) , as were American
Indian/Alaska Native (less than one percent of applications, one percent of population).
Hispanic/Latino residents were significantly underrepresented (1 8 percent of applications, 40
percent of population).
Furthermore, mortgage applicat
ion denial rates
were
higher among
American Indian or Alaskan Native (34
percent
),
Hispanic/Latino (26
percent
)
Black/
African
American
(24
percent
), compared to Asian American/API (19
percent
) and non
-
Hispanic White (19
percent
).
Table F-18 Mortgage Applications by Acceptance and Race (Hayward) Racial/
Ethnic Group
Application
Approved but
Not Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
by Applicant
File Closed for
Incompleteness
Loan
Originated
Total
Application
(percent)
American Indian or
Alaska Native, Non
-
Hispanic
1 12
6 4
12 35
(0.5%)
Asian American/API,
Non
-
Hispanic
78 506
348
132
1,644
2,708
(39%)
Black/
African American
,
Non
-
Hispanic
8 80
54 14
178
334
(5%)
Non
-
Hispanic White
47 207
166
62 630
1,112
(16%)
Hispanic/Latino
39 318
160
91 617
1,225
(18%)
Unknown
47 262
227
95 808
1,439
(21%)
Total
220
1,385
961
398
3,889
3,452
(100%)
Source:
Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council
’
s (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
loan/application register (LAR) files
202
1 Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
114
This page intentionally left blank.
Sites Inventory
115
Sites Inventory
The housing element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites zoned to accommodate the number of new housing units needed
at
each income level as identified in the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). In the context of AFFH, the process of sites identification involves
an
analysis
of
site
capacity
to
accommodate
the
RHNA,
but
also
whether
the
identified
sites serve the
purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and
ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity.
11.1 Opportunity Areas
HCD/TCAC opportunity maps identify areas throughout the state that support positive economic (low poverty, high employment, high median household income), educational (r eading and math
proficiency, high school graduation rates, low student poverty rates), and environmental outcomes (low exposure to pollution) for low
-
income families. The HCD/TCAC opportunity areas map rank census tracts from Highest Resource to Low Resour
ce based on these characteristics. A census tract
with a designation of High Resource indicates
that the census tract has strong educational and
economic opportunities for current and future residents. In depth analysis and discussion of pollution burden a
nd environmental justice can be found in the
draft
Environmental Justice
Element.
Most census tracts in Hayward are considered Low Resource while five census tracts in the eastern areas of the city (tracts 438000, 435103, 435102, 436402,
and
436401) and on
e census tract in
the
central area of the city (tract 437000)
is
considered Moderate Resource. A small portion of
Hayward’s city limits extend
s
into a high resource census tract (450601) to the east of the city .
The
areas within this tract which are also w
ithin city limits are undeveloped open space and ranch land and are therefore excluded from this analysis.
Figure
F
-
47 shows resource level in relation to
planning su
b areas and
Figure
F
-
48 shows resource level in relation to identified opportunity sites and current pipeline projects.
The five m
oderate
-
resource tracts tend to be in the hills to the east of
Downtown Hayward. These areas are characterized by suburban development with more
limited
access to transit, retail, and healthcare services. Across most of the city, residents have limited acc
ess to positive economic, educational, and environmental outcomes, and where those outcomes are slightly improved, there is reduced access to the urban amenities that would support higher -
density affordable housing.
Residential and mixed
-
use projects in th
e development pipeline which are planned or approved
accommodate a
pproximately half of Hayward’s 6
th
cycle RHNA
.
These
3 2
projects will develop a
total of 1
,
3 81
above
-
moderate income units, 82 moderate income units, 275
low
-
income
units,
250
very
low
-
incom
e
units, and
85 extremely
-
low income units.
Of these, 140 above
-
moderate income
,
27 moderate, 53 low income, and 24
very
low
-
income units are located in moderate resource
census tracts. The remaining projects are located in low resource census tracts.
Give
n this distribution of low
-
and moderate
-
opportunity areas, the location
s
of RHNA sites for each
income category were chosen to facilitate the development of mixed -
income neighborhoods and to
increase the availability of affordable housing in proximity to transit, retail, and other services.
Reliable public transit access and the option to walk or bike are imperative for low -
income residents
and/or persons with disabilities to connect to employment opportunities.
It is important to note
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
116
that Senate Bill (SB) 9, signed into law on September 16, 2021, allows property owners within single- family residential zones to build two units and/ or to subdivide a lot into two parcels, adding a total of four units. The passage of this new law along with the relaxed regulations for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) on all single and multi-family properties will allow infill development throughout the city including moderate and the high resource census tracts that primarily include existing single- family neighborhoods.
Excluding the three parcels which comprise the former Civic Center site at 22300 Foothill Boulevard, all sites listed in Appendix C are located in low-resource census tracts. These sites accommodate 866 above moderate-, 938 moderate-, and 1,157 lower-income housing units. An additional 364 lower- income and 115 above-moderate housing units are projected at the former Civic Center site which is within a moderate resource census tract.
Sites Inventory
117
Figure
F
-
47 Planning Su
b
-
areas in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
118
Figure F-48 Location of Housing Sites in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas
Sites Inventory
119
Table
F-19
Planned, Approved, and Pending Projects
Map ID
Project Name
ELI* Units
VLI* Units
LI* Units
MI* Units
AMI*
Units
Total
Units
Max Units
Allowed
% of Max Units
Allowed
Entitlement
Status
1 Oak Street
–
–
–
4 36
40 56
71%
Approved
2 Parcel Group 8
–
24 51
20 1
96 54
178%
Approved
3 21659 Mission
Boulevard
–
1 –
3 41
45 63
72%
Approved
4 420 Smalley Avenue
–
–
–
1 7
8 8
100%
Approved
5 Maple and Main
16 3
–
–
295
314
343
92%
Approved
6 1200 A Street
–
–
–
–
155
155
149
104%
Approved
7 4
th
and B
–
–
–
–
41 41
78 53%
Approved
8 Pimentel Place
15 20
11 10
1 57
57 100%
Approved
9 Pine Vista Condos
–
–
–
7 33
40 32
125%
Approved
10 Carlos Bee
–
–
–
6 9
15 14
107%
Approved
11 O’Neil Ave Apartments
–
1 –
–
8 9
13 71%
Approved
12 Berry Avenue Multifamily
–
1 –
1 16
18 29
63%
Approved
13 Parcel Group 5
–
18 –
–
74 92
122
75%
Approved
14 Cavallo Highlands
–
–
–
–
20 20
38 52%
Approved
15 27177-
27283 Mission Blvd
–
–
–
6 49
55 86
64%
Approved
16 Mission Paradise
15 20
40 –
–
76 104
73%
Approved
17 28049 Mission
Boulevard
–
–
–
–
25 25
37 68%
Approved
18 Parcel Group 3
-
La Vista
Residential
–
36 138
–
2 176
194
91%
Approved
19 Mission Terraces
–
76 33
–
1 110
91 121%
Approved
20 SoMi (True Life)
–
–
–
20 169
189
174
109%
Approved
21 Mission Seniors
–
–
–
–
203
203
228
89%
Approved
22 Mission Villages
–
–
–
–
72 72
188
38%
Approved
23 Huntwood
–
–
–
1 13
14 21
65%
Under
Review
24 Vagabond
–
–
–
–
8 8
8 100%
Approved
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
120
Map ID Project Name ELI* Units VLI* Units LI* Units MI* Units AMI*
Units
Total
Units
Max Units
Allowed
% of Max Units
Allowed
Entitlement
Status
25 Harvey Avenue – – – – 17 17 14 121% Approved
26 Hesperian Subdivision – – – – 19 19 16 122% Approved 27 La Playa Commons – – 2 3 42 47 47 100% Approved
28 603 A Street 29 50 – – 1 80 56 142% Approved
29 27287 Patrick Ave 10 – – – – 10 6 166% Approved
30 25107 Belmont Ave – – – – 6 6 7 95% Under
Review
31 1434 Grove Way – – – – 5 5 13 38% Under
Review
32 24656-24764 Mohr Drive – – – – 12 12 18 66% Approved Total Units 85 250 275 82 1,381 2,073 Average % of
Max Density
91%
Notes: ELI = Extremely Low Income; VLI = Very-Low Income: LI = Low Income; MI = Moderate Income; AMI = Above-Moderate Income
Sites Inventory
121
11.2 Improved Conditions
As shown in
Figure F
-
5 and
Figure
F
-
17 ,
census tracts with low
-
and moderate
-
income households,
predominantly Hispanic/Latino populations, and higher rates of housing problems are located throughout the central area
and southern
area
s
of the city. All sites identified in Appendix B are
located in Downtown Hayward, the Mission Boulevard Corridor, and the former Route 238 Corridor.
While all sites are zoned at densities adequate to accommodate lower -
income units, the si
tes that
are currently allocated to the development of lower
-
income units are distributed throughout the
three neighborhoods and not concentrated in any one location. In an effort to facilitate mixed -
income neighborhoods
:
643
lower
-
income,
486
moderate
-
inc
ome, and
477
above moderate
-
income units are located in
Downtown Hayward;
541
lower
-
income,
252
moderate
-
income, and
540
above moderate
-
income units are located
within the Mission Boulevard Corridor; and
200
moderate
-
income units
and 310 above moderate
-
income units
are located along the former
Route 289 Corridor.
These areas are
generally
considered Low Resource by TCAC, bu
t they have seen extensive market
-
rate multi
-
family development in recent years including but not limited to the Lincoln Landing Development (476 residential units and 80,000 square feet of commercial development), Sohay (472 apartment units and condominiu
ms and townhomes and development of a new park) and,
Mission Crossings (140 townhomes, retail space, and a hotel), all of which are under construction or occupied.
These projects are discussed in greater det
ail in
Appendix
C
. Further
development of
moderat
e
-
and above moderate
-
income units in these areas would potentially improve conditions by encouraging a mixture of household income levels. T
he
City will continue to implement
residential rehabilitation programs, affordable housing development incentives, the Affordable
Housing Ordinance, anti
-
displacement actions, and utilize annual CDBG and HOME funds to improve conditions within low
-
resource and displacement
-
vulnerable census tracts
shown on
Figure
F
-
42 .
11.3 Exacerbated Conditions
As mentioned previously, most neighborhoods in Hayward are considered low resource. Analysis has shown that areas of low resource in Hayward are more likely to have a predominant Asian -
American or Hispanic/Latino population, a greater share of overcrowded households, and higher
rates of poverty compared to neighborhoods in moderate
-
resource areas. The census tract that has
the highest rate of households with incomes below the poverty level (20.9 percent of households) is tract 436500 in central Hayward alon
g Mission Boulevard between Harder Road and Jackson Street.
Vacant and underutilized sites that could accommodate
75 lower
-
income, 248
moderate
-
income
and
521
above moderate
-
income units
are located in this census tract
. An additional four pipeline
project
s (Parcel Group 5, Carlos Bee, Berry Avenue Multifamily, and O ’
Neil Avenue Apartments) are
located in this tract accounting for a total of 20 lower -
income, 7 moderate
-
income, and 107 above
-
moderate income units.
According to California Housing Partnership
data, all federal and state
subsidized housing within Hayward is in low
-
resource areas.
By encouraging a mix of lower
-
,
moderate
-
, and above moderate
-
income housing units, the Sites Inventory does not exacerbate conditions in vulnerable areas of the city.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
122
11.4 Racially/Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
and Affluence
While there are no racially/ethnically concentrated areas of poverty or affluence (R/ECAP) per HUD’s definition in Hayward, some tracts with predominantly Hispanic/Latino residents and elevated rates of poverty were found in the central and southern part of the city. In contrast, neighborhoods located in the northeastern area of Hayward had a predominately non-Hispanic white population and generally higher median incomes. Sites feasible to accommodate 568 lower- income, 620 moderate-income, and 1,131 above-moderate income housing units identified in the sites inventory are located in census tracts where the population is predominantly Hispanic/Latino by a slim to sizeable gap (tracts 435400, 436500, 437900, and 435104), but these tracts do not represent concentrated areas of poverty. Furthermore, sites allocated to the development 44 units of lower-income housing are located in a census tract with both a median income higher than California’s median income and a predominantly non-Hispanic white population (tract 436401).
11.5 Access to Opportunity
The majority of census tracts in Hayward were categorized as low resource while three tracts in the northeast and central areas of the city were moderate resource. Housing units in the sites inventory are not disproportionately concentrated in different resource areas, and the sites identified in low resource areas are distributed on vacant and underutilized parcels and facilitate the development of lower-, moderate-, and above moderate-income units in close proximity to commercial services and transit. The City’s goals, policies, and programs implemented as part of this housing element will mitigate impediments to opportunity and promote investment in specific neighborhoods and expand affordable housing supply (see Chapter 6, Housing Plan).
11.6 Disproportionate Housing Needs
As depicted in Figure F-37, the highest concentrations of cost-burdened households are located in the western and central portions of the city along Mission Boulevard. Similarly, as shown in Figure F-39, an elevated percentage of overcrowded household exists within Downtown Hayward and along Mission Boulevard. As previously discussed, 541 lower-income and 452 moderate-income units are projected to be built in the Mission Boulevard corridor and the former Route 238 corridor which is directly adjacent to Mission Boulevard. An additional 643 lower-income and 486 moderate- income units are proposed in Downtown Hayward. Providing more affordable housing opportunities in this area may lower levels of cost burden in this neighborhood.
The fair housing assessment found a need for affordable housing for people with disabilities and adequate housing for large families. The City uses inclusionary housing trust funds to incentivize the development of extremely low-, very low-, low-, and moderate-income housing. and the Notice of Funding Availability for those funds give priority points for developments that include three or more bedrooms to incentivize development of larger units. These funds assist private developers with the cost of development of units affordable to low- and moderate-income households (Program H-7:
Affordable Housing Development Assistance).
Sites Inventory
123
11.7 Subsidized Housing
As discussed in
Appendix B, Hayward has a range of publicly assisted rental housing affordable to lower and moderate
-
income households. Overall, 23 projects, 11 of which rely on HUD assistance (Section 8 project
-
based vouchers or Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly), provide a total of 1,456 assisted rental housing units in the city. Of the 23 subsidized housing projects in Hayward, nine are located in either Downtown Hayward or the Mission Boulevard corridor in the vicinity of vacant or underuti
lized sites identified for lower
-
income units.
Overall, there is generally little concentration of HCV recipients or subsidized housing projects in Hayward. The proportion of HCV recipients in a given census tract in the city ranges from 0 to 14.8 percent
. Sites identified as adequate for lower
-
income housing are located in census tracts where
HCV recipients represent between 1.9 and 8.2 percent of renter -
occupied housing units. The
development of lower
-
income housing units on the sites identified in Appen
dix
C
do not create an
unusually high concentration of lower
-
income units near existing projects or in neighborhoods with high concentrations of housing choice voucher recipients.
11.8 Sites Analysis Summary Data
Table F
-2
summarizes
fair housing considerations of
the
sites inventory by
census tract.
As shown on
the table, the majority of
anticipated
units are located in the downtown and Mission Boulevard Code areas.
Units
were identified in these areas as a result of a sites inventory analysis and supporting development trends
that
concluded
that these two areas have the highest likelihood of
residential development for all income categories, specifically lower -
income unit
s
.
Fair housing
characteristics by census tract are generally consistent throughout the city.
T
he locations of RHNA
sites for each income category were chosen to facilitate the development of mixed -
income
neighborhoods and to increase the availability of a
ffordable housing in proximity to transit, retail,
and other services.
According to ACS data, there are 3,879 existing households in the Downtown area and 7,426 existing households in the Mission Boulevard Code area. With the addition of the units accommo
dated through the Sites Inventory and RHNA credits, an additional 2,202 total units would be added Downtown, and 2,400 units would be added in the Mission Boulevard Code area. Of these units, a total of 1,819 would be affordable to lower
-
income households.
Other areas of the city,
specifically the Former Route 238 Corridor and census tracts in the western portion of the city, lack development trends on the same scale as Downtown and Mission Boulevard and do not have the applicable zoning to accommodate lowe
r-
income units in accordance with State law.
The City will
facilitate the development of affordable housing in these areas through the following programs:
Program H
-4
: Affordable Housing Development
Assistance
Program H
-5
: Density Bonus
Program H
-6
:
Inclusionary
Housing
Although these two areas have high redevelopment potential, the downtown and Mission Boulevard code areas face a number of fair housing issues. Both areas are predominately Low Resource, low income, primarily non
-
White population, and
have
high vulnerability to displacement.
Additionally, Census Tract
431200
, a Moderate Resource area, has a CalEnviroScreen Pollution Percentile of 80, significantly higher than other census tracts in the city. Nearly all of the city, Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
124
excluding the hills and Census Tract 4357 (Southland Mall area), is considered Low Resource. As a result, the City was unable to concentrate lower-income units in higher resource areas. In response, the City will implement programs to improve place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization. Programs committed to this include the following:
Program H-1: Minor Home Repair Program
Program H-2: Residential Rental Inspection Program
Program H-3: Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing Program H-10: Replacement Housing
Program H-19: Housing for Special Needs Populations
Program H-22: Fair Housing Services
Nearly all lower-income units are located in areas vulnerable to displacement. To avoid displacement in these areas, the City did not identify any units on parcels with existing residential uses. Additionally, the City may choose not to support projects that pose a high risk of displacement of existing tenants on a case-by-case basis (see Program H-3). The City will also seek out and participate in opportunities to improve eviction and displacement prevention resources to mitigate displacement in high risk areas (see Program 23.3). Additional meaningful actions to fair housing issues have been incorporated into Chapter 6, Housing Plan. Table F-3 identifies contributing factors to fair housing and programs to address each factor.
Sites Inventory
125
Sites Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics
Table F-2
Development
Area
Census
Tract
Number
Number of
Existing
Households
Sites Inventory Capacity
+ RHNA
Credit Projects
(Units)
AFFH Indicators
Lower
-
Income
Moderate
-
Income
Above
Moderate
-
Income
Percent
Non
-
white
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment
by Renters
Percent
Over
-
crowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviro
-
Screen
Pollution
Burden
Percentile
Downtown
431200
1,325
439
24 152
61-80%
Moderate
Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
80 435400
505
325
114
533
61-80%
Low Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
55 436300
2,049
196
331
88 81-100%
Low Resource
40-60%
12-15%
Vulnerable
45 Mission Boulevard Code Area
435104
2,038
645
288
750
61-80%
Low Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
53 437900
660
75 6
124
81-100%
Low Resource
40-60%
>20%
Vulnerable
20 436401
3,013
44 0
0 61-80%
Low Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
25 436500
1,715
95 55
318
81-100%
Low Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
44 Former Route 238 Corridor
436500
1,715
0 200
310
81-100%
Low
Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
44 Other Census Tracts
with Planned and Approved Units
438100
2,041
0 0
72 61-80%
Low Resource
40-60%
8.3 – 12%
Other
54 438204
1,852
0 1
21 61-80%
Low Resource
60-80%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
20 437200
2,067
0 0
19 61-80%
Low Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Other
61 435300
1,591
0 0
41 61-80%
Moderate
Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
11 437101
1,696
0 0
9 81-100%
Low Resource
20-40%
<8.2%
Other
80 436601
1,854
0 7
33 81-100%
Low Resource
40-60%
8.3 – 12%
Vulnerable
33 435103
2,034
0 0
20 61-80%
Moderate
Resource
<20%
<8.2%
Other
12 438203
1,235
0 0
17 81-100%
Low Resource
40-60%
<8.2%
Vulnerable
24 Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
126
Development
Area
Census
Tract
Number
Number of
Existing
Households
Sites Inventory Capacity + RHNA
Credit Projects (Units) AFFH Indicators
Lower-
Income
Moderate
-Income
Above
Moderate
- Income
Percent
Non-
white
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment
by Renters
Percent
Over-
crowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviro
-Screen
Pollution
Burden
Percentile
435500 1,310 1 3 41 61-80% Low Resource 40-60% 8.3 – 12% Vulnerable 45 437000 1,103 2 3 42 61-80% Moderate
Resource
40-60% <8.2% Vulnerable 41
Total 2,102 880 2,362
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2020); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5 - Year Data (2015-2019).
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
127
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
Based
on
the analysis conducted in this AFFH
document,
Table
F
-
3 highlights
the prominent fair
housing issues and contributing factors that hinder access to safe, affordable, and vibrant housing for Hayward residents
.
Furthermore, the findings of this anal
ysis were used to develop meaningful
actions
,
metrics and milestones that promote inclusive communities, increase housing opportunities, and address racial/ethnic and economic disparities in
the city
.
The contributing
factors were prioritized to
better formulate policies and programs and carry out meaningful actions to further fair housing
. Meaningful actions to address fair housing issues are included in the housing programs located in Chapter 6,
Housing Plan.
Hayward
Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
128
Table F-3 Fair Housing Issues, Contributing Factors, and Key Programs AFH Identified Fair Housing Issue Contributing Factors in Order of Priority Key Programs Protecting existing residents from
displacement
1. High rates of housing cost burden among renter-occupied households
2. Shortage of subsidized housing units
3. Increasing housing costs and early/on-going gentrification
4. High rates of overcrowded households
5. Lack of private investments in specific neighborhoods Program H-7: Housing Choice Vouchers
Program H-20: Community Outreach and Education
Program H-21: Foreclosure Prevention and Counseling
Program H-22: Fair Housing Services
Program H-23: Rent Stabilization and Tenant Protections Program H-24: Tenant Relocation Assistance
Improving place-based strategies
to encourage community
conservation and revitalization,
including preservation of existing
affordable housing
1. Cost of repairs or rehabilitation
2. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family housing
3. Lack of public (local, state, or federal) funds invested in the development of affordable housing and social services
4. Limiting local land use policies
Program H-1: Minor Home Repair Program
Program H-2: Residential Rental Inspection Program
Program H-3: Preservation of At-Risk Affordable Housing Program H-10: Replacement Housing
Program H-19: Housing for Special Needs Populations
Program H-22: Fair Housing Services
Encouraging development of new
affordable housing in Areas of
High Opportunity
1. Dominance of single-family housing, which is typically more expensive than multi-family housing
2. Location and type of existing affordable housing
3. Lack of affordable housing in moderate-resource areas
4. Limited supply of affordable housing in areas with access to opportunity
Program H-4: Affordable Housing Development Assistance Program H-5: Density Bonus
Program H-6: Inclusionary Housing
Program H-8: Ensure Adequate Sites to Accommodate Regional Fair Share of Housing Growth
Program H-11: By-Right Approval for Projects with 10 percent Affordable Units
Program H-12: Adaptive Reuse
Program H-13: Variety of Housing Types
Program H-14: Development Incentives
Program H-16: Expedited Project Review
Program H-17: Accessory Dwelling Unit Program
Program H-18: Duplexes and Lot-Splits
Fair Housing Goals and Priorities
129
AFH Identified Fair Housing Issue
Contributing Factors
in Order of Priority
Key Programs
Enhancing fair housing outreach
and housing mobility strategies
1. Insufficient and inaccessible outreach and enforcement
2. Lack of public input and feedback on issues and strategies
3. Lack of marketing community
meetings
4. Insufficient local public fair
housing enforcement and
testing
Program H
-
19: Housing for Special Needs Populations
Program H
-20
: Community Outreach and Education
Hayward Housing
Element
City of Hayward
2023-2031 Housing Element Update
130
This page intentionally left blank.